The question has to be: if prisoner testimony and physical evidence aren't sufficient proof that torture was occurring and that it's at least something we should look into, then what is? Canadian observers weren't able to view the interrogations themselves.

The question has to be: if prisoner testimony and physical evidence aren't sufficient proof that torture was occurring and that it's at least something we should look into, then what is? Canadian observers weren't able to view the interrogations themselves.

(Oops – If we do not care what Afghans do to other Afghans, can anyone please explain WHY we are in Afghanistan?)

If it seemed likely that the allegations of torture (and by "torture" I mean actual bone-breakage or electrical shock treatment) were true, MacKay should have ordered the transfers stopped.

Questions are: do we care that much, given the circumstances? will it change our view of Harper and Mackay if they can be shown to have suspected this all along and turned a blind eye?

You get all mad when you read Swift's 'Modest Proposal,' with that bastard talking about eating babies?

Interrogations aren't cake walks. But a moral judgement on torture that stands as international law (as well as, I might add, Canadian law) ought to be respected.

Suppose the insurgent had claimed to have been waterboarded, or had experienced some other form of torture that don't leave apparent physical markings; do we throw out the claim just because of the source?

Second, I can't tell if either you're so dense that you missed the possibility that I was making a (darkly) satirical point, or if you're simply a partisan stooge. Not that it makes much difference, I suppose.

I'll be very surprised if Macleans allows your comment to remain.

Or better yet, I hope they don't delete your comment. So that you can be judged by it.

Good to know.

There is no need for evidence and it will serve no purpose. The only issue at hand is what senior government officials can be shown to have known or suspected and when. If anyone thought that people were being tortured and did not act on that thought, then they are accountable in some way, small or large, for a sin of omission.

Let him spend a good six to thirty months there, and then we'll reveal his true identity and bring him home. He should have plenty of first hand evidence at that point (though possibly fewer fingernails and testicles than he started with).

You're welcome, Mr. Prime Minister.

I get the feeling with this bunch that even if someone came forward saying they'd witnessed torture first-hand, the Conservatives be attacking that person's credibility as well, or asking where the video tape is.. or a corroborating witness. They're trying very hard to move the goalposts as to what they will accept as evidence of torture.

Let's see, where were we?

DefCon6: Claim it's a non-story… CHECK!
DefCon5: If that doesn't work, blame the media for overhyping the story… CHECK!
DefCon4: If that doesn't work, blame the Liberals… CHECK! AND DOUBLE CHECK!
DefCon3: If that doesn't work, blame a bureaucrat or a premier… CHECK! AND TRIPLE CHECK!!

Which leaves us with…

DefCon2: If that doesn't work at getting rid of the story, fire someone or blame a staffer… pending???

And the way things are going, can DefCon1: Start talking about Adscam and NEP and broken GST promises be that far behind????