"Our job was to provide input to policy, not to beat senior officals over the head with our reports when they were in our physical vicinity."
Richard Colvin's letter to the Special Parliamentary Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, December 16, 2009
But you've got to admit it's a fabulous idea. Would it matter whether or not the reports were redacted? Is there evidence that information imparted in such a way would penetrate the awareness of senior officials? Would the actual weight of the report matter, or if the senior offical lost consciousness?
I'm filled with enthusiasm for this direct approach to dealing with the Canadian government. I have 73 redacted pages received from the Department of National Defence in September, 2007, which, together with extensive supplementary information, I would like to bring to Ottawa at my own expense and personally impress on the Attorney-General and the Minister of National Defence (separately, so as not to cause information overload).
Then, because I know the Chief of the National Defence Staff is pressed for time, I would plan to bring to his attention the Third (Article 12) and Fourth (Article 45) Geneva Conventions, which have much less mass, but which I'm sure would make an impression on account of being the hard bound editions.
This is a much better idea than the Accountability Act.
