cicblog comments

5/2/2010 12:18:07 PM The Globe and Mail

Christie Blatchford, From screams to whimpers on Afghan detainees, 2 May '10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/from-screams-to-whimpers-on-afghan-
detainees/article1553225/ Tab

Conflicting testimony, you say.

That's what a full, open Judicial Inquiry is for.

These alleged conflicts cry out for cross-examination by skilled and talented lawyers who have years of experience dealing with witness credibility and investigative techniques and are "up to speed" on the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal.

Also, there is one basic issue that this new testimony raises.

Last Thursday CBC News asked Natynczyk, "Do you have any fears of people poring over those documents?"

Natynczyk responded: "Not at all, not at all."

Now, Gavin Buchan and Major General (Retired) Tim Grant seem also to be saying that there was no problems with the transfer of detainees.

If it is so clear that Colvin is wrong, that there were no problems and that the military has no problems with people going over the documents,

Then why, in God's name, would Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn be fighting so hard to keep these documents hidden, even to the extent of risking being found in contempt of Parliament, which could attract some pretty serious penalties against these Ministers personally.

It simply doesn't add up.

Keep in mind that although Natynczyk, Buchan and Grant are making these statements for the first time now, it is beyond credibility that they would not have informed Harper of their positions and a long time ago. Further one might wonder why Natynczyk didn't mention that he has no concerns when he testified in December or at his following press conference.

You would think that Harper would want these positions known as soon as he learned of them in order to quell political damage.

So then, why didn't he. All Canadians should be demanding the answer to these types of questions.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

5/2/2010 12:35:29 PM
Also,

Here's something to consider:

Buchan seems to be basing his testimony on the current state of the record - i.e. a review of the documents as they stand now.

(“My review of documentation in preparation for this meeting has gone some way to reassure me.
“I saw nothing in the record through March, 2007, that indicated Canadian-transferred detainees were being abused.”)

Natynczyk again is referring to the record current state of the record.

(Last Thursday - 29 Apr.'10, CBC News asked Natynczyk, "Do you have any fears of people poring over those documents?" Natynczyk responded: "Not at all, not at all.")

These positions are only being offered up now as opposed to say, 6 months, 12 months or in 2007 when the Parliament was questioning the Harper administration. Instead of replying with vicious personal abuse Harper, MacKay, Baird and the other Con's ought have been 'revealing' these positions, or, if as Natynczyk is now saying there is no concern allowing parliament to review the documents, offerring up the documents.

So, what has changed.

The applicable International law hasn't changed.

Domestic law hasn't changed (except perhaps those convicted may have to spend more of their sentence in jail - now there's a real potential for irony).

The underlying facts haven't changed.

That leaves what, let's see, hummm, . . . I know, the evidence.

Keep in mind that the Harper administration's approach to evidence as expounded by their resident advisor, Peter Mackay, is 'if it is not in Hansard, it didn't happen'

You be the judge.

Better, lets demand that a seasoned, experienced jurist with the powers required to get at the truth - i.e. a full and open Judicial Inquiry, be convoked.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html