Peter F

The judge did not rule that Khadr was not tortured. The judge ruled that his confessions would be allowed to be entered as evidence since it was not shown that he was tortured. And a confession or two did not seem to be related to the events of torture claimed by the defence. Personally, I disagree, but nevertheless the judge has allowed the confessions into the evidence. That does not mean that the confessions are not the result of torture - they could very well be - but it was not convincingly shown to be such. So the tribunal gets to assess the evidence of the confessions and also the evidence that the defense will provide that they are a result of torture and/or abuse and/or fear of khadrs captors. The tribunal will get to assess the confessions in light of the evidence and make thier own decisions. I am quite sure that the ruling will be appealed at the end of the trial to the MC review board. Khadr has already said that he will not be partaking in his defence as he believes its a sham trial anyways. Thats why he never took the stand to describe the torture/abuse and be cross-examined on that issue.

Yes, unknown evidence isn't really evidence. Khadr refused to take the stand to establish the torturing through cross examination and such. Claims must be supported not just claimed. The ruling makes sense, I think. So now its up to the jury guys to decide if his confessions have meaning or not.

It appears that you're basking too. Getting a little crowded on the rock? No room for more baskers?

Jbg post #17: Wherever do you get the impression that there's a "private justice system"? What parent - no matter the cultural origin - has a right to inflict serious injury or death - on anyone? The example you provide has the mother was arrested and incarcerated. Now out on bail awaiting trial. Sorta like everyone else who assaults anyone, let alone family members, in this country. So do tell: What special priviledge was granted this woman? Where do you guys get this bizzaro idea that immigrants are gaining some sort of right to kill people?

How about it? Or plain ol' judicial process for granting bail? How's about that?

Yah. and if parrt of the reasoning whether over or under the surface is bribery then something is extremely wrong. or maybe, sexual favours! Yah then something is really wrong there too. Or maybe Blackmail! Oh man, there is somethingreally really wrong there thats for sure....etc etc and on and on.

When did he leave?

I think its a great poem. I happily fawn over it right here on MLW!

Revisionist my ass. They were transporting bombs out so they wouldn't use them right? And you're very welcome for the uranium I'm sure. Thats the major problem with this country. We are willing to do almost anything to get a pat on the head: Oh let us invade Dieppe! Oh let us defend Hong Kong! Oh Let us be your buddies! Pleeeease?

Save you "insult" strawman for someone who buys that shit.

You mean the transporting of Nukes to Iwo Jima was a mere empty threat? Canadians only died to keep Hong Kong British.

I don't know about that. Dropping nukes on civilians is one of the most disgusting atrocities of the war. Good thing the Emporer got real cause if he hadn't of stepped up to the plate there would have been quite a few more nuked towns for the japanese to feel like victims (shame on them!) over. There was going to be no invasion. For fear of Their brave soldiers lives. Instead there would be a continual rain of nukes for as long as it took for the Japanese to accept unconditional surrender. The Allies were quite willing to carry out some of the most disgusting atrocities of the war over and over and over again. And somehow this is considered Humane. A lesser Evil. Bunk.

IF Japan had not yet surrendered AND a russian invasion fleet was on its way.... There was no Russian Invasion Fleet. There is absolutely zero evidence - I say again: ZERO - evidence that the Russians were going to invade Japan! None! This Russian invasion of Japan crap is pure fantasy. And the supposition that America would actually let the russians invade is also dreamland. That the Americans are going to allow the stinkin commies have an effing inch of what was thier prize so that they wouldnt have to invade Japan. Do you have access to some secret documents I don't know about? Something from the files of the KGB regarding Russian invasion plans? I thought not. Oh yes. and the folks seeking peace back in Yedo would still consider twisted medical experiments and a destroyed - yes destroyed - army as a negotiating point? You wish! I was referring to the Russian Manchurian invasion and yes they did surrender to the Russians. Of course they'd put up a fight. Who says they wouldn't? They put up a fight against the ruski's too - innefectual, but they did die in droves. But, again, the point is moot. Since I am claiming no invasion was necessary.

Your facts are supposition: 1. After the Yalta conference the far east had already been divvied up. USSR gets Manchuria, Allies get the rest. Where you get the idea that Stalin is going to rush on to conquer Japan when the worlds greatest fleet has complete and utter control of the waves around Japan, beats the hell out of me. Regarding Stalin's perfidity with the Kuriles: He wasnt. Point 3 of the "Agreement Regarding Japan" Yalta Agreement specifically agrees that the Ruski's get the Kuriles. Yet, the Americans must have 'action this day' to forestall a Russian invasion and takeover of Japan? Absolute Bunk. The facts are that Russia was not going to invade Japan...for the simple and obvious reason that the Americans would not let them. No Nukes required to make that a reality. There was no way in hell for the Russians to invade Japan without American fleets letting them. Wasn't going to happen even if Stalin threw the agreement out the window. 2. a full-blown naval blockade was indeed enormously difficult and enormously expensive. And was indeed accomplishing the job. The Japanese were already seeking terms beyond 'no terms'. and their terms were falling away pretty goddam quick to. They supposed they had a negotiating point with the existance of the Manchurian army. But the Russians exposed that for the fantasy it was when they demolished it in quick time after declaring war. By the time the bombs fell the only sticking point the Japanese were trying to come to terms with was the sanctity of the Emporer. The Japanese were done like dinner and they knew it! Yes, a naval blockade alone would perhaps have required months before the Japanese accepted unconditional surrender. But the bombs were dropped; the Emporer acted and unconditional surrender accepted. I wonder what would have happened without the bombs being dropped and a conditional surrender offered: You get to keep the emporer? They gave them that condition anyways! I don't beleive it would have been months but mere days for surrender if that condition had been offered after the Russian invasion. 3. The main islands of Japan are not Iwo Jima. Iwo Jima is a little tiny place where an attacker has very few options and is almost completely exposed - all the time - dominated by one mountain. Thus the bloodiness of the campaign. The claim that the same would happen in Japan is to ignore the completely different geographic conditions. It became a talking point to justify the bombs but was not reality. The Ruski's cruised through Manchuria against the very same Japanese. Why were'nt they bogged down in inumerable bloody campaigns? Because they weren't fighting on Iwo Jima thats why. The point is moot anyways since no invasion was required. But the bombs were used. I think BC explained why very succintly. And in a war where 20 plus millions died a couple of hundred thousand is a drop in the bucket. WWII showed - again, as if we needed showing - that war is hell. Thats all from my armchair, as if you are pronouncing from somewhere on high!

ysee, Naomi, the killing of hundreds of thousands is easily justified and praised as a good thing.

Kumbaya Brother!

etc... Well, I can understand some guy whose loved ones have been killed by misplaced bombs, or being shot for driving too close to a military convoy, and being told by visiting generals "sorry bout that. Horrible mistake. But know that we are acting for the good of mankind - freedom for all and the education of little girls. Will $3000 US dollars satisfy your loss?". I can understand that guy taking up an axe and putting it in the generals head. Or telling the general where to shove his 3 grand his freedom and his education for girls. or taking the 3 grand and shaking the generals hand then aiding and abetting insugents/terrorists as much possible. I can understand those reactions.

People who would do the same in their circumstance 'understand'. Anyone who would not surrender to vengeance would act differently. Could we say we understand them too? I understand folks seeking vengeance. I also understand people not seeking vengeance. Both are understandable. I suspect that our meanings of "understanding" is different. Thus my not understanding what you are asking.

Its called Vengeance. Its irrational but emotionaly appealing to those who have suffered great loss due to anothers actions. Vengeance rarely recognizes 'innocent civilians'. Blood needs be drawn - any blood will do. See WWII or I or the Boxer rebellion or the Boer war or ... It what keeps us going when the going gets rough!

ummm...executive order 11,490 was revoked in 1988. See executive order 12656

When it comes to armed conflict the UN has never been effective. It was designed that way. Otherwise have a League of Nations which was pretty inneffective too. Such multi-national organizations can never be effective in regards to conflict. The UN has never stopped anyone from intervening anywhere. Blaming the UN is a red herring. No resolutions by UNSC is necessary for intervention. See USofA vs Iraq. or Afghanistan. or France, Belgium, Uganda vs Rwanda or India vs Pakistan 1970 or South Africa vs Angola or Russia vs Afghanistan or Russia vs Hungary or USofA vs Grenada or Argentina vs Great Britain or China vs Vietnam etc etc and on and on. Nations are not intervening for the simple reason they don't want to.

Yet, without that veto, and other veto's, there wouldn't be a UN to intervene. There are such things as Big pictures and lemonade.

Huh? The boss seeks employees who are fluent in English and Mandarin so's the future employee can speak with the other employees? And thats the fault of the immigration system? Ignoring the rediculous assertion of why the employer seeks employees who speak Mandarin and English, Could it possibly be the fault of the employer to seek such bilingual people and not the fault of immigration policy?

The shot was probably the noon-day cannon going off at the citadel. There's another at 9:30pm. God I love Quebec!

Heres the Socialist CBC report on another gang of ne-er do wells