Either willfully or blissfully ignorant of this standard McKay and others repeated the mantra of “no proof, “needing substantiating evidence” – an irrelevant notion – and this was allowed to slide. Had Colvin never testified, the Red Cross, Afghan Human Rights Organization, U.N. and other published sources already gave ample cause to suspend transfers. Yje International Criminal Court has held in a case that if there is notoriety of war crimes being committed, knowledge is imputed to the top of the chain of command.
Civilian and military command are required, as soon as practicable, to implement all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent war crimes being committed.

More egregious – under the category of “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels” was Conservative politicians’ equating raising this issue with betraying military personnel. This is turning truth on its head and went largely unchallenged.
Three principal ways in which a government may betray its armed forces in a conflict are:
- unnecessarily putting them in harm’s way resulting in their death and/or injury;
- inadequate support, whether material or service (e.g. medical) that increases the risk of death or injury;
- issuing standing orders that put personnel at risk of violating international law (in this case aiding and abetting war crimes).
In the case of the last, the International Criminal Court does not typically hold frontline personnel responsible for the possible war crime but focuses at the top of the military chain of command and civilian leadership in government: those responsible for the policy.
So who committed the betrayal and why were opposition parties so reluctant to throw the accusation back?
As to the future, interestingly, Canada is under an obligation to effectively investigate and prosecute suspected war crimes – a Senate committee does not qualify as fulfilling this obligation. An ICC prosecutor is currently looking at the entire Afghanistan situation and could (stress “could”) demand Canada start an independent investigation into whether we aided and abetted war crimes. Also, a letter of concern (as Columbia and other admirable governments have received) could be issued to Canada – a sort of putting on notice. Actual intervention by the ICC is, however, unlikely.
So since the Rome Diplomatic Conference in 1998 when “Canada provided technical assistance during the negotiation process and played a leading role in establishing a consensual vision over sensitive issues” we fast forward to Canada refusing its treaty obligations to investigate aiding and abetting war crimes.

A proud history.