However, I stand by my criticism of his government, and their complicity in possible torture. Mr. Harper has demonstrated in the past that he has control over the message his government sends out. If his government does not change course on this matter, I will stand by the basic point of my post.

It’s a little far afield to make that connection too.

It’s like accusing him of supporting the drowning and abuse of kittens just because he didn’t join in the protest against the Seal Hunt.

Procedural concerns should not trump a robust discussion about our presence in Afghanistan.

Certainly not, and please don’t think I’m being an apologist here. I support an open discussion surrounding the topic of torture. However, that being said, I don’t want to see this commission hi-jacked for something not directly related to the investigation. 1, it would totally defeat the reason for the initial commission, and 2) it only serves to cloudy up the waters allowing for further legal wrangling. We are all very aware of how adept lawyers are at getting previous testimony’s disregarded because “the statements were made improperly” or whatever such nonsense.

IF the opposition parties want this man to testify regarding a specific subject, plainly put: follow the rules and do it right.

So while I agree that procedural concerns should not trump a robust discussion, I believe it’s wholly ignorant to dismiss them because doing so corrupts the system and allows for loopholes.

However, I find this irrelevant when judging the action of the Conservative government. Mr. Colvin may have no relevant information to offer the investigation (assuming the narrow focus of the investigation is adhered to), but the government shouldn’t be making that decision. Let’s find out what he has to say and let the investigation determine its relevance.

Further, if Mr. Colvin has alarming information that falls outside of the purview of the investigation, the Conservative government should let that information be known (possibly excepting for classified information), then either refute any allegations or address any issues of torture that come to light.

Procedural concerns should not trump a robust discussion about our presence in Afghanistan.

The way I read it was that the Opposition Parties are trying to find ways to tie the Conservatives to torture in any way, shape and form, and they want to use this diplomat to do it.

Laurie Hawn, in my opinion, is stating that this investigation has been limited by the Federal Court to the conduct of the Military Police only, and he (and his department) is seeking to ensure that if the diplomat testifies at this commission that it will remain within the confines and purview of those limitations.

To me it looks like a department protecting a diplomat from being the subjected to a witch-hunt simply because he’s testifying. If someone is intending to conduct exploratory questioning outside the limitations of the commission, it’s a valid concern, and an appropriate action to take.

The last couple of items for the “-gate” file:

shutthegate

majoritygate.

THEN we’ll find out ALL about Adscam, the Gun Registry, HRDC, etc etc etc.

t.e. & o.e.