Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
General, I don't know if you'll be able to answer this, but during the period from November 7 to February 8, at a time when the opposition was raising these issues in the House, the government was denying that there was in fact any issue.
From a legal standpoint, in November 2007 the transfers stopped. What procedure was undertaken, and who was informed in the government? And with those lawyers on the ground in Afghanistan, how is it reviewed? How do you determine that it could in fact be resumed, in terms of the transfer of those prisoners? Who gets that information? Allegations were made. We know that Mr. Colvin sent reports in.
Colvin notwithstanding, from your standpoint, within your responsibilities, how is it communicated? What is the litmus test to say that this agreement is now being adhered to? The government obviously saw that there was a problem, and they had to make changes to the existing agreement.
From a legal standpoint, what and how is it reviewed? Who's informed during that period in order for it to be resumed?