Peter F

No, not a lot like that at all.

Unfortunatly that would be against the norms of fundemental justice: No lawyer present; coerced testimony.

'Dear John' letters have been around since extensive public literacy. This is not a 21st century phenomenon, nor even a 20th century one.

The simplicity is its brilliance, Grace Jones a movie clip...but in effect a Music Video. Things one actually gets me choked up... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNFwQmZvnuw

Don't forget me! I'd hate to be left out of your enemies list...

You should know, you're the instructor.

Yes, I do admit to a limited supply of sympathy. and, yes, many dead I have never known or are even aware that they are dead; they are indeed 'abstract'. Just like everything beyond my personal experience is 'abstract'. Are you suggesting that my emotional reactions are faked? Based on no reality? My wants and desires may be meaningless to you, certainly, no dispute there. But the idea that that meaninglessness makes it faked and/or without foundation and/or legitimacy is bullshit - particularly coming from the abstract concept of 'BC2004' who has shown some concern about personal wealth gained from abstract concepts. Does the abstraction make things less real? Much that is abstract and unknown has great effect. My Monitor for example. It is on my desk because of innumurable dead abstract people. I will continue to be concerned about dead civilians. True, not that much, since the monitor still sits on my desk. Dream on. Hell, I'll accept any timeline you think appropriate. Really? How so? oh yes, the terrorism justification. There are no civilians. All are at war. All killing is just. There is logic to it too. But if thats true then there is no point to labels such as terrorist/civilian/soldier

Optimism, I think. Perhaps wishfull thinking. Mixed in with some actual sympathy for those whose near & dear get killed by idiotic action. Those things along with other boring emotional reactions to others undergoing needless pain and suffering. Limited timeline? What are you talking about? I expected an end to terrorism within 20 minutes as opposed to 10+ years with the 'collateral damage is acceptable' scenario we see cranking out its day-by-day progress. Perhaps you mean I am foolish to expect a timeline? Perhaps you are right. Perhaps 'as long as it takes' would be sufficient. That is to say; Method A - kill terrorists and civilians until terrorism eradicated (as long as it takes) Method B - kill terrorists but not civilians until terrorism eradicated (as long as it takes) Method B appeals to me. I agree that that is very likely true. But it wasn't my point. My point was that killing civilians does not eradicate terrorism.

Hmmm. Good point. I really did have the expectation that the madness would stop. Foolish of me, now that you mention it. Since not-killing civilians will have no effect, we may as well keep killing civilians. A Truth Commission is a great idea!

Indeed. What leads you to that conclusion? First off, you assume killing terrorists stops the madness. You accept that killing civilians in the process is ok as long as you get the terrorists too. Im sure you would say that civilians killed getting terrorists is a regrettable yet necessary evil. The USofA amongst others, has been killing terrorists for at least eight years now, and they have been killing quite a few civilians in the process. Yet the madness continues. You, and many others, seem to believe that killing civilians has no effect on the surviving civilians. Do you not think its possible that the relatives of dead collateral damage will perhaps, maybe, develop a resentment against western do-gooders in F-16's? Particularly in a tribal society? Everytime a civilian is killed - accidently or as part of an acceptable level of collateral damage - killing a terrorist, basically renders the killing of the terrorist moot. In fact, I think the west would be better off leaving the terrorist alive rather than risk dead civilians in the process of getting him. There will be another opportunity. The above applies to the terrorist too. Every time they kill civilians they burn thier own bridges in exactly the same manner. Seems to me, all this killin over the last 7-8 years hasnt really changed the terrorist threat level any. Lord knows how many 'High-level' al-queda or taliban guys have been smoked by raids and predator drones. Yet the madness continues.

I don't think he's advocating sending HMCS Canuck down into Lake Michigan to pop a few rounds into Chicago, or have CSIS attempt to destabilize the US government. Demanding things is easy - getting them is the difficult part.

You are absolutely correct. There is the sentence. AI does indeed believe Shalit should be treated by his captors as a POW. I clearly am wrong. My apologies for f*cking that up. Absolutely. no dispute. Shalit was abducted and should not be accorded the status of prisoner of war. And shalit should not be treated as such because if he was then that legitimizes the abduction. I take it you mean that should Shalits captors do as AI suggest they do, and actually treat Shalit as a POW that that would be a bad thing. For Shalits captors to start behaving in a civilized manner - at least in regards to treatment of prisoners - is a step in the right direction is it not? If the captors did do as AI says they should, then yes I expect they would gain legitimacy. They'd still have the mountain of illigitimate acts to climb (such as kidnapping for one) but nevertheless they would gain legitimacy. And why not? It seems that you would prefer AI to say that Shalids captors definately not treat Shalid as a POW but as the hostage he is. Now what would that involve? to be treated like a hostage? Regular beatings? Lack of food and water? Mock executions? Torture? You would rather have AI suggest that Shalid definately not be treated as a POW, than risk who-ever his captors are gaining legitimacy. Guess who takes that risk: not you nor I nor Hamas nor Isreal nor Amnesty International. Shalid gets to carry the can for that. What you suggest, for AI to meet your requirments of an objective neutral NGO, is to engage in what you criticize them as engaging in. They must have the motive of depriving Hamas of legitimacy. Even to the hostages detriment. Amnesty International is a neutral NGO. Shalid is a soldier of the State of Isreal. Isreal is in armed conflict - militarily - with somebody, I think. The folks who hold Shalid certainly consider themselves in an armed conflict with Isreal. Shalid should be treated as a POW even if it does legitimizes the kidnappers. But that won't happen. Shalids idiotic kidnappers will continue to hold a death threat over Shalids head in order to apply pressure to Isreal. They are fools. Its too bad they don't do things to gain legitimacy. Treating soldiers as POWS would be a good start. Hamas is some sort of legitimate political entity. They were elected to govern last I heard. That makes them legitimate. You are asking AI to be political. They cannot and should not be political. Much like the International Red Cross. Statements of Isreal good, Hamas bad, will not do any detained person held by anybody any good. Wont do Shalid any goddamn good or any of those held by Isreal and also used as pawns in reaction to Shalids treatment. As for Khadr. He is not a prisoner of war. According to the US government he is an Illegal combatant not a legal combatant. A legal combatant is entitled to be treated according to the GC's regulations regarding Prisoners of War. Khadr has most definately been denied Prisoner of War status by the USofA. Otherwise, Sgt Spear would be a combat casualty and not a victim of 'murder in violation of the laws of war'. So why doesn't AI ask that Khadr be treated as a POW? Like Shalid should be treated? Because Khadr should have been treated as a child soldier and not as an adult soldier. Khadr was 15 at the time of his capture. Shalid was not. According to the AI the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child UNCHR should have applied. See particularly articles 37 and 40. If AI had have insisted the US treat Khadr as a POW they would have had to throw the CRC out the window, in that they would be requiring a state to treat a 15 year old as an adult. To do so would be detrimental to children elsewhere who are detained and do Khadr absolutely no good whatsoever. So, I know what you see, but I see it different. To ask that Shalid be treated as the POW that he is,is a good thing. To ask that Khadr be treated as the child he was is also a good thing. But the USofA never ratified the UNCRC so were not bound by it. But that does not mean that AI are bound by US actions/inactions. They do what they percieve to be best for the detained. How else would you have it?

Good for you. Act. Do not let the abusers get away with the abuse.

The SCC certainly didn't use torture as a reason that Khadr's rights were infringed. But they certainly do see sleep deprivation as abusive. And both torture and abuse are against the norms of fundemental justice.

not to mention certain conditions of incarceration not available to mercenaries and other criminals. Sure. But does that mean hostages should be treated with humanity? AI seems to suggest so and the article certainly leaves me the impression that AI thinks Shalid's captors are not treating him humanely. I see no anti-western or anti-Israeli bias here - though I certainly do see a left-wing bleeding heart one. Oh! I see! AI shouldn't criticize the Israeli powers-that-be for using thier prisoners as a pawn in a tit-for-tat game with Palestinian-armed-groups who are criticized by AI for treating thier hostages in a lousy manner. *Ching!* No Sale

Did you actually read the same article Canadien posted the link for? its here: Canadien Link to AI article Where does it AI say or suggest that Shalit is a legitimate POW? I don't see a suggestion that Shalit is not being treated as a legitimate POW. Nor do I see any suggestion that he is. Where do you get this POW stuff from?. He should, of course, be treated as one - IE allowed visits from the IRC and some communication with his family on a regular basis. Actually, as a POW or not, those things should be allowed anyways. You do see the criticism of palestinian armed groups for not allowing those things don't you? Shalit shouldn't be treated like a POW? As I said, I see no suggestion that AI is a POW or not a POW. That appears to be something you've cooked up entirely on your own. I can't see how you could have gathered that 'suggestion' from the article. Perhaps it was the mention of the IRC that threw it into POW territory for you. Ok. and what has that got to do with being a POW or not being a POW? So what if they are unlawful combatants and terrorists and break all conventions of war - every single one? Is that to say that Amnesty International is wrong to suggestthat a prisoner held by the so-called armed groups should be treated with a modicum of humanity? Or do you suggest that AI should not be telling unlawful combatants/terrorists how they should treat thier prisoners? So Khadr is a legitimate POW but Shalit is not? And AI is persuing some agenda by saying that both should be treated in exactly the same manner? There is no difference in description. Shalit isn't described as a POW nor are the Israeli prisoners described as POW's - that is something you are making up entirely on your own. And you appear to be doing so in order to create (yes - create) evidence that Amnesty International is has some sort of Political Agenda - Well, not some sort, but some very particular sort of agenda; Anti-Israeli, Anti-American, Pro-Terrorist Agenda. No, I do not think such. Do I need to in order to understand that AI is criticizing Shalids keepers for not allowing the IRC access to him or allowing some communication from him? Is that not a legitimate criticism? Are you suggesting that AI should not be shoving thier bleeding-heart noses into how Palestinian Armed Groups treat thier prisoners? They are on equal footing. BOTH palestinian armed groups and the Israeli government are using prisoners as bargaining chips. Now maybe one group is the good guys and one that bad guys, but in this case, as pointed out by AI, Both are behaving pretty much the same way in regards to thier prisoner/s: Poorly.

Well who knows where it will all end up. I suspect it may very well end up like the case of US vs. Mohhamed Jawad. Jawad was arrested in Kabul in 2002 for throwing a grenade at passing Americans seriously injuring them. He was arrested on the scene by Afghan police and confessed to the crime. Then he was turned over to the Americans and confessed again. Eventually he ended up in Guatanamo. Thats was the public story. Open and Shut, really. 'cept it turned out not to be. His confessions were tossed by the MC judge as being the result of torture. There were also supposed to be witnesses but the prosecution couldn't figure out who the witnesses were. Eventually all charges dropped. and Jawad sent back to Afghanistan in 2009. As for Khadr, things will not be a straitforward as folks think they will be. I suspect any confessions Khadr made will also be tossed. But unlike the Jawad case, the case against Khadr isn't based on confessions and phantom witnesses. If the case ever goes to an MC jury (lots of talk but no action yet) I'm sure they will find him guilty of something - but not "murder in violation of the laws of war" since it will have to be shown beyond reasonable doubt that Khadr threw the grenade. Providing aid and support to Al Queda maybe...just like Bin Laden's driver. I think that guy got sentenced to 10 years for that. Counting time served he's out in two if I remember correctly. Khadr will, I am sure, end up pretty much the same. In 2013 or 2014 'headlines will read, Khadr set free, landmark lawsuit settled for millions.' Such is the cost of government ignoring rights.

Yes, a good point. The violation of Khadr's rights, according to the document you linked and also according to the SCC and FCC decisions, were not based on torture of Khadr. Torture doesnt enter into the courts decisions.

I'll be happy to start a new thread on whether the Americans are treating gitmo detainee's justly or not. That is not the point of this thread or the point of the FrootLoops exchange. After all the posts so far you still don't understand. The SCC decision was a mere declaration that the Canadian government (not the American government) infringed Khadrs Charter rights by questioning him in Gitmo in 2003/4. Its NOT about what the American Government has done ; Its about what Canadian Officials have done.

Absurd? Absolutely not. There's nothing absurd about the Charter of Rights no matter the setting. Post it again....maybe I'll believe it then.

Ya-ya, I get it. Charter rights have no meaning or practical effect for you. I understand that. Sorta like me and my Right to Bear Arms. I got the Charter right to deal with the Canadian government in either English or French (where reasonably available), my choice. You don't. Big whup. As for Froot Loops at gitmo - I don't really give a shit. But if i'm reading the froot loops box in Quebec City I'd better damn well see some french printing! But thats neither here nor there. You seem to be equating questioning minors about the very serious - even in America - charge of Murder without legal representation and/or advice, then further abusing them (if not torturing them) three ways from sunday over the next few years in order to get him to confess...you seem to be equating that to be as meaningless and mundane as whether French is on his froot loops box or not. You can do a helluvalot better than that. Ooooh. I feel so inadequate beside you. Please, sir, Can you give Canada the same history as the USofA? No? Well then, I guess we'll have to make do

They don't care about the official languages act in foreign jurisdictions. But the documentation of the Khadr interviews is available in English with a French translation sure as cows crap in Kansas. And if Khadr had have been a fracophone there would have been a francophone CSIS guy down there asking him questions in French. Hell, even the Americans have interpreters running alongside every MI op or sitting in on every detainee interview. So save the Official Languages Act for something relevant. Yah, it sure does. As long as 'such action' and 'remedies' are within their jurisdiction and not without. Sorta like the SCC.

Thank you for the correction. What the USofA did/does is really of only background interest to the SCC. No one on the face of the earth can compel the USofA to adhere to foreign (to Americans) fundemental norms of justice. Khadr's keepers can beat him daily with a stick, if they so desire, and there ain't snot anyone in Canada can do about it. But the question before the court wasn't wether the Americans were adhereing to norms of fundemental justice, but when Canadian functionaries in other lands don't adhere to such norms what then? I undertand and acknowledge your recognition of international agreements. But again, to clarify, This isn't a question of whether Americans were behaving badly or not. They behave however they wish and are not subject to the CCRF. They have their own courts and laws to worry about. The point is when a foreign power does behave badly does the CCRF apply to Canadian government flunkies? Are they to partake in bad behaviour simply because they are not in Canada anymore? Can such flunkies partake in torture? Can they profit from the detainee's lack of CCRF rights? Should they take incriminating statements from the detained and provide them to the badly behaving party? The Supreme court didn't step beyond their jurisdiction. There were no orders to the American government or any Americans at all to do something or stop doing something. BC's point is that Canada is a paltry powerless place and the USofA is not and can act with impunity. Yes it does make sense. Sleep Deprivation - as carried out at Gitmo - is torture. Even the US Military Commissions have determined that. (see the Military commissions case of Mohammad Jawad). If the CSIS guys didn't know that they should have. and Americans have no need for CSIS guys to come in and interview detainees. That was a mere courtesy, nothing more. Do you think the FBI and CIA couldn't crack him in years where CSIS could in a day? The alternative is to not turn them over to Afhan brutes. The Canadian Forces do have MP's. We set up our own compounds. That makes the best of a difficult decision. And it is well within our power to do.

Ha! Of course he was in a position to demand stuff. But he spoke english and CSIS requirements under the Official Languages Act were met. as for CC177 instrumentation labelling: Irrelevant since he was hooded and shackled well out of sight of the cabin at the time he was in the American equivalent. This is news to you? Even the USSC cannot compel the government to act when they deem such action to be beyond the powers of the court....but both courts do their best.

As for questioning and documentation in official languages; If khadr had have demanded a francophone interogator I'm sure CSIS would be required to provide one - and rightly so. And I'm willing to bet the documentation is available in French for whoever is cleared to read it. "only in Canada y'say? Pity." All sorts of Charter provisions must be applied by Canadian functionaries acting as proxies to foreign powers. Thats the whole point of the thread. The legal mechanism is appeals to Canadian Courts, obviously. Of course they did. The only remedy possible: "This Court declares that through the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of interrogations in 2003-2004, as established on the evidence before us, Canada actively participated in a process contrary to Canada’s international human rights obligations and contributed to Mr. Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. Costs are awarded to Mr. Khadr."