Yes. One of the issues, and I'm going to get to it, is that it's in Dari. It's on the web. It's been on the web for a while.
This is one of the questions I posed to some of the DFAIT people, and RCMP. They had heard of it but hadn't read it. I've had a chance to read it, because I had someone who interpreted it for me. In that there is quite a list of things on police and military conduct and abuse.
Well, here's the question; that's just an outside thing. There are concerns around linguistic capacity, I think, from our end. I mean, we talk about training Afghans in the United States and elsewhere. One of our challenges is our own linguistic capacity.
But we do know that we've had an investigation by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service on reports that Canadian soldiers had witnessed abuse by Afghan soldiers and interpreters. The outcome of that report was that there was no wrongdoing. That was just two days ago. Yet there were public reports that these soldiers had claimed they had seen this abuse.
I have to ask the question, because it's conflicting, to me. On the one hand, they have Canadian soldiers saying they had seen abuse by the Afghan army. On the other hand, we have the national investigation service saying they hadn't. I'm trying to square that circle.
If we're going to talk about what, General Thompson, you said was very important, that, you know, we don't want to have different standards, obviously, than the other guys, because that can undermine...and it's the rule of law and human rights.
Had you heard of reports of abuse by the Afghan army? And how do you deal with the fact that we've had public reports of soldiers saying they saw abuse, and then we have a report from the national investigation service saying there was none, or at least there was no error in terms of the wrongdoing and the response to the allegations?