If folks in the Canadian government or military thought Afghan prisons were torture free until 2006 then this says more about their naiveness than anything else. There were so many other people and organizations who warned about the reality of torture that it really says something about the mind-set of the Canadian government and military if there weren't prepared to seriously investigate what was happening in the Afghan prison system. After all, the interrogators had been trained by the KGB courtesy of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. A simple test to use to figure out if assumptions about the 'torture free' status of Afghan prisons can be performed by asking in hind sight whether warnings about torture turned out to be credible. And, as we now know, yes, these warnings turned out to be all too accurate.

For all those commentators who still maintain that Colvin's reports about torture and abuse of detainees are lacking credibility, there's a simple test to determine if you are correct. It's this: Since Colvin made his claims about detainees being tortured has corroborating evidence from multiple sources appeared? The answer to this question is a resounding yes.
And to anyone who continues to maintain Colvin's lack of credibility let me ask you this question: what kind of evidence is required for National Security Certificates? Is CSIS required to provide only 'concrete' evidence or are they permitted to use hearsay, third hand accounts or even rumours and speculation?