Morgan

KrustyKidd, 1. You asked: This is where: 2. With regards to Buckley, his concerns are with regards to the Western system of justice, not with the Iraqis' system of justice. 3. The Iraqis' Penal Code was last revised in 1969. It is not Stone Age. The Iraqis have the death penalty in their Penal Code. Bremer temporarily suspended its use. 4. I know that the Nuremberg Trials were not conducted by Germans. I used Nuremberg as an example of special tribunal to deal with special crimes rather than using the regular legal system. 5. As far as I'm concerned, the UN waived their rights to try Saddam,several years ago, when they turned a blind eye to Saddam's well publicized payment of $25,000 for Palestinian suicide bombers to kill innocent Israeli citizens. The UN's deafening silence on this matter was as good as saying we"pass;" let someone else deal with Uncle Saddam. I hope Bush doesn't buckle under pressure from the EU, Kofi Annan, and Colin Powell. The UN can blow their "moral outrage" out their ears. 6. It will probably take another 6 months to drag all the information out of Uncle Saddam, using TLC Geneva Convention rules. That's about time for the Iraqi governing council to put together a tribunal of 5 judges from the ranks of Kurds, Sunni, and Shiite population. I'd say 2 each for Kurds and Shiites and 1 Sunni. I don't see any need for waiting for a new elected government and a new constitution. This is a judicial matter. It's not a constitutional matter.Saddam could easily get a fine stable of ACLU lawyers working pro bono for his release. Since Napoleonic Code assumes guilt with the burden of proof on the defendent to demonstrate his innocence, I think the trial should move along quite swiftly. Saddam could use the Twinkie defence, I guess, but what else? 7. As for death penalty being unfairly applied to poor people, no I don't believe that's the case these days. The poor get very good representation and countless opportunities for appeal. In fact the only reason that I've thought made good sense for abolishing the death penalty is because the costs of defending a death row inmate are so astronomical and law abiding taxpayers have to pick up the tab. Some studies have placed the cost of a death penalty case from arrest to execution at approx. $3 Million, which is 3 times the cost of incarceration for the same case. 8. BTW, OJ did not win his case because of his expensive lawyers. OJ got off because the prosecution lost the case due to their ineptitude. Remember Chris Darden and the infamous ill-fiiting glove? Also, the case was tried with a downtown LA jury pool which was a plus factor for the defense. Had OJ been tried with a jury pool of "peers" from suburban LA where Nicole was murdered, the OJ trial may have had a very different verdict, inspite of the prosecutions' screw ups.

Krusty Kidd, Maybe "muddled' was what I implied, but I think what I meant to say was that you seemed to be "conflicted," not dirct, linear in your thinking. I still feel that's the case. The crimes of Sadam and his co-horts are different from crimes committed by ordinary Iraqi citizens. How can anyone pretend otherwise? Just like the crimes of Adolph Hitler and his Nazi pals were different than crimes of ordinary Germans. Ergo, the Nuremberg Trials. Germany was still open for business after the Nuremberg Trials concluded. William F. Buckley had a pithy article in Nat'l Review today about this very subject: Try Saddam? Justice in War, Wm.F. Buckley P.S. I'm a Canadian, not American, citizen. And I've already posted articles and made comments about the failed Canadian health system. More money won't help. Universal health care needs to be chucked out the window. Right now the US system is better than Canada's hands down, but its costs are sky rocketing. If the US tort system were reformed and illegal immigration were stemed, the US health system would get more affordable for American citizens and legal residents. So the health system is good but external malfunctioning "systems" are negatively impacting on health care services.

Moderate Centrist said: Ever think that if you forbid its use under any circumstance, you may be allowing yourself to be manipulated by murderous maniacs like Saddam and Al Feyadeen operatives who are holding back information that could save innocent lives? Ever think that if you forbid the use of torture under any circumstance you are lowering yourself to the level of psychopathic mass murderers by becoming an accessory to their ongoing crimes against humanity? Ever think that post modern left wing ever shifting "lines in the sand" about what's moral and what's not are examples of shameless arrogance at best or at worst, unadulterated deceit?

1. Modern Centrist, I am only too happy to give you my answer as to my opinion on the torture of prisoners and capital punishment because both are somewhat "connected" discussion points. First off, I believe in capital punishment. I don't think it's a barbaric punishment whatsoever. I view capital punishment the same way I view abortion. I believe both are necessary evils. By and large, I don't advocate torture of prisoners except in instances of saving lives and where convention methods like sodium pentathol have failed to produce results. Case in point is Saddam Hussein. He knows information that can lead to the apprehension of actual and potential terrorists [or "insurgents" as CBC and CNN like to call murderers]. Furthermore, I firmly believe Saddam can help us find his stash of WMD, whether they're still in Iraq or whether they've been trucked off to Syria or Iran. Innocent lives hang in the balance. So if Saddam is not forthcoming with this information in short order, then I believe any method is morally justified to extricate this vital information. Lest you, Hardner, and Communist Boy fret I want to torture drunk drivers who mow down little kids at a crosswalks, I will re-iterate my position to save you anxiety induced ulcers: to save lives, torture is a morally acceptable, albeit an inefficient method, to extract information wherein lives can be saved. Quite frankly, I don't think I'll ever convince you that lives saved is justification for torture. Nor will you ever convince me that assuaging Western instilled guilt about the evils of torture represents "high moral ground." 2. KrustyKidd, First off, I put a high value on your opinions. Usually I agree with your positions, in fact, and on the rare occasion when I don't agree, [Palestine/Israel]at least I understand your position. But with regards to the discussion of what's to be done with Saddam, I am confused about your position. There's lots of slipping and sliding. On the one hand, I see you straining hard to be openminded about respecting the right of Iraqis to deal with Saddam themselves and not sending him to Brussels to be tried in International Court. But on the other hand, you want the Iraqis to accord Saddam your version of Western "civilized" justice[ie. Saddam is presumed innocent, no capital punishment but rather hard labour] You say: Why do you assume that Iraqis would lose their heads and allow mob rule? Iraq as a known civilization has existed since 4000 B.C. ...far longer than Western civilizations. Accordingly, Iraq has had a good set of laws on the books dating back to the days of Hammurabi ie. Iraqis are not without their own legal traditions. Like all civilizations,there have been changes to the codified laws[apart from Saddam decreeing new laws at his pleasure]. But if you strip away Saddam's decrees, modern Iraq has a justice system and a Penal Code, that has evolved over time to ultimately represent an amalgam of Napoleonic Code and Islamic Sharia in the main, with hints of Ottoman and British law. Exiled Iraqi lawyers have suggested that a special Iraqi court be struck to try Iraqis who have authorized or committed crimes against humanity and genocide like Saddam, high ranking Baathists and military officials. These same exiled lawyers feel that run of the mill low level criminals... murderers, thugs could be tried in the regular Iraqi courts, which will work just fine now that Saddam's subversion of their powers no longer exists. I tend to agree with them. With regards to your question about whether or not Iraq has the death penalty...the answer is yes and no. Iraq has the death penalty in its Penal Code, but in the course of Saddam's 30 year rule, it's commonly recognized that he used the death penalty in the Penal Code to punish people for "political" crimes. So this summer, because of Saddam's misuse of the death penalty and because of pressure from coalition partners, like the UK which has abolished capital punishment, Paul Bremer convinced the new Iraqi governing council to suspend use of the death penalty. Now that Saddam is captured and his arrest may lead to other murderous thugs under his command as well as foreign terrorist operatives in Iraq who have committed heinous crimes, I would imagine that the Iraqi governing council will seek to "unsuspend" the death penalty. With regards to the "message" the new Iraqi democracy would send with unsuspending the death penalty already on their books, I see no problems. No doubt, many Westerners will not agree with Iraq resuming the implementation of the death penalty, but IMO, the accompanying angst will not be the fault of the Iraqis.The ensuing "problems" stem from our self-deluded certainty about our "high moral ground" with regards to the death penalty.

KK, IMO, the Iraqis cannot have their brutal past co-exist with their new beginnings. As long as Saddam lives there will always be hope lingering in the hearts of Baathist supporters that he will assume leadership again. You think that's insane? Look how that coward of a man had everyone in fear and in awe of his might for 30 years. And as long as Saddam is alive, ordinary Iraqis will live in fear that he will come back. There's no question in my mind that he should be tried quickly with no fanfare in a closed tribunal of judges. He can have a lawyer to represent him if he wants, but all your idealism about being innocent until proven guilty is inappropriate for genocidal butchers. If Hitler or Stalin were brought to trial, you'd still believe they had a right to the presumption of innocence? Saddam is in their league. The Napoleonic Code is more in keeping with this type of case. To say that you don't want the state to reduce themselves to a murderer's level...I have a hard time with that comment. Look around you...governments sanction the taking of lives everyday...there's rationed medical care for starters...sorry to tell you this, KK, but when you're past 50, don't expect the Dept. of Health Services to foot the bill for bypass surgery or heart/lung transplants...it's buns up. Nothing radical to save your life past cutting out cancer, and even that becomes more of an "economic burden" when a person is pushing 70. Abortion is another area where gov'ts sanction taking of lives in a big time way, yet rarely do you hear worries about "barbaric" practice in those instances. The only difficulty that "civilized" nations have in taking lives is when it comes to the life of a murderer. Strangely enough, that's the only time I hear the "worry about sinking to that level" argument ever come up.

Modern Centrist, You have a right to express your opinion, just like everyone else, in this kind of open ended discussion. But then when you turn around and sit in judgement of others' opinions, it should come as no surprise that you will be taken to task for the tone of your remarks:

Whereas some of us were whimsically thinking of poetic justice type punishments for Saddam[seeing left wingers getting their shorts in a knot was good fun but all good things must come to an end...to be honest, electric chair or hanging would be fine by me...pink juice however would be too good for him in my books], I feel strongly that the Iraqi government should do whatever they please with Uncle Saddam. Period, with none of our "higher moral ground" saccharin crap shoved in their faces. Where were we 'high moral ground" types when Saddam was torturing his people? Modern Centrist, did you go out annually and protest his brutality? Hardner, did you write letters to Chretien and Graham and Kofi Annan? What about you, Communist Boy, did you write letters to the CBC to do an expose series on Iraq and Saddam's psychopathology? I know what I did. I did nothing. Iraqis were the farthest thing from my mind all these years. I slept well, I ate well, I drove nice cars, I travelled abroad wherever and whenever I pleased. I even remember seeing Saddam's birthday party on CNN but I don't remember thinking about how ordinary Iraqis were doing. While Iraqis were being raped, shot in the head, jailed underground, and while children were put in prison and others were orphaned due to their parents being gassed, I did nothing. I led my life and happily so. Right now, for all the years I forgot about what this tyrant did to these suffering people, I say to the Iraqis...do what you please with Saddam, whatever gives you peace of mind and heals your souls. I'm sorry the world waited so long to give you this opportunity. You self-righteous folks might want to take a minute...get off your high horses...and mentally walk in the shoes of these newly liberated Iraqis. And if you still believe that after your wife was raped, after your child was imprisoned, after your parents gassed, that putting Saddam in prison for life is sufficient punishment to pay for the evil he's inflicted on powerless ordinary people who by unlucky Fate were born in Iraq and not in Canada, you have no heart.

Sir Riff, Please cite documented support for the following opinions or retract them. Thank you. a) Please tell me what previous court judgments against the current US authorities/US Admin.you have read regarding their "planting" of evidence. -What evidence do you have that the US government supported Saddam after sanctions were implemented? -What evidence do you have that the US gov't "gave" Saddam weapons and "sold" him equipment after the sanctions were implemented? -what evidence do you have that the US gov't "implied" that Saddam was associated with 9/11? In another discussion thread you said that US gov't have denied Saddam's involvement in 9/11. I'm puzzled by your contradictory statements. c) Specify who are "they" and document your reasons for referring to them as "dangerous people/for dangerous reasons." Senator Leo Kolber said in his new book that anti-American rants are a form of racism. I agree and am offended by your continued and unsupported denigration of Americans. Put up or retract. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -

Craig said: I agree with your observation about the failings of the Old Grey Lady. The NYT used to be great until the new owner took over and pledged his allegiance to left wing thinking, truth be damned, investigative journalism a mere memory of NYT's glory days. This observation is apropos to Sir Riff's NYT post about the Prague connection...NYT re-cycles an old "controversy"insinuating that they've got the final lowdown on it. So stupid. But then again, I guess there are some people like Sir Riff who'll believe it. Sir Riff...errr...the Czech UN envoy stands by the Czech's version since 2001 and the Czech's have Visa#'s to prove it. For whatever reason, the FBI/CIA are currently not ready to play up this meeting.Czech officials are not backing down. Prague Re-Visited, Nov.19/03 Slate, Edward J.Epstein UN Czech envoy confirms Prague meeting

Farrius, Oh puhleeze, your feigned concern about the welfare of American GI's is too "precious." Instead of your back-stabbing opinions about "the soldiers suffering long enough", as well as the well worn misguided observation that George Bush is "just fullfilling what his father couldn't do....why not read a soldier's unbiased take on Saddam's capture and the Iraqi war? Evidently the soldiers are very proud and they're smiling as much as George Bush. WSJ Dec.15/03 A GI's take on Saddam's capture and why the war in Iraq is an important mission "Negative and shameless" backstabbing...those are good adjectival modifiers for your comments, Farius. Thank you, Lance Cpl. Guardiano, I was searching for exactly those words.

Welcome, Kokanee. I bow to the wisdom of your specificity re: deliverance of "justice" to ex-President Saddam Hussein. Wonderful ideas, and it's a win-win for all concerned. a)I believe the Iraqis would agree with your ideas too. Here are some pictures of celebrating Iraqis, who would love to implement your ideas, no doubt: Iraqis celebrating the capture of the Butcher of Baghdad, a.k.a. Uncle Saddam to the UN twits B)I forgot to answer one last comment made by Moderate Centrist: My, my, how easy it is for you to opine with such certainty from your cozy Canadian abode on how the death penalty for Saddam would not be a deterrent... For starters, Saddam's death would mean he will no longer be around to authorize and financially support future attacks of murder. Even with his murderous keester in jail, Saddam would still be able to orchestrate and finance murders, not to mention that his tax supported upkeep in jail would demonstrate that criminals who committ atrocities are rewarded. No worries, just pass the steak, Saddam would tell his jailers and I need more back rubs, too. Also, there's research done in the past 3 years that demonstrates that capital punishment of regular criminals, never mind mass murderer political leaders, has a deterent effect and protects lives. Err...I guess you haven't kept up with the research on this subject, Moderate Centrist: Sept.23/03 Boston Globe Studies show that the death penalty has a deterence value Statistics fail anti-death penalty activists Thirdly, perhaps it's time for new studies to be done on "deterrence" values of capital punishment...we should let the Iraqis conduct their own scientific data gathering to offset the bleeding hearts' research, starting with Saddam being sent to Allah, followed by captured Al Feyadeen operatives. Let's see perhaps 5 years from now, after all the "psychos" are committed to their graves, we can revisit your "no deterence" opinion and if terrorism rates have gone down in Iraq, I guess you are just plain wrong. c) Btw, Moderate Centrist, I've read that Saddam was perhaps given up by his daughters...the ones whose husbands were murdered by Saddam...perhaps those women are finally relieved of their sorrow [revenge is sweet, Pappa, thank you for showing us the way...]

Forgive me for interpreting your comments as being a tad bit sanctimonius. But IMO, if ever there were cases to justify the use of capital punishment, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein are up there on the top 10 list. As for not changing your opinion about Saddam being a threat to national/world security, no offense but you need to broaden your news reading to additional sources beyond what's offered by Ted Turner's bolshevic organization. 1. from the National Post, per Craig Read-Saddam's support of Al Qaeda Documents link Baghdad to 9/11, National Post, Dec.15/03 2. Saddam's known cache of chemical and biological weaponry, including smallpox, per German intelligenceSaddam and biological.chemical weapons 3. Saddam fingered by Iraqi Lt. Colonel who had personal knowledge about Saddam's WMD Lt Col al-Dabbagh states that Saddam could have unleashed WMD in less than 45 minutes 4.Saddam's missile deal with North Korea, Dec.02/02 ,The Scotsman 5. Saddam's sponsored terrorists' bombings of Israeli civilians Saddam gave $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, $10,000 to the families of those killed in the intifada, and smaller sums to the wounded If you still believe Uncle Saddam was an sweet old guy just minding his own beeswax in the confines of his palaces after reading the above cited articles, I would suggest you get your vision checked.

Moderate Centrist said: Your high brow values a)made you want Saddam's status quo to stay in power and also makes you want him to be kept alive inspite of the fact that he's a mass murderer and a genocidal maniac. That's an amazing sentiment. I can't believe it. Lost in Manitoba said: Awesome??? An international court that's shown itself to be an ineffectual expensive object of ridicule....you think if the Iraqis could somehow pull themselves up and join the 21st sophisticates that rule the UN and see their way to handing over Saddam to these "deadbeats" like good bleeding hearts would do...you think that would be awesome... Whatever. Here's what I think. The interrogation should be handled by Israeli Mossad. Saddam paid homicide bombers' families to kill Israeli civilians...the Israelis should get a chance for pay back to Uncle Saddam. And after Saddam is "debriefed" by the Mossad, then he should be handed over to the Iraqi government and they should decide how they want him extinguished from this planet, because that's what Saddam deserves. They should give the Kurds first dibs, then whatever is left of Saddam, the Shiites should get their wacks in too. I hope the punishment is truly barbaric to send a loud and clear message to other Saddam wannabes that they should think twice about their ambitious plans and to the other Arab tyrants that they'd better pack up their things and move along. International court, my foot. Anyways, the international court's calendar is all booked up for the next 20 years dealing with Milosevic.

Sir Riff, "Man," I get it. You post innuendo about the USA and Bush with no supportive documentation, though I thought those were the rules on this forum. For some reason, you believe that the rules are meant to be mocked not to be followed. Then when I cut your emotionally charged criticisms to shreds with facts, your fall back rebuttal is an "empty post", dissing my lack of perspective. To refresh your memory here's your previous post to which I responded: In my well documented reply, which you buried post haste, I addressed your comments about Bush not having courage, your accusation that the USA invaded Iraq strictly for a profit motive to get the oil, and that the USA liked Saddam well enough to support him against Iran, get his oil and sell him weapons. Here's "my point" which seems to escape you...I'm not sharing blame for Saddam's tyrannical rule.I'm pointing the finger at who should be "blamed" and it's not the USA. I've proven that the blame BELONGS to your heroes...France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada, the UN and its NGO's, and other Arabs who benefited from Saddam being in power. None of the aforementioned DID A SINGLE THING TO HELP THE IRAQIS, except for the USA and its allies. If the USA had followed the watch words of the Canadian Islamic Congress and the UN, to name a few of those "concerned" about tossing out Saddam-ie. do nothing -Iraqi women would still be raped for sport by Uday and there'd still be children's prisons and ordinary Iraqi people would be still be wondering how come Saddam lived in palaces while they lived in hovels with no indoor plumbing. P.S. I think Galahad is trying to tell you something.

Sir Riff, To accuse me of "being too focused on facts without realizing implications" is laughable. Duh, Mr. "genios," as you are in the habit of calling me...facts are the cornerstone of opining about implications. Unfortunately, you choose to do the latter without support from the former. And if it's so easy, as you claim, to cut and paste supporting links from the internet, why don't you do it for a change? I'm tired of reading your unsupported, mis-spelled, grammatically incorrect re-hashed garbage whose only purpose is to bury my hard work.

Sir Riff said: You're speaking of your high minded, peacenik countries - France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada - aren't you? In anticipation of one of your famous amnesia spells, here are the websites and money quotes: a)Stockholm Peace Research says Russia, France, China biggest suppliers of Saddam's weapons "Welcome to Anglo-Saxon reality" by Mark Steyn National Post Thursday, April 10, 2003 c)Asia Times Feb.5/03 Germany's leading role in arming Saddam with chemical weaponry. This article is very informative and full text should be read. d)Hope these links clear your head, Sir Riff, and your stuck record mantra: Maybe you don't think small pox is a problem, but it would seem that the German politicians do. e) As for your intellectually dishonest comment: Hello!!! Bush put his Presidency on the line by liberating Iraq and hunting down Saddam and 'da boys and putting a halt to the unholy marriage between Saddam the secular psycho dictator and OBL the wacko Muslim fundamentalist thug, unlike some Weasel political leaders who shall go nameless, but we know dem well who vanted more proof because da proof is da proof... Bush is courageous for his political decision and he's a fine Commander & Chief, who is giving his brave GI's the best equipment money can buy, unlike other leaders who send their soldiers to face danger in the deserts of Afghanistan in "touring" jeeps, dressed in green camouflage uniforms. Aforesaid leader shall go nameless... e) As for Iraqis being ruled by Saddam the Butcher, not once have I heard or seen any demonstrable efforts of Arab brethern in other countries or in the ranks of those who have immigrated to Canada or the USA do ONE SINGLE THING to relieve the Iraqis' suffering or speak out against Saddam Hussein . Correct me if I'm wrong, Sir Riff, but I see no "role model" courage in ex-patriot Arabs, have you? There haven't even been organized demonstrations against Saddam either in Canada or in their home countries, have there? So for you to denigrate George Bush for lacking courage begs the question...what has anyone else done that's more pro-Iraqi people than George Bush? Fill me in. To criticize George Bush ad naseum means you have knowledge of people who are "more courageous." Maybe I'm not seeing "courage" as evidenced in... Chirac?... or Assad?... or Schroeder?... or Putin?...or Chretien?... or Annan?... or Arafat?... or maybe various mullahs living abroad?...or the Cdn Islamic Congress??? Oh, now I remember...with regards to the Cdn. Islamic Congress made it quite clear what their position was regarding the liberation of suffering Iraqis: Source:The Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Bulletin, Monday, March 17, 2003 - Muharram 14, 1424, Year:6 Vol:6 Issue:32 And well, we know how Schroeder, Putin, Chretien, Chirc voted about the Iraq War, they saw no suffering just a duly elected, very popular leader of a sovereign nation minding his own business...and Assad needed to sell Saddam's oil on the black market 'cause there's no oil in Syria,so blinders on Assad's eyes when the topic of children's prisons came up... and then there's the brave "general" Arafat who is brave when it comes to helping Palestinian families collect money from Saddam for homicide bombings but not so brave when it comes to telling Saddam that the $25,000 per "hit" would be better spent feeding Iraqi people...and Kofi Annan...well, he's still shuffling papers trying to figure out where all the UN 'food for oil" money went...were there suffering Iraqis? could have fooled Kofi...they should have been fat for all the oil Saddam sold to the EU...and Putin, well he was busy selling night goggles and missiles to Saddam right up to the US invasion, no time to worry about Iraqis...and Chretien...suffering? eh? vell, if Totalfinaelf had been given the chance to implement its oil contracts with Saddam, there would have been food for all, so it's Bush's fault for not letting UN inspectors inspect longer...and the mullahs, well it's hard to think of suffering when your belly is full and you're living in a cozy suite in London or NY or Ottawa. I rest my case. The USA, especially President George Bush,who was willing to risk all, to save the world from state supported terrorism in Iraq and inflicted on innocents by Al Qaeda nutbars are to be congratulated, not denigrated, by those who have no courage to do what George Bush and his allies did.

KrustyKidd, I agree with you completely. I am very disheartened about Ottawa's decision to allow sharia law to be recognized in Canada....period...whether it's for a fender bender or for a divorce, it's outrageous that the LPOC is pandering so transparently to the Muslim voters and in so doing is uprooting the traditions of Canada. This is the sad consequence of multi-culturalism in your face combined with tyranny of the minority. No sooner do gays, representing a humongeous 3% of the population, turn an ages old tradition of marriage upside down, saying it's a "right" they can no longer bear to be "denied" and then we hear that another 3% group[Muslims] say they can no longer be denied the practice of sharia law. What's next? What about about "minorities", the "downtrodden", and "disenfranchised" [i say that facetiously]start thinking like "Canadians"for a change? Not only is sharia law an insult to Canadians, but has it occured to the bright lights in Ottawa that some of the Muslims who have immigrated to Canada have done so TO ESCAPE Muslim law? And Boydfish, as optimistic as you may be by saying: ...I think we'll discover that civil justices will just rubber stamp the sharia arbitrator's ruling. Read this and you'll see how much Muslim lawyers respect the : First steps to Sharia law in Canada Nov.23/03.

1. The BBC and the CBC suffer from the same problems a)zero accountability for bias-how do you fire a Crown corp? b)zero repercussions when they're caught in their manipulation of the news[when was the last time you read a re-traction or apology from Neil McDonald or Andrew Gilligan?] c) zero competition-the CRTC protects CBC from competition and until recently the BBC was also protected in a similar fashion...but Tony Blair has new plans for BBC and it ain't pretty-it's called Ofcam and BBC is fighting to be kept separate from this new regulatory body...developing story... d) mucho in-breeding[he/she who warms the seat the longest gets promoted - as a result, these mediocre quota hires at CBC/BBC start believing they are good!]-what happened to merit hiring? do we need people with UN sounding last names to write the news? do they have better clarity of vision? will Quebec separate if there aren't 20% French Canadians in CBC news dept? The CBC hired the largest AMERICAN PR firm to help them with damage control re: all the complaints they have received about their anti-Israel and anti-American bias. The CBC does not believe it is wrong or that it has to change it's ways. The CBC just believes it should re-package it's offensive message. This bloated corporation of otherwise unemployable artsy fartsy civil servants has an operating budget of $937 Million and they think they are really suffering because their budget has been trimmed from its former $1.07 Billion. Media report about the CBC and BBC. 2. The Guardian is a long standing pillar of left wing media in the UK. But it's become steadily more offensive in its rabid anti-Isreal and anti-American reporting. A popular columnist at the Guardian just announced her resignation in a painfully honest column a couple of weeks ago. She lets out the dirty secret about the Guardian's anti-Semitism and racist view of America. It's an interesting read, not that it will change the Guardian's posturing, because that mindset is too entrenched in the organization. Julie Burchill reveals the Guardian's dirty secrets, Nov.29/03 3. If anyone wants to read an excellent book about bias in the media, I highly recommend Coloring the News by Wm. McGowan. He has a website to get a flavour for his book. Here's a couple of url's to his speeches. McGowan used to work for the BBC as well as American media. Interview with MgGowan re: damage done by PC Journalism McGowan's Remarks to the Pacific Research Institute

SirRiff, The "world opinion" that the US went against to invade Iraq were the same countries that were profiting from Saddam staying in power. Don't you read? I wasn't bringing in other countries "to share" culpability with the USA. Rather, I was showing you documented statistics that from 1973 to 2002, Russia, France, and China were the big players with Saddam, not the USA. Don't you read? As for your half-baked theories about invisible"receipts from the stinger missles"and imaginery"white house credit card statements" and disappearing"cocktail napkins showing the sept 1973 coup in chile was assisted by teh CIA" and non-existent "invoices from the chemical weapons precursors sold to iraq by american companies"...everyone's time is wasted plowing through all that unsubstantiated drivel. Unfortunately, it's become increasingly obvious that your anti-American opinions have no rational basis.

SirRiff said: Pay attention and you might learn some facts to displace your myths: Source: "The fiction of the peaceniks is overdue for pulping" by MICHAEL GOVE APRIL 08, 2003 TIMES OF LONDON ONLINE Read it and weep, "genious." From 1973 to 2002 the biggest suppliers of weapons to Saddam were your UN heroes - Russia, France, and China - the ones who were supposedly turning a blind eye to the USA selling weapons to Saddam.

I agree with you, righturnonred, when you said: Here's a recent article about the recent abyssmal UN peacekeeping efforts written by a retired U.S. Army major, who has performed medical relief services in Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia. Without the USA and a selected number of US allies, the UN is unable to do the basics of what it supposed to do. U.N. troop fntasies, Dec.07/03, Washington Times The reason I believe that political leaders in Canada may have taken an anti-Israel/anti-semitic posture is simple -warm bodies-VOTES. The Muslim population is now larger than that of the Jewish population in Canada and because the birth rate of Muslim families is much greater the discrepancy in numbers will continue to grow in the future. As well, Muslim nations seem to be a major source of new immigrants for Canada. However, maybe more Canadians are cluing in to anti-semitic attitudes in Canada. To whit CBC has hired an expensive Madison Avenue P.R. firm to help it with image problems due to so many complaints about its anti-Israel news casts. Maybe the LPOC should hire the same PR firm as CBC. As a Canadian I felt badly for the latest anti-Israel posturing of Ottawa. A subsequent semi-apology to Israel came across like an after thought. Ottawa to rebuke Israel's Ambassador, Dec.07/03 Graham softens stance on comments by Israel's ambassador Dec.08/03

In addition to the interview with Lt Col al-Dabbagh in Baghdad,who was the source for the UK report on Saddam's WMD, here's another interesting discovery in Baghdad about Saddam's missile deal with N. Korea. Looks like the chicks are coming home to rest: Saddam's missile deal with N. Korea, Dec.02/03 The ScotsmanUmmm...I don't recall that CBC covered this in the news, eh?

Galahad, I don't think Harper is free of warts, but still I don't think Harper's imperfections are so many or so damning that prevent him from being the best man for the job. In fact, some of Harper's "warts" might make his party stronger platform wise and more appealing to Canadians from sea to sea. For example,while it's true Harper's a stickler for party member discipline, the CA MP's are less likely to make position flip flops. Harper also lets his MP's vote by conscience on important issues. And while Harper is less a standard bearer for Christian values and in fact, has tried to distance himself from Reform's core religious roots, Harper comes through in spades on non religious pro-family issues like traditional marriage which is dear to the vast majority of Canadians regardless of any religious affiliation. So what one person can see as authoritarian rule or compromise in values, others can see in another light. With regards to Preston Manning, I think Preston is a fine man and a dedicated public servant. However, I don't think Manning is the right person to lead this new re-unified conservative party. He's had his "time" and he will never be forgotten for his tireless work in establishing the Reform Party. But I would agree with Paul Wells, that Manning got side tracked with being concerned about minutia and irrelevant details or that's the image he conveyed to the voting public. Now I believe Manning would do better to influence party policy "behind the scenes" with the new leader than to actually lead the new united party. Paul Wells' blog Dec.07-Dec.12

Boydfish, 1. The former leader of the NDP , Ed Broadbent, seems to disagree with you re: property rights being protected by common law, ergo, there was no need to re-state property rights in the Charter. The NDP consciously and successfully fought the idea of entrenchment of property rights in the Charter for another reason. Here's the sick socialist agenda as elucidated by Broadbent: Ed Broadbent speaks at conference at McGill, 2001, about the socialist agenda 2. Now getting back to the discussion topic of how Sharia law would work within the framework of Cdn. codified laws and Charter rights, what say you, Boydfish? I'd be interested in hearing your opinion.

Craig, I agree with you that Harper is the best person for the job of leader. Goldie, Michael Wilson is too old - same vintage as Paul Martin actually - but Wilson is smart enough to know it, unlike re-tread geezer tire, Paul Martin. I suspect that Michael Wilson would support Stephen Harper anyways. They both have similar academic backgrounds, that emphasizes fiscal prudence. Here's a recent article from the Calgary Sun that serves to refresh everyone's memory about Michael Wilson's accomplishments: Wilson & Harper deserve credit for fiscal management &Clarity Act, NOT Chretien Nov.16/03 Calgary Sun. Goldie, if you still want to contact Wilson, you could probably get a hold of his email address through one of the following orgs. that Wilson is associated with: a)U of Toronto, Trinity College Alumni Affairs Office email: [email protected] Michael Wilson named Chancellor of Trinity College May/03. Michael Wilson is President and CEO of UBS Global Asset Management in Canada Michael Wilson's business to contact