Higgly

Good idea. Why not call it the 'Bigot Forum'? Or the 'Chicken Little Forum'? We could vote on 'Cluck of the Week'....

I tend to trust the BBC. Human Rights Watch, less so. If the BBC quotes HRW without quibble, then I assume the BBC is accepting what HRW is saying.

B. Max, why don't you regale us once more with your thoughts on Ghandi?

Churchill would have had him in the stockade as a deserter. The guy was AWOL for much of his service was he not?

Not according to the BBC article in the link above.

It took a week after Israel started using cluster bombs for Hezbollah to respond in kind. Interesting that they came from China. Haven't heard a peep out of Condy about that have we?

Certainly if I were George Bush or Ehud Olmert I might think so. I'm hoping for another minority government. The guy's too much of a crackpot to be trusted with absolute power.

B.Max, this statement truly shines a light on your 'understanding' of the world beyond our borders.

The guy is being deliberately obtuse. Look at the above quote. Altogether now, can anybody remember an example?

Not everybody is blind enough to miss the fact that we are backstopping the US folly in Iraq. We are in Afghanistan spilling blood and our citizens can't even expect decent treatment under US law when in their country, not to mention living up to NAFTA obligations. We are not a partner to the US, we are a sidekick.

I'm not the one quoting the poll. Your usual level of accuracy, I see. Apparently not old enough to have been making payments on a loan, nor to remember the stagnant economy, the Rae days (that was the public sector unions, was it not?).... I'm not surprised, Argus, that we would be able to look forward to another American-style campaign of attack ads from your kind. Another election filled with sleazy Tory spin doctors (sorry, Party Strategists), fear mongering .... And with ol' Lyin' Jim Flaherty in charge of the books, another pre-election cooked budget.

Yeah, I think he got those from John Deere. Nothing runs like a Deere!

In fact it was an option considered by Israel and Jordan. It was what the people living in the West Bank wanted. Jordan and Israel decided not go go that way because it was not in their best interests. The PLO got so upset they tried to overthrow the Kingdom of Jordan. But of course that was 50 years ago. These days, even George Bush has decided that the Palestinians should get their own state and self-determination. Do you not get good reception under that tinfoil hat? Maybe you haven't heard.

And of course we all care very much what you think jbg.

Well let's see. We'd probably have about a half million more living Iraqis. We wouldn't have organizations like Al Qaeda taking advantage of the chaos to set up shop in uncontrolled parts of Iraq. We wouldn't have civil war in Iraq. We'd have a couple of thousand more living young Americans. Afghanistan would probably be a lot farther along the road to civilisation. The US economy would be on a sounder footing and not be as deeply in debt with its debtors starting to look nervously at the Euro. America's credibility on the International stage would be a lot stronger. And Paul Wolfowitz would not be in charge of the World Bank. Did I leave anything out?

Damned if they do, damned if they don't, eh jbg?

So much for the separation of church and state. A Canadian church official who sounded off about Quebec independence would get their hat handed to them pretty quickly (I hope). I am surprised that an official of the Catholic Church in the UK would be under the impression they have the right to such an opinion.

B.Max, do you by any chance have formal training in any of the sciences?

That's part of it. The other part is that the voters have started to get a better look at Harper. He has been too obviously kissing up to George Bush, a man the majority of Canadians do not like. The softwood lumber deal was his chance to show Canada some balls. Instead we got fluffy bunny slippers. Numerous polls have shown that Canadians want neutrality on the Middle East. Harper is not neutral. Now he is starting to shake his finger at income trusts - an issue that got the Liberals in hot water. As for winning votes in Quebec, you can forget it. The Bloc has got it sewn up tight.

What the hell is with you and Syria? Who is talking about Syria? The thread is in the US/Canada forum. If it is such small potatoes why did Tony Blair ask for and get an exemption for Brits? Once again we have the George Bush fan club bending over so far backwards it's looking up its arse. It is ironic indeed to see a country that constantly harangues China over its human rights abuses turning itself into exactly the same sort of legal system. If Bush is so crazy about protecting US lives, let him do something about their gun laws. Get a clue.

I just re-read the thread and I screwed up. I said "..deny then habeas corpus during the trial...". Should have been "during incarceration....". My apologies for the confusion.

The history of this bill goes like this... The Gitmo prisoners were finally able to force a trial by going to the Supreme Court. This bill is deisnged specifically to avoid that happening again. The bill guarantees that the US government will be able to hold people indefinitely without trial, like they wanted to do to the Gitmo detainees. The whole purpose of the bill is to bypass the courts altogether. That is why there is so much protest. If you still don't get it, I would say you are being deliberately obtuse.

Here is the Wikipedia entry for habeas corpus... "In common law countries, habeas corpus, Latin for "you [should] have the body", is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action." In other words, it is a petition designed to force the government to give you a trial. If you cannot file such a petition, then you may very well be held indefinitely without trial. Now do you get the bloody point?

The problem of course is when you are held but you do not get a trial. Get the idea? And yes, damned straight. I do expect rights when I travel to the US. Bringing Syria into this is a specious argument and you know it. We are not talking about a Syrian law. You seem to do this a lot - refine everything down to what might happen in Syria. Yes the Candian government can bring in the war measures act. Watch what happens to them afterwards if it was not justified. Again, a specious argument.

The article says..."it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions ". So you deny them habeas corpus during the trial and deny them the right to appeal. Same diff. To quote more... “The President can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions,” ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said.