Your morning briefing -

Your morning briefing


Given this weekend’s news and allegation, one imagines this week, like those weeks before Christmas, could be dominated by the matter of Richard Colvin and this country’s handling of detainees in Afghanistan.

For those in need of reminding, the Colvin encyclopedia is now fully revised and updated.


Your morning briefing

  1. one imagines this week, like those weeks before Christmas, could be dominated by the matter of Richard Colvin

    One imagines fervent plugging of this premise by not-disinterested hacks like yourself aspires to become self-fulfilling prophecy.

    • One imagines fervent denials of this premise by obsessives like yourself wont change reality one whit.

      • Who's reality?
        Definition of FANTASY:
        1. [n] imagination unrestricted by reality

        What REAL proof have any of Iffy's experts made public?

        • "What REAL proof have any of Iffy's experts made public?'

          I'm writing this real slow just for you Wilson…the… gov't… has… the… unredacted… documents.., not… MI.
          What were you saying about fantasy and reality?

    • It is the media's prerogative to cover stories it believes are important. If it has a perceived bias, its comprehensive reasons for believing it is a major story (which any media outlet worth its salt will readily display) will give its readers material by which to judge for themselves whether it is major or a non-story.

      If you believe the media needs to censor itself in order to keep the sheep living around you from believing everything they are told, then I propose that your problem is not with the media.

  2. Amir Attaran has a vested interest in HOPING torture was going on…….because his good buddy IGGY…..would like the same thing. Mr. Attaran is just another liberal hack.

    • If you got that from reading this piece of conjecture you must be a bona fide genius.

      • Ignatieff was at Harvard
        Attaran was at Harvard
        Harvard is a hot bed of liberal conspiracy.*
        This might be JamesHalifax reasoning. So looks like he is a bona fide genius.

        *I disclaim any belief in the above thought process.

  3. I haven't been following this as closely as I might, but it would appear timely for parliament to develop a process for how to responsibly handle the documents once they are released to them.

  4. End of the road for this opinion/media generated conspiracy to commit war crimes scandal,
    the trusted Judge will make determination on what , if any more, unredacted docs to release to the public.

    All the Colvin's and Attaran's opinions and accusations will now be reviewed, by someone who cares NOT about Liberals getting back into power……..

    • Is he officially acting as a "judge" here? Is his ruling binding? Is the government obligated to release his findings?
      It sounds like he is more of an "advisor" with no real jurisdiction, and that his findings will be vetted by the PMO, who will then release what they choose.
      Am I getting this wrong?

      • No, but there is no doubt of his crediability, and no doubt that if the Libs push it, the SCoC would come to the same conclusion as the honored Judge.
        And that is where the issue would end up, if Libs continue demanding documents.

        The Government of Canada will release, upon the advice of the Judge, any 'additional' unredacted documents deemed not to contravene Privacy/ National Security laws, if I understand correctly.

        • Have you seen his terms of reference…i think not…what happens if the retired judge fails to play along?

          If he isn't being asked to rule on whether parliament should see the docs [ how can he? It's a constitutional question] then that question still remains open, whatever he says. It is just a second opinion, not a last word.

          • And even if the terms of reference are made public, how are we to know whether the PMO overrides Iacobucci?

            Iacobucci released a report in 2008 ( that claimed to balance the need for transparency against national security requirements. Just last week, a supplemental was finally released that revealed that CSIS may have had a direct role in the torture of Canadians. But of course, that information must have been held back for proper national security concerns, right Justice Iacobucci?

            "With one exception [the CSIS revelation], I am satisfied that the information contained in the confidential version of my report, but omitted from the public version, is properly subject to national security confidentiality. The information that forms the exception is, in my view, directly relevant to my mandate and should be disclosed to the public.

            However, the responsible Minister is of the opinion that disclosure of this information would be injurious to national security, national defence, and/or international relations."

            In other words, Iacobucci bit his tongue when politicians overrode his decision to release this relevant information, even though he could see no national security justification.


            Still comfortable that Harper's "solution" will provide transparency?

    • Yes, because the public inquiry the Liberals are calling for would obviously be in the pocket of the OLO.

    • But Peter Mackay confirmed to Canadian Press on Sunday that one of the redactions refers to CSIS. Shouldn't he have said no comment until the good judge reviews? Does that mean he has breeched national security?

      Or does it say in the legislation that everyone BUT parliament is allowed in on national security secrets?

      • Great scoop toby. Mackay should be immediately imprisoned for revealing that CSIS was involved in intelligence-gathering activities in Afghanistan. Earth-shattering news.

        • So then you agree that the documents shouldn't have been redacted or withheld from the parliamentary committee? Either it's a secret or it isn't. Take your pick.

          • People can see the vast difference between MacKay saying the obvious: CSIS has been involved in intelligence-gathering activities, and your wish that all security documents be handed over to Parliament, whose members include some infamous attention-seeking, anonymous-leaking, agenda-driven people.

  5. "one imagines"

    Key words, necessary for the dissemination of material to this case. All we have is imagination so far, and not much in the way of evidence.

  6. There's another aspect to the Afghan detainee abuse matter that our media manage to ignore–willfully? Posts at "The Torch":

    Maybe some former Liberal ministers should be worrying about their asses

    Facts: The previous Liberal government and Afghan detainees

    "Torture in Afghanistan: The Liberals knew" redux

    Afghan detainees and the former Liberal government/Human rights Update
    (letter in Globe and Mail)


    • This is important stuff and should be brought forward as well. If Martin, Graham, and Hillier knew about the torture probability, then they also need to answer for letting it continue. That the Conservatives may be protecting them as well does not make their actions one iota better. None should be protected from this — endangering our troops by allowing transfers to torture is simply unacceptable.

      • Agreed. All the facts should come out. Condoning or facilitating torture is morally unacceptable, and may be a war crime.

    • Meh. If the Liberal government was truly responsible for torture in Afghanistan, and the Conservatives' hands were clean, the Conservatives would be broadcasting this information far and wide. There would be a heavy media buy, and probably even a web site (say,

      Given that the Conservatives have done everything in their power not to reveal any of this information – even to Parliament, even in private – suggests that they have something to hide.

      (I assume, by the way, that Mr. Iacobucci's mandate is to spend lots of time studying the documents, and not to report back until after the next election.)