(Les extraits sont transmis dans leur langue originale de diffusion)
HARPER CAUGHT IN HIS OWN WEB OF DECEIT (Hamilton Spectator, November 25, 2009)
TORTURE: OTTAWA AURAIT DÛ AGIR PLUS TÔT (Le Devoir, 25 novembre 2009)
MANY ALARMS SOUNDED ON DETAINEES (Montreal Gazette, November 25, 2009)
IGNORANCE IS NO DEFENCE WHEN THE SUBJECT IS TORTURE (Toronto Star, November 25, 2009)
PUBLIC INQUIRY NEEDED INTO AFGHAN DETAINEES ISSUE: AMNESTY CANADA (Canadian Press, November 25, 2009)
LA TORTURE EXISTE, M. HARPER (La Presse, 25 novembre 2009)
« Harper should release whatever documents Ottawa has… And the PM should give the legalisms a rest. We need the truth. » (Toronto Star Editorial, November 25, 2009)
« Les conservateurs ont géré ce dossier de façon désastreuse. Ils ont érigé un mur de silence et ils ont cultivé le secret de façon maladive. » (Michèle Ouimet, La Presse, 25 novembre 2009)
« The government must be held to account, and needs to answer these questions: What did the government know, and when? When were the political masters – Stephen Harper, his advisers and his ministers – informed that allegations of torture were being made? Were they informed at all? » (Globe and Mail Editorial, November 25, 2009)
« Les preuves de torture s’accumulent de jour en jour et nos dirigeants continuent de se comporter comme le font inévitablement les gouvernements autoritaires. Contrôler. Discréditer. Censurer. Il est temps de tirer la sonnette d’alarme. » (Pierre Allard, Le Droit, 25 novembre 2009)
« If the government ignored, denied and suppressed reports of potential detainee torture and abuse, Colvin cannot be alone in this knowledge… If there is no inquiry and no accountability, Canada will have been proven just as tawdry and unethical as any other human rights-violating country. » (James Ron, associate professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Ottawa Citizen, November 25, 2009)
“These reports detailed not only the substantial risk of torture to transferred detainees, but based it on other credible sources from the UN, the U.S. state department, NATO allies, including their intelligence agencies, and the most credible international human rights organizations in the world. The answer, therefore, to the legitimacy of the defence that the military and civilian command did not know the facts is emphatically in the negative.” (Errol P. Mendes, Professor of constitutional international law at the University of Ottawa, The Toronto Star, November 25, 2009)
