We were told by Brigadier-General Ken Watkin that the rule of international law and humanitarian law required that you can't transfer to a real risk of torture, and I think we're all accepting that. But he also indicated that this applied whether you were engaged in an internal civil war or engaged in direct combat.
It seems to me that Canada decided that the sovereignty of Afghanistan was a reason that we could pass our responsibilities on to them despite the risk of torture. I want to quote what Louise Arbour, a former Supreme Court justice, was quoted as saying a couple of days ago. This is about Afghanistan:
When you embark on these operations, you have to realize what you will face and have a strategy that is legally compliant [with international conventions] and that makes sense. It’s part of the complexity of engaging in warfare in these kinds of theatres.
And she said that our activities show a lack of foresight and coherent policy.
Do you have misgivings that the initial decision was the wrong one, to actually turn it over to Afghan authorities?