We learn today that the committee may finally get to see the documents they have been requesting, so that they can conduct the proper investigation and line of questioning. This is vital.
But we know Harper quite well by now, so will he support the troops and release them or feed our soldiers to the wolves? Remember an expert in this has stated that if we don't conduct a full investigation, the international courts will. It's the law. And if that happens, every Canadian soldier who handed over a detainee could face criminal charges.
So while the government and the military elite are all trying to save their own skins, they forget that we have men and women in field in Afghanistan, and their nonsense could be putting them at greater risk; as the Afghan people will be judging how Canadians treat this.
I used to have a lot of respect for Rick Hillier, but I've seen a different side of him since this began. In fact, judging by some of his comments from the past that have surfaced recently, he may be too partisan, to make a credible witness.
First Hillier surprised his Liberal political masters by formally signing, on Canada's behalf and at Afghanistan's request, a prisoner transfer agreement crafted in Ottawa as an adequate response to concerns spotted as early 2002 but now dismissed as weak.
Then, at a Toronto dinner in February 2008, Hillier sharply criticized opposition politicians for spending too much time squawking about groundless reports of detainee abuse and too little supporting the troops.
If it's unusual for a general to ink a treaty, it's extraordinary for a chief of defence staff to publicly reprimand elected MPs or take political sides. Hillier's unique cabinet clout and star status made those liberties possible then. Now his actions and words are bookends for a conundrum as old as the mission itself and fresh as Wednesday's forceful rejection of Colvin's testimony.