There a joke I like to tell regarding a lawyer who defends his client against a charge of murder thusly:
"Your Honour, my client cannot possibly be guilty since he wasn't even there. But if he was, he didn't do it. And if he did it, it was an accident. Besides, that son-of-a-bitch had it coming."
Most sentient people see the absurdity in that defense -- the frantic and desperate attempts to throw out a number of mutually-exclusive and self-contradictory defenses, hoping that one of them sounds convincing. Which, unsurprisingly, brings us to Canada's stupid wankers on the subject of the torture of Afghan detainees.
On the one hand, of course, it never happened. Richard Colvin is either a liar or just plain deluded. He's been thoroughly and soundly refuted, by generals and the Red Cross and, well, bunches of other people. He's a crackpot, and there is not a single shred of evidence to back up his wild and irresponsible accusations, and he can be safely ignored.
On the other hand, well, sure those folks were tortured, but we didn't do it and besides, why should we care about a bunch of terrorists and what happens to them, it's not like any of them might be innocent, and how come those lefties are so weepy over a bunch of hardened killers and savages, and you're damned right those people were tortured, and I'm glad and I don't have a problem with it because they're bad, bad people and they had it coming so what's the problem?
Here's a suggestion, wanks: Pick a position. Seriously. Figure out what side of that argument you're on. Either a) that torture never happened, or b) it happened but why should we care because those bastards deserved it. You can't have it both ways. Really, you can't. So howzabout you give this some thought, and figure out which argument you want to defend and, when you come to a decision, get back to us.
We'll be right here. Condemning the use of torture. Same as always.