myata

And isn't it simply amazingly unbelievable that after all the history teachings and preachings, group recitals of "war to end all wars" and "never again", pompous annual celebrations of myriads of victims of wars past, it only takes a coincidence of one tragic incident and group of boneheads with access to the power button, to start the bloody mess going all over again!

No closure will be achieved with these closed door pseudo justice tribunals. If anything, it'll open the ground for the conspiracy theories for the years to come (seriously, who's hearing about Osama Bin Laden from Bush administration these days?). A closure would be to bring the culprits before an open just trail. And abide by its decision.

Come on, people, this is the web. I can be leutenant-general, or even brigadier-general herself, and you won't ever know it (for sure).

On the contrary, immorality of this war has everything to do with the issue; if a country prosecutes its people for refusing to perform morally reprehensible actions, wouldn't it be the duty of compassionate, civilized, and developed neighbours to step in and provide them with a refuge? Interesting that legalistic crowd has been so quietly smug on already pointed out paradox with their very own righteous urge to condemn anybody else on pretty much anything, to the effect of not simply giving a refuge, but invading whole countries. Obviously, the rule doesn't apply when our own immorality is at stake. Nothing new here.

Mr Dion, the recent history shows that despite all claims to the contrary, we do not have necessary checks, laws and standards to prevent participation of this country in the unnecessary, aggressive wars. Under Mr Chretien, Canada narrowly escaped being drawn into the Iraq war which has become a synonim for a war that did not have to happen; even now Canada is being drawn deeper into the internal conflict in Afghanistan, which may be well on its way to becoming another military disaster. Mr Dion, a war is one of the worst disasters that may happen to any people. It has to be avoided at all cost, to the extent of possible, and the initiators and perpetrators of unnecessary wars should be held accountable before the law. This is the only way to ensure that wars will go into history and won't be the reality we, and our children, will have to live with. Mr Dion, will your party support a bill that would require a full open public discussion, and a qualified majority of the Parliament, or a national referendum, to authorize participation of Canada in any conflict outside these country's shores and waters, in a role that involves offensive combat operations? Will your party support a bill that would declare starting a war, other than in self defense, in its own shores and waters, a crime against humanity, and make its initiators and perpetrators liable to criminal prosecution?

Another closed door trial: Khaled Sheik Mohamad trial - CBC story. Why can't it be open for everybody to see the horror of the crime committed? Could it be that the confession, obtained under torture, won't be admitted? The case won't stand open scrutiny of law? Looks like the (self proclaimed) torch of freedom and civilization is heading full steam into the mediaeval past.

Let's look at the whole affair from this perspective: those big security companies; arms and weapons factories; oil companies; they need business; they need to make profits; and the profits they make are from wars. Really; we've seen very well what happens to the whole defence business at the time of peace; reductions, less spending, sad state of affairs; nobody wants to spend billions upgrading their weapons system, restocking supplies; sinking billions into open ended research programs with unclear yields. Thankfully, there's always an ultra conservative US would be president lurking somewhere around the corner; and, something is always brewing in this big wild world. It's only a matter of connecting the twos together. Two things are necessesary to get the bloody business going: the public that is scared, or ignorant or both; and the cannon fodder (in the absense of such, a war won't ever achieve that bountiful level that produces really good returns on investment). The former is obtained from ongoing repeated bombarding of public with scaring, even if unconfirmed, confused, guessworked, stitched, manipulated and plain outright false, "evidence". Till that time when anybody with a grain of independent thought does not care to take in any more of this bs, and everybody else is thoroughly conditioned (i.e scared) into supporting any salvatory enterprise (the greater the scale, the better). The latter, as since times immemorial, can be gotten from poor kids who dream about getting a college education to make it into better life. Voila, the meat grinder is set in place and ready to go. Here comes the master; the kids will be given the guns and sent to the other end of the world to build better life, with guns and bombs. The masters will chuckle and collect monthly dividends. Everybody's happy. Except thouse who'd dare to try getting out of the bloody mess. They'll be chased with the full force of law, proclaimed deserters, criminals and generally, the scum of the Earth; the masters will smile and chuckle and wave hands at numerous photo ops and never (God forbid) neglect their proud duty to instruct common folks on the benefits of justice and peace. Welcome to our just peaceful and democratic paradize. The dream we want (and make, whenever a chance presents itself) everybody on this planet to dream.

Hence, we should return all those fleeing from justice of regimes like Saddam's or Taleban? Correct? Or, is it that some, can do no injustice? By definition? Even when they bomb others into dust for no reason? And what if they actually do, injustice? Should we sit and look the other way? Interesting strategy; I recall your very self going so very inflated about injustices perpetratred by Taleban; so, are there injustices and injustices, depending on who's executing them? They aren't, but a government has moral obligation to respect democratic will of its people, expressed through their representatives in a democratic process.

Really? Starting an illegal war, bombing a country into oblivion under obviously false pretence, just politics? Nothing to worry about? They come, they go.. But listen, why is it when a bad buddy does something ugly, we suddenly jump right up? Shouldn't we just relax and let them be, they're doing nothing that is against (their) law, right? Actually, it does, through majority of its democratically elected representatives. The election will show how popular Harper's policy of treading softly in the Bushes footsteps is with the public. Something tells me though even now, it's not; otherwise, would he (his party) be tight dead spot with such a perfectly accomplished failure of a leader, as Dion?

That line of argument can of course be extended to the laws of other countries: e.g China; or Iraq (under Saddam); or times: e.g slavery; Vietnam war. So should we abide by other's law or live by one that conforms to our own values and standards? Pick one; You've got to brush up on democracy; Harper's party is in minority and they are morally obliged to respect the will of majority; the majority that wants to give right of refuge to those who refuse to take part in an unjust war.

OK, so we won't be branding carbon trading as a "fifth wheel" while Tories would be law a "working strategy" just yet? Not without at least an attempt at logical argumentation?

And they'll get there, even just by talking to it (or "wanting" to make the law - they've been around over two years already - with environment as a top priority)? You know that, for sure. That crystal ball (or is it ideological affiliation?) must be really helpful... When are we going to meet the aliens?

Because these aren't just your regular average "criminals". We're talking about unjust unnesessary war. Agression. Which itself should be a crime, by any moral norm or category. We should not be afraid to say the things as they are, i.e that this is an unjust unnesessary war. And offer refuge to people who refuse to take part in it. And, through our parliamentaries, the majority of them, representing majority of us, we did. What Harper's government decided to ignore our will, speaks volumes about it. And tells us where we would end up, if they happen to be near power at the time some of their buddies decide to launch another overseas adventure.

Right, Harper is big on ignoring democracy; no news there. And, military honour trumps democracy... As it should; and was since times ono; with more destructive war following another; and always the last one. Makes you wonder very hard, if only those guys happen to get to power a few years earlier, we'd probably be seeing our military fight and die in Iraq.

Wow, you sure know it all; which number'll win 6/49, wait I'll write it down.

The motion has passed. Canada lived up to its traditional role and provided refuge to those who refuse to take part in an unjust war.

Yeah there's definitely a plan behind this - a smaller (federal) government. Ideally, the one that does nothing, but worth a lot. Maybe, given the Bernier fiasko, Ontario and Quebec should think about running their own Foreign ministry too?

Sorry, not quite following. Do you mean, everybody should just relax and wait till China (or maybe, US?) cut their emissions by half (that would make a lot of difference... if it's within the realm of possible, is another question. Really; let's imagine those Chinese taking in Mr Environment's preachings as to why they should urgently start cutting their emissions to save the planet, while much more prosperous you and I, who are also much heavier per capita emitters, would continue to guz our SUVs and water our lawns; such a wonderful dream it would be). Or the cap and trading system? It has been implemented and tested and functioning? Now there may be valid concerns as to how the caps are set; depending on which of course, the actual effect could range from actual significant reductions to a PR exercise (if caps are set at current, or higher, levels). But how can you tell now that it won't make difference? Do you have a crystal ball?

Well, at least somebody has the guts to start the ball rolling. Harper-Baird environmental policy seems to be based upon mystery and enchantment: say it (environment is our top priority) a few hundred times and that'll make it happen, somehow.

So, did they blow up Algeria, with maybe Iran, or Lybya as free supplement? Or did the British invade Ireland (proper) in retailiation for IRA attacks? It's not like those countries did all by the book and don't merit scrutiny (which they received, in full measure), but a matter of proportions. I.e the limit beyond which a reasonable response becomes violation of law then transgresses all reasonable limits and becomes plain and simple, abuse of power.

As said, the choice is ours (yours) to make and nobody will take the privilege from you. Let me only point out that US isn't by far the only country to face terrorism, but one of the very few, so far, from those claming themselves to be "developed", to react is such measures (full invasions of foreign countries; manipulation of justice; using torture, etc) that will do nothing but diminish it to the level of its opponents.

Right, it usually starts with this simple adage. I'm all for it, but this world just wouldn't let me.. Who would be happy to sort their problems between themselves and wouldn't bother us, should we not come to them to stir their pot. Then, what is the meaning, definition of being a "militant"? Is being one a crime? Who can determine somebody to be a militant? Secret military commission? Your buddy? Would it be any different from a witchhunt? Then, why is it wrong to run witchhunts? Ethnic cleansings? Selective (by ethnicity) detentions? Because of holy scripture? Constitution? Or because people living here, decide that its the way they want to be? Whatever happents, each and every day, we have that choice; we can raise above our fears and stand up to the principle; or we can give in to them and step back into the past; the medieval past of tortures; forced confessions; manipulated trials; The choice is ours to make; and the result, how we see ourselves, will be a natural consequence of, among others, that choice.

Right, we can spend millions trying someone like Bernardo, or Hell's Angels, but just can't afford the same for someone allegedly involved in a crime on much higher scale? Where's the logic in this? Or is just another truth that doesn't need any argumentation? Exactly for the reason that many look up to somebody dropping these "truths", and follow them blindly, America's edging closer to the very folks they've been trying so hard to destroy. It's them who are running kangaroo courts (or no courts at all); convict not as result of just process, but on belief. This is what they do; not champions of justice and democracy.

Most certainly, the newly created "democracies" will find these novel practices very encouraging. After all, it's so much alike to what they are used to.. They are becoming just like the big democratic buddy.. a great sign of progress!

Couldn't be for the absolute final irrevocable lack of even a smallest insignificant infinitezimal speck of an idea of a meaningful argument, I'm sure?