On looking the other way

For those wondering how the Cons' undying trust in the responsibility of others is working out in Afghanistan, the predictable answer is "not well at all":

Canadian soldiers have intervened at least twice to prevent the summary execution of Taliban suspects captured on operations with the Afghan army, highlighting the moral murk confronting troops caught between government policy and the brutality of a still-violent country.

And the local representative of Afghanistan's independent human rights commission suspects that nearly a third of prisoners handed over by Canadians are abused and even tortured in Afghan jails...

Canadian soldiers have intervened at least twice to prevent the summary execution of Taliban suspects captured on operations with the Afghan army, highlighting the moral murk confronting troops caught between government policy and the brutality of a still-violent country.

And the local representative of Afghanistan's independent human rights commission suspects that nearly a third of prisoners handed over by Canadians are abused and even tortured in Afghan jails.

Unfortunately (for the Cons' position at least), international law isn't willing to look the other way to the same extent that Harper is:

Canada is also obliged under international law to ensure detainees are protected against torture and summary execution, even after they are transferred to Afghan custody.

Which means that Canada is at least in part responsible for the already-documented abuse, to say nothing of the potential for future (or undisclosed) escalation of what's known so far. And in the face of public information to the effect that the assurances received so far aren't accomplishing a thing, it's all the more negligent for anybody representing Canada to pretend that it's reasonable to rely on the same assurances in the future.

(Edit: cleaned up wording.)