Rue

Would you please stop talking common sense. It ruins everything. Say something illogical and emotional. I can't handle this. You keep writing in common sense posts. Its going to set a precedent.

Blaming lawyers or FTA for coruption in the legal system makes as much sense as making a blanket statement that all cops are corupt. Generalizations. All they do is look for quick scapegoats to blame. The same people who shit on FTA for being a lawyer would be the same people screaming for a lawyer if they were arrested. Here is the point. Coruption like any human behaviour is complex. Its not a matter of blaming someone who wants to be a cop or lawyer and make a difference. In every profession there are good people and bad people. I know damn good lawyers and damn bad ones and every variation in between. I could say the same about cops, teachers, doctors, dentists, and hey now posters on this forum. Y'all got a problem with the legal system look in the mirror and stop trying to scapegoat someone you do not know and what he stands for. The legal system is what it is because we are what we are-willing to accept things without questioning and looking the other way. You want the system cleaned up start with your own back yard. How many of you pointing fingers do not break the law? Who me speed? Who me not pay my taxes? Who me? Who me make a fake claim? Nah.

Say now. Keng likes to use the word Indian too. Imagine that. Two people who both like to use the word Indian. Golly gee. Its like the other day... that NHL player Zhitnik's throat gets slashed and where was that Buffalo.... why the very same place it happened to Clint Malarchuk 20 years earlier. In all the years of pro-hockey only 2 throats slashed by skates and both in Buffalo. Coincidence or what? Believe it or not! Thngs that make you go hmmm.

Oh you got that right. He's about as aboriginal as Adam Sandler. ( I can say that)

Hah. He's just trying to imitate what he thinks an evil white man is.

Hah. Wise he says. So tell me. What does a wise one perceive when an aboriginal would refer to himself as an Indian, rationalizes violence against women as a simple misunderstanding, and selfishness as a virtue? Would a wise one perceive your words as taking the aboriginal conflict and trying to exploit it for your own personal agenda? Does a wise one know when the creature before him likes to shift its shape so it can confuse and provide a cover to manpulate? Would a wise one sing along with this bastardized John Cash ballad that tries to manipulate collective suffering for personal gain and cowardice as virtue? Hah. Seen many shadows moving about in the dark. Your curse is self-inflicted and its tell-tale because is YOUR tale. As long as you keep attaching "your" to the tale, you will keep wondering in the dark and keep bumping into Golams like me. ..to be continued...

To be specific Alexander at best was able to occupy parts of Northern Afghanistan and the other "conquerings" Black Dog referred to consisted of a series of battles of cities but no unified control of the entire kingdom. Anytime an occupying force entered it at best engaged in and won localized battles. The many tribes in Afghanistan were never unified and formed temporary alliances to drive who-ever it was out. It was not in fact until until the reign of Ahmad Shah Durrani starting in 1747 did the Afghani tribes maintain a unity behind this monarchy and it was this line of monarchy that lasted until 1973 and brought technically the only unity the country has ever known under one force. All these previous alleged conquerings were in fact fragmented and rolling conflicts and long before Alexander, there were others who rolled in and through Afghanistan because it was not possible to stay and control all of it, just those parts you rolled into defeated in battle temporarily and then had to move on from to yet another conflict zone. This is precisely why the Mughal Empire of India and the Safavi Empire of Iran in the 1th, 17th and 18th eighteenth centuries, were static not fixed and when Afghanistan came into into the 19th century it found itself yet again caught between Russian and British empires looking for expansion. It is precisely because there continue to be humans foolish enough to believe you can conquer Afghanistan why it serves as quick-sand and has forced even mighty armies such as Alexanders or the Mongols to keep moving or perish. Only a fool would think you could create a line of logistics that could support total control within its borders given the mountain ranges that make it impossible for anyone to control. At best all Afghanistan can ever be is a council of tribal leaders each with their own zone.

The oil pipeline proposal is not suspect. It was clearly stated openly and without any inferences. Its public domain. No one ever hid the intent to place the piplelines through Afghanistan.

Not conquered. Look at the above carefully. Whether it was Alexander, the Mongols, or these Indian kigdoms you refer to they did not ever have state wide control, ever, just fragmented zones of control no different then what we see today. Alexander was no more in control of Afghanistan then NATO is today or the Soviets or British were in the past. Same old, same old. The fact that you send an army in and occupy some of the land does not mean you have conquered the people or the nation. So sorry I absolutely disagree on your interpretation of these alleged acts of conquering. They were temporary, fragmented occupations of only certain zones. No one, no Mongol, no Greek, no Caucasian, no Persian, no one has ever controlled the mountains.

Someone asked what makes a suice bomber...what makes a suicide bomber is a series of ingredients; 1-tender age; i.e., they are of an age where their frontal lobes have not fully developed and so they do not yet have social inhibitions developed to such a degree that it makes them think through compulsibe or impulsive thoughts-its why young people have no sense of danger and see things black and white-the part of their brain that needs to develop to see nuance and something between the extremes as well as a biological imperative to survive which holds them back from anything violent or danger still has not yet developed and its why must suicide bomebrs are children or young people not adults; 2-a social environment where values are expressed and experienced in black and whites or extremes; i.e., the prevalent ideology presents concepts as very rigid and dogmatic with no critical thought; 3-the means of spiritual worship, education and thought processes in the environment are controlled by a central organ, i.e. a state apperatus which controls all of this and is able to get to children as soon as they are 3 and control all of the above and successfully seperate children from their parents; 4-a society which defines individuality and the expression of individuality as evil and in need of repressing; 5-extreme poverty-lack of any employment, lack of sewage, water, electricity, a physical environment that keeps the physical body covered in dirt and open sores from the dirt; 6-malnutrition which robs the brain of vital nutrients it otherwise needs to develop specific neuro-transmitters that are needed to conceive and perceive in flexible terms or in terms other then simpistic black and white-malnutrition leads to permanent brain damage making people easier to control as the brain damage makes them more susceptible to auto-suggestion, violent mood swings, brief attention spans, and overwhelming feelings of anxiety that can quickly be alleviated through acts of violence; 7-an environment where the person to be recruited as a suicide bomber has seen repeated violence and death which serves to desensitivize any remaining inhibitions as to violence; 8-adults who will think nothing of recruiting and exploiting children; 9-repeat 1-8 above but particularly for anyone with an added life limitation, i.e., disability, gender, gender preference that adds to their feeling weak; 10-add up 1-9 and then for the next to last ingredient recruit which us used to recruit these children and lead them to believe their lack of control is a weakness..a spiritual failure...and they must loath themselves for having this moral failure..and the only way to not be a failure is to blow themselves up...the self-loathing taught to these children is done by taking 1-9 and using it to manipulate the feelings of lack of control and powerlessenss to such a level of fenzy that the recruit desperately needs relief and escape; 11-and finally adults who weave stories of heaven and utopia as the reward for the violence. True suicide bombers are whipped into a state of auto-suggestion and frenzy. They can not oeprate otherwise. A genuine socio-path with no feelings who can kill will never allow themselves to be used for anyone else's causes. Ideal killers who have no feelings manipulate. Suicide bombers are fatigued, protein defficient, sensory deprived, and suffering from cognitive and emotional impairment at the time of their attack-its why many have blank eyes and actually are quiet and do not scream before they pull the switch they are all but dead except for their physical bodies before they blow up. A suicide bomber whose eyes reflect doubt can be talked down. Once they are blank, its too late. From an operative point of view the only thing that can be done to contain suicide bombers is to restrict their movement through a series of check points that makes it impossible for them to move freely and making it more likely they get intercepted. Its not foolproof. Its easy to get by these check points so the more check points, the more chance of not slipping through them all. The check points necessarily also have to stop the innocent. The check points have to be manned by visible symbols of authority that breed resentment in the eyes of the people restricted from moving. Security walls, camoflaged security detectors in the ground, satellite ohotoes, drones, undercover operatives, informants, parents, other children, all may play a role in early detection and prevention but there are no guarantees. It is not human nature to suspect a disabled person, a pregnant woman, a child, someone with down's syndrome or an elderly person to carry bombs but they can-the physical appearance of a suicide bomber is as variable in shape as sand blowing in the wind. What makes a suicide bomber is a mind that can not flex it can only see rigid, simplistic, basic concepts which it feels are not capable of making sense. The act of terror requires the mind to replace thought with a primal scream. Its not hard to do. Its easy to illicit the primal scream within any human within 5 minutes. All that it requires is setting of a stress response. Anyone of us can be manpulated into lashing out with violence with very simple methods of incitement or agitation. The same thing that makes humans social creatures makes us violent prone creatures.

Chelsey's cute. I like her teeth. Strong teeth. Healthy hair. Other then that I feel sorry for her. A father whose pants were always off and a mother whose pants are always on. Can't be easy having parents like that and forced to live through yet more political drama. I say leave her alone. She has done nothing wrong. Its not her fault her father is who he is and her mama is who she is.

The original pretext or cover story for Afghanistan was responding to 9-11 and terrorism and going after Taliban who were hiding Osama. That was the original pretext and that is cover story the US presented for the invasion. The next round of the cover story altered to state the military action was not simply a response and hunt and search for Osama and punishing Taliban for hiding him, but a colonial exercise to rid the country of Taliban fundamentalist rulers and replace them with a Western "democracy". Canada bought into the colonial exercise. We sent our troups in as democratic missionaries designed to bring democracy. While our soldiers in fact were told to operate as a marine combat force, it was also asked to play the role of community relations social worker and democratic missionary at the same time. We have ever since played this role. We expect our soldiers to be a marine front line combat unit hunting down and killing Taliban but we also want them serving as a visible symbol and community agent for implementing democracy. Politically the Canadian mission is flawed. Its flawed because we placed our soldiers in a war of attrition. They can not for geographic reasons and logistics reasons ever be anything then a localized strike force operating within a certain region. Afghanistan has never been conquered by any foreign army ever because of its geography. It makes it impossible. At best you can set up fragmented zones of control. Afghanistan does not exist as a nation. Its capital as a zone of local control only. Where Nato places its assorted troops are pockets of control. But that is all. The British, Americans, Canadians, Dutch, Australians and Poles have taken the brunt of actual combat. The other NATO members are simply symbolical doing little if anything other then lending to the appearance the colonial presence is an international one. In terms of history its just yet another colonial power trying to extend ina land whose geography will never allow ground control. So now let us deal with the true agenda. Pipelines. There was an elaborate plan to build a multi-trillion dollar network of pipelines to transport oil from the Baltic Sea and other sites through Afghanistan. The ground was supposed to be secured so that these pipelines could be built and secured. The Taliban could not be bribed-it is that simple. They could not be controlled to allow the pipelines through. That is all this is. If you want your pipelines through and you can't control Taliban, you turn to Taliban's enemies-the drug war lords. So that is what NATO has done. Its formed an alliance with opium drug lords and its gotten them nothing. It is a colonial expedition that was designed to secure the land around the pipelines no different then Iraq but the ground has not been able to be secured because the wild card is fundamentalism. Fundamentalist ideology can not be bribed. It can't be controlled with kick backs and prostitutes and Swiss bank accounts. I do think on one level fundamentalist beliefs are a danger to the Western world and all the values we take for granted and by having an arena of confrontation in Afghanistan it has prevented one on our own shores-I do not doubt that for a second-but I also believe it is not realistic to use conventional armies on the ground to engage in conventional war with terrorists. I have always been a believer in small operational commando units of no more then 30 elite specially trained soldiers making precision attacks to specific cells and leaders and not trying to use conventional armies on the ground to patrol and occupy and serve as social workers, police, community advisors, etc. NGO's not military should be used for develpmental work. We have confused anti-terrorist and counter-terrorism with conventional war and military occupation as a method to prop satellite regimes friendly to specific business interests. Conventional armies used as colonial props for satellite or puppet regimes have gone the way of the do do brid because of guerilla tactics perfected by Mao Tse Tung and used ever since that enable few, poorly armed men to be able to imobilize huge conventional military forces through run and hide within the civilian attacks. The mission in Afghanistan was nothing but a cover to secure oil pipelines. We can pretend all we want we are democratic missionaries but the so called savages we try convert to our superior way of life do not benefit from those oil pipelines and therein lies the failure. If we were truly something other then a front for mega-national business interests we would have sat down with Taliban years ago and said-if you don't deal with us peacefully we will use the exact same tactics as you. If you do deal with us, we will not come with arms and we will find away to reconcile our cultural differences while sharing some of the wealth from the oil pipelines to directly benefit your people. We did not appeal to Taliban on a grass roots level. As much as Taliban are warrior and terrorist they are also committed to charitable deeds for their people. Its a paradox we do not understand. What makes them riigid terrorist fundamentalists also makes them impossible to bribe and makes it possible to deal with them on a non materialistic level. As much as I despise terrorists and everything they stand for and believe elite fast moving operational forces are the way to contain and neutralize them, I also believe that is only a temporary solution and the real long term solution is when creating these vast networks of oil and energy pipelines, these huge multi-nationals that turn soldiers into nothing more then their security guards, instead of being able to control foreign policy and politicians, are controlled and required to create econom,ic opportunities that provide grass roots needs for common people such as roads, sewers, schools, fresh water systems. You want to put an oil pipeline through fine, but also be willing to build infrastructure for the people ine exchange for that access. The best way to combat terrorism long term is to provide an alternative to poverty for its people. Nothing shuts a terrorist up faster then a sewer system, a hospital, fresh water, housing and jobs for its people. In Gaza when Israel did manage to do this with Hamas, it worked. Hamas was then violently taken over internally by a faction that blew that all up because they felt their power eroding away. That only happened because Syria and Iran and terrorists were allowed with no consequence from the international community to incite and destroy. The UN applauded terrorist efforts as freedom fighting. If it is to work in Afghanistan, the corupt UN and corupt China, corupt Russia and every other nation with business and financial agendas must be treated in the exact same manner. As long as we do not have consensus among world nations as to how we will operate and deal with terror and international development, these problems will continue. So while I very much respect our Canadian soldiers and what they do-I question the deeper layers of this mission and agree with Oleg but unlike Oleg I think the key is not to give up but innunciate practical grass roots level projects and humanitarian issues. I also think until someone finds a way to achieve a ceasefire and bring the Taliban and warlords in, this will continue.

Relax Leafless. If anything Leafless you should be jumping up and down in sheer delight. It gives a new way to codify how one can call a Muslim a terrorist and couch and give legitimate cover to such racist comments until the same idiots who created this code realize it hasn't changed anything and simply just given a new way to call someone a hate name. Get with it Leafless. Instead of calling me Jew boy all you have to do today is say Zionist or neo-con. Its oh so polite. Nothing changes Leafless. The stylization of the hate sentiment may change but it remains the same. relax. Your civilization remains. Think of it as a new melody for your same old tune.

Melanie I provided you the best sites I could find as to this issue. There are two sets of human rights we are talking about; i-collective aboriginal rights, and ii-gender rights. The two sometimes can conflict in that by upholding gender rights, it could unintentionally compromise collective rights. The key is to use wording and implementation of the two sets of rights that doesn't undermine either. Its possible, but it takes carefully worded legislation which is being worked on. Certain people would like to try demonize aboriginals as not wanting to follow human rights with their own people which is an absolute crock of shit. Its only spread by people with the agenda of wanting to undermine and ignore the aboriginal collective rights which is also a basic human right. It never fails that on any complex legal issue someone will try exploit it for their own close minded, simplistic, political agendas that at their pith and substance are designed to impose a negative generalization as to all aboriginal peoples and their right to collective rights. Gender rights for aboriginal women are NOT the problem and never were. Trying to find a way to implement them to that the aboriginal collective rights are not compromised is the sole issue and it is an issue not because of anything aboriginals did, but because of how our court system in the past fucked things up to get it to this point today where we now need to re-write the basic rules which the federal government chose to ignore in the past leading to the present day confusion.

Scriblett's initial assumption that aboriginal peoples are exempt from the Human Rights Act is wrong. He tas simply taken an article out of context and attempted to simplify an actually complex legal issue by trying to pose it in an easy to understand sound bite but that is not how the law works at all. What has happened in Canada is that there is an on-going balancing act between aboriginal collective rights which are a human right (as per international law treaties entered into by Canada) and sometimes they may conflict with individual human rights concepts. What has happened is certain indvidual rights associated with property rights being used to define a woman's gender rights can conflict with aboriginal collective concepts as to property rights. This does not mean aboriginal people consider themselves above any laws or below them for that matter and the fact that certain legal concepts conflict is not unusual in most legal systems. Its bound to happen. In this case its absolutely ludicrous to suggest aboriginals are exempt from human rights laws when since the beginning of confederation all they have been asking Canada to do is honour their human rights which Canada repeatedly and deliberately ignores contrary to the UN Human Rights conventions we signed. If you genuinely want to know why some aboriginal concepts will conflict with some human rights concepts then you have to do more then read Mike Duffy out of context. You first have to understand how our federal human rights laws operate, then understand how aboriginal collective rights which are a human right operate and how forumals are applied if the two seem to be at cross purposes. The aboriginal collective did not say it feels it should be exempt from human rights laws nor does it claim to be. All it has argued legally and correctly so is that its collective rights are a human right that can not be compromised or taken away from them by the imposing other human rights laws and in such cases a synethizing of the human rights in conflict must be achieved to assure both can be honoured without compromising either. As usual a very complex legal issue is reduced to a simplistic sound bite which misrepresents the actual issue and does what? Suggest aboriginals try operate outside the law and are inhumane. I say bull shit again. if you are really interested in this issue here are some web-sites that explain the issue and its anything but what it was represented as; http://pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/docs/repons...sponses/1_e.cfm http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?...rl=39&Ses=1 http://www.crr.ca/Load.do?section=28&s...=578&type=2 http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initiati...67/page4-en.asp http://pcerii.metropolis.net/Virtual%20Lib...ulaban-1-96.pdf http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/jilp/issue.../pdf/34_1_d.pdf http://www.centreindianscholars.com/Steeri...lcommission.rtf http://www.undercurrentjournal.ca/2005II2%20-%20grey.pdf http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/DIANA/whrr/...searchstring=11

I can only repeat these words from FTA again: "P.S. I don't intend this as a slight against our troops...I don't really think the original poster did either. The point is if the politicians can't do a better job of making effective change, then we're losing way too many good men and women in the pursuit of an ideal that is at best uncertain and at worst unattainable." Well said as usual FTA.

Strange an aboriginal person would refer to himself as "Indian". That is all I will say. If it was intended to incite hatred against aboriginals it seems to have worked to a limited extent. I have no idea Melanie why we men are like this. Probably testosterone, size anxiety and lack of fibre in our diets.

Peter I am livid because they are calling it a military commission bastardizing the military and using the military as a cover for what it really is, a political propaganda court. No Jag Officer I know thinks its right. They can't say so for obvious reasons. It makes a mockery of military law for prisoners of war. Nothing good can come from it. It is by far the worst thing a US politician has ever done to his own country's constitutional legacy for fairness in legal proceedings. All American state bars have criticized it. You will find lawyers or judges in the US who will genuinely come out and say they feel good about this. It flies in the face of everything US domestic laws and their internal military codes stand for.

Actually all kidding aside if he was brought before the US military as a prisoner of war, under the Geneva War Convention, he would be treated quite differently. The reason why we have our problems today is because the Bush government chose to ignore the convention and US military and create a new arena for their own political purposes. They wanted a show trial for propaganda purposes but they never envisioned it would bog down and take so long. The US Military Code with war prisoners is very clear. Its when its not followed we have these problems. Its when Bush's regime contracted employees outside the military to interogate prisoners and build prisons to interogate them, this shit happened. Don't blame the military. Their role was subverted and superceded by Bush civilian employees. The true reason Iraq failed is not because of the US military but the fact that there are more civilian soldiers in Iraq operating outside the rules of military law.

IF he is a prisoner of war, the United States Army under the Geneva War Cconvention would hold him as a prisoner of war since the Afghan nation legally recognized the United States Armed Forces as its proxy military agency. In theory if Afghanistan wanted him placed in an Afghan prisoner of war camp, they would have to build one. The key is a prisoner of war is not to be placed in the same jail as a civilian criminal and is tried under the convention's rules. It is why from day one I said he belongs in a prisoner of war camp. I agree with quite a few JAG officers who can not say so that this political exercise of inventing the term "enemy combatant" and using the US military apperatus to engage in a political legal exercise is wrong-dead wrong. If the politicians wanted to create a new definition, i.e., enemy combatant" outside the Geneva war convention definition of prisoner of war, they should not have involved the US Armed Forces and kept it seperate and distinct. They are using the US military as a cover for a political exercise and that is wrong. You either do it the proper military way and keep the politicians out of it, or yous top using the military as pawns and take the ball and run with it and not have the military involved. Look the problem here is we have a new kind of combatant. They may have engaged in conventional war at the time of their action, or they may have engaged in civilian terrorism which is a domestic political crime. The problem is until there is a new international convention as to how to handle terrorists you either treat them as prisoners of war or as domestic criminals youd on't mix the two in an onscure hybrid definition that makes no legal sense. The tribunal system created by the Americans for Kadr is NOT I repeat not a conventional military tribunal at all. And it is not a conventional domestic legal tribunal either. Unlike both systems, it does not allow full disclosure of the charges or information that will be used to try Kadr-it does not allow for a speedy trial, its decision makers have a very real bias let alone an appearance of bias, and the alleged counsel for Kadr is not even given the information he needs to prepare a defence. It makes a travesty of all the guarantees that form the basis of the US constitution and the fundamental precepts of natural justice which all administrative tribunals in free nations are governed by. This to me is a political circus. The US military police should have simply taken him into custody and held him in a prisoner of war camp. The world as a community must now decide what it does with terrorists, i.e., people who do not wear uniforms and make themselves readily indentifiable during times of war and only engage in combat with other soldiers. Because terrorists spit in the face of conventional war rules and could care less, the war conventions are now outmoded. That is the problem. Its time to create an international treaty defining terrorism, outlining the protocol for arrest, detention, trying, and imprisoning of terrorists. Either all nations subscribe to it, or each nation continues as it does now, arbitrarily doing what it feels like. The issue in this case wasn't whether the US military should hold Kadr, it was Dick Chaney giving the finger to the US Jag office, and saying he would create something new and military will play along or else. I can not stand it when politicians pollute and contaminate the code of the military for their own purposes.

Leafless I enjoyed your racist taunt; "Most White Canadians don't have their personal cultural baggage tied around their necks, unlike the rash of emotionally disturbed immigrants who come to Canada for a better life, including I take it for granted, a superior culture." Well then following your comment to its necessary conclusion your ethnic group has cultural baggage and is emotionally disturbed. May I suggest some of us realized that already but thanks for the confirmation. As for your reference to superior culture yes I am glad my grandparents came here so I could learn from the aboriginals and their culture. Luckily aborginals unlike you are at least humble about being superior. As they have taught me, there is no such thing as superiority just inter-connected paths towards experience of which some are fixated on material values and the five senses which may hold them back from being able to witness things others who have moved passed such fixations can. There is a reason you bang your head on the wall over and over as opposed to being able to simply pass through it. Bang. Thud. Bang. Thud. Glad you find it an ideal state. Knock yourself out.

Thanks I know you mean well and were not being negative but no Jews do not necessarily socialize with one another any more then anyone else does in any ethnic group. Generalizations of anyone are not exactly accurate. What you may think you have noticed as Jews socializing with one another may be something else. Do you really think you have been in the position to be able to identify all the people you saw as only being Jews and that all Jews do this? Of course not. This Jew socializes with everyone. I like to think of myself as a socially transmitted disease. As for the original issue-Jews or anyone else are free to think or say what-ever they want on such issues. As a Jew I do not have a collective obligation to think in a certain way nor do I like being assigned a group collective designation, lumped in it and assumed all people with the same label as me think the same way. My personal opinions on freedom of speech and what should be done to people who use freedom of speech to hate monger are not predicated on me being Jewish, just being human. As a human as well as a Jew I do not like any hate mongers and being a Jew does not impose upon me any different moral imperative then any other human on the issue of hate mongers. Do I think this person's comments constitute hate crimes that should be prosecuted. No. But that is my individual belief. Please do not immediately assume because I am a Jew or black or anyone else that this means all other blacks, Jews, etc. must think the same way. I belief if someone incites others to commit violence they should be prosecuted. Sometimes one can incite violence without using specific words. Where the line draws between incitement and simply saying something hateful none of us know and that is why we have courts and Judges to interperet such things. I personally believe Ernst Zundel went well over the line and committed criminal laws and violated other federal laws and in fact incited and organized people to hurt Jews, blacks, Catholics, Muslims, etc. This was a thig recruiting, financing and coaching people to engage in assaults, batteries, vandalisms, property theft, defamation of character. While in the specific case of this individual I do not believe a criminal prosecution achieves anything there are far more complex legal issues not specific to his particular comments at stake. What I am pleased about is the aboriginal leaders quickly denounced what he said. That is what really matters that his own people told him to shut up. If his comments caused young native men to go out and beat up a Jew what then? If I made such comments about any group and as a result someone acted on them and hurst someone then what? In this case no one did so its easy to say there should be no criminal prosecution. Fine. But what about next time? Its not as simple as it sounds and deciding where to draw the line on freedom of speech is not as simplistic as it sounds. Each case must be examined individually and therein lies the difficulty. You can't make a blanket law but you can't simply engage in blanket ignoring of such behaviour either. The solution is somewhere in between and that is why we have Judges.

Simplistic postulators tend to attract simplistic groupies. Still doesn't explain why anyone would sleep with Keitch Richards though.

I believe he should be a military prisoner of war kept by the military of the country where he engaged in war and it is their military or government's issue. You engage in war or crimes in a country then that country deals with you. Pure and simple.