Premeditated attempts to inflict pain and suffering can never be justified.

It seems clear now that Canada has been complicit in torture in Afghanistan. Some knew, others should have known, and many of us at least suspected. If war is a drug and adrenaline the high, the commonplace human rights violations that result are the inevitable crash.

Thanks to excellent reporting by the CBC and the Globe and Mail, we can count on more leaks, more officials coming forward, and the slow trickle of inevitable discovery that may still result in a political firestorm.

Despite the clarity of the accounts provided, the response of the Harper government has been to deny the claims, delay the release of documents, and defame the messengers. While calls for an independent inquiry have been partially addressed by the appointment of former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci to review documents, not enough is known about his mandate, terms of reference, and reporting requirements.

Without a full and transparent process here, the disturbing allegations about what was known by both the Martin and Harper governments will further undermine a political system that appears to be losing its legitimacy. Do Canadians care?

One of the most interesting developments in the dissemination of news online is the ability for readers to leave their own comments. This can provide some insight into the way Canadians think. Reader comments on the detainee transfer and torture issue have been very instructive.

Some suggest torture is a normal part of conflict. Fueled by the limited U.S. response to the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay controversies, and the use of torture on popular shows such as 24, the immorality and destructive nature of this practice is being overlooked. And if the premeditated attempt to inflict pain and suffering on another human being does not raise concerns among average Canadians, than the idea that our government condoned or facilitated this sort of barbarism is also unlikely to matter.

Beyond the problematic moral questions raised by torture, some suggest that this evil is justified because it works. Even without considering the impossibility of truly knowing whether a suspect has information that might emerge from a premeditated process of inflicting pain, suffering, and humiliation, there is ample evidence that it is not effective. People will say anything to make the pain stop. Wouldn't you?

A final theme that emerges from reading online comments is the idea that, because those we are fighting against do not respect human rights, we are absolved of our own duties in this regard. While commonplace, this is perhaps the most pernicious misunderstanding of the role of rights in a liberal democracy. The duty to protect even the most heinous criminal or terrorist is a statement of principle. We are saying that we are so confident that our system of governance, our approach to society, and our belief in liberty is just, we will protect those rights even when an individual has failed to abide by our rules.

The extension of rights inherent in our adversarial system of justice and codified through international convention and treaties is important not just for the suspected terrorists, but for everyone else as well. Without clear and transparent polices and practices that protect against torture, our international reputation will suffer and our mission in Afghanistan will appear hypocritical.

Using torture to promote democracy makes no sense. No matter the political party, no matter the supposed sensitivity of the data, Canadians have a right to know what our government knew, when it knew it, and why it ever condoned torture in our name.