Wednesday, 9 December 2009

Back up a minute...

From General Natynczyk's press conference:

...but I think it is worthwhile to have an investigation in terms of what actually was there. If this is the information I'm finding out this morning at 9:00 on the 9th of December [for what happened in June of 2006], what else is there before I make a conclusion like this.


This is curious. This indicates that reports of torture were not making it up the chain of command from within the military. If there is one case, how many more are there? Is that what General Natynczyk meant? Or is he only going to investigate this one incident?

The larger implications are significant. If they do discover other unreported incidents, then that means that the Canadian Military fucked up. "Credible" reports of the torture of Canadian detainees were quashed. Which pretty much gets the government off the hook. Though that only works if the Conservatives hang the Canadian Forces out to dry.

Or, putting the conspiracy theory hat on, there were "unofficial" standing orders to not send reports of torture. "If you don't tell me, I can't know about it."

Verry interesting.

2 comments:

Sir Francis said...

This indicates that reports of torture were not making it up the chain of command from within the military.

That seems to be the case--which is, as you say, excellent news for the government. They'll find a few NCO's to bust down to private and then sit back and wait for the stench to waft away, which it will--eventually.

Catelli said...

I suspect the blockage was further up the ranks, like a Major in charge of a section. NCOs are pretty good at following the CYA doctrine, which means submitting reports.

So that begs the question, why would a commissioned officer (or officers) deviate from SOP for submitting reports? Were they acting alone to try to protect Sr. officers, or was it due to commands issued from above?