So long as a a whisper-fine technicality allows it.
Let's put it another way. Despite the fact that the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence have absolutely vowed that the articles of the Geneva Conventions apply to all combatants in Afghanistan, Jim Abbott is defending the actions of Canada's Afghan jailers on the basis that "the enemy" does not constitute a "state" as defined in the various conventions of the laws of armed conflict of which Canada is seized.
Therefore, according to Abbott, torture is NOT prohibited... technically, y'know.
Resolved. Jim Abbott is not suggesting torture does not happen to detainees handed over to our Afghan jailers. He is suggesting it happens and it is perfectly legal because the combatants taken into custody are not protected by any convention.
That is the Harper Conservative position... once again emerging as a defence against charges of Canadian government complicity in inhumane treatment.
I guess Abbott now understands he has just put Canadian troops at great risk. Should a Canadian soldier fall into the hands of "the enemy" they can do pretty much anything they want to that individual, with Abbott's permission, because the technical line he's following works in both directions. If a bunch of insurgents, Talib or not, capture a Canadian soldier and start cutting off his body parts on a You Tube video, (when they're not pre-empted by Steve Harper trying to play one of the kewl kids), he'll just shrug it off because technically, our troops have no protection from partisan forces under the rules of armed conflict.
Tie me another yellow ribbon Abbott, you senseless fuckwad.