Muddy waters, prisoner abuse and a sworn affidavit

First, go over and read liberal catnip's post about the contradictions being cast over Colonel Steve Noonan's sworn testimony that Canadian troops demanded the return of a prisoner after they discovered he had been beaten.

We'll wait here.

OK, now consider two things.

1. Colonel Noonan uses the word "we" in his affidavit. That is as it should be since he would have been made aware of the incident by way of a situation report. But it should be taken into account since it suggests there is an entire group of people who are aware of exactly what happened. Lt. General Walter Natynczyk, the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, who is disputing Noonan's account, was not there at the time. Noonan, on the other hand, was.

2. If the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff is suggesting that Noonan got it wrong intentionally, then it is Natynczyk's responsibility to charge Noonan, under the National Defence Act, of having committed perjury and to send that charge to a convening authority.

So, what's it going to be, General? The choice is a court-martial or a retraction.

Update: For more crunchy goodness on this subject, go here.