Peter F

True. Unions cannot force business' to remain in business. Whats scarey about it? SCC. Plourde vs WalMart Yes you think so. Unfortunatly even the majority decision of the SCC says the employer has no such right. From the decision linked above: " The question raised by this appeal is not whether employees have a remedy against an employer who closes a workplace for anti‑union motives (they do have such a remedy under ss. 12 to 14 of the Code)..."

Thats called "Risk" and is the cornerstone of the capitalist system.

First off, I agree with the substance of your posts (how to milk this with political spin aside), If Canada is taking reasonable measures to monitor the conditions of detainee conditions then that is fine. No one is required to be super-human. However...if the inspection/monitoring process determines that the Afghans are not fulfilling thier requirements towards the detainee's then what? Then nothing. We say tut-tut and please stop doing that and give them more money as if that absolves us of our responsibilities. Its a bullshit system. We are at war, or so I am told, and so we must actually assume our responsibilities as a party in an armed conflict. If the Afghans cannot meet our requirements of humanitary incarceration, Then we should have the balls to assume that responsibility ourselves. We should, assuming the accounts of abuse are true, create our own prison sytstem in afghanistan, manned with our own personell, and incarcerate those we feel worthy of it in our own system under our own rules and proceedures. Then, at least, we will be able to act when wrongs occur as opposed to the present process of pointing to someone else and saying "not our fault". The present system is the pussy answer to the problem.

Actually there has been no indication whatsoever about the locals reasons for possible strike action. To say they have no just reason to strike without that information is to say there never has been and never will be just reason to strike. I cannot agree with that. As for entitlement; they are entitled to try to improve their economic position - just like everybody else in this world.

...but they can only get what the market will bear. There is no such thing as a better paying job elsewhere. Where-ever they go they will be still only paid what the market will bear. So, through negotiations and possible strike action, they will soon find out what the market will bear and be paid accordingly. There is nothing wrong here.

Try this link: Canada.com

Additional to the above: Since he confessed to everything anyone could possibly think of - willingly and openly - in his CSRT hearing,CSRT Hearing it's an open and shut case in a federal court without the stigma of Kangaroo attached to the now inevitable guilty verdict. Of course Bush could have done the very same thing as Obama (move the trial from the commissions to the courts) but didn't. I am guessing that Bush et al were aiming to achieve some sort of legitimacy by having KSM tried in Guatanamo. I am guessing that Obama et al are hoping to avoid legitimacy attaching to the Guatanamo commissions...or maybe something else entirely different -" Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?" edit to add: Cheney knows! which would explain the recent kerfuffle from some about it being a bad idea to have the trial in a New York courtroom rather than in Guatanamo

KSM had a Combat Status Review tribunal CSRT Hearing. I assume he was declared a combatant as a result of the hearing since he was charged and up for trial at the Military Commissions in Guatanamo, Where the charge sheet says he is (along with others ):"persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unlawful enemy combatants"charges Then, charges were dropped and other charges laid in the Federal courts. That being so his status as a combatant, illegal combatant or not a combatant at all have no bearing.

I see. How frustrating it must be for you to see the US military punish troops for Murdering folks determined by thier own superiors to be non-detainable. However, it is a good thing that troops are punished for ignoring their own commanders and execute Iraqi's at will. Military law holds that murdering prisoners is not a noble act, but vile and dispicable. If the idea is to encourage terrorists to give up the fight then one must not kill those that do give up the fight. To execute prisoners is to inform the enemy that surrender offers no hope. Capture means death. Such an attitude is detrimental to the cause. To allow soldiers to execute whoever they feel deserves execution is to allow the soldiers to be terrorists themselves. You may consider that a grand idea, I don't and unfortunately for you the US Military disagree's with your position. Somehow you are going to have to learn to live with that - or not - as you will. Really? How many of the murdered married off thier daughters? Was that the reason the NCO's put a bullet in the prisoners skulls? Did any of the murdered prisoners kill thier sisters? Did any of the murdered prisoners want to establish a rigid islamic state across the land? Can you provide any link to back up any of your charges? The soldiers crime wasn't being compassionate or lacking compassion : The crime they were found guilty of is Murder. No, its Sanity.

Murder of prisoners is never the right thing.

That was bad. And this was noble: Not to mention ghettos gassing shooting and slavery. You truly are a blind man

So do voters actually...I vote - but not for libs or conservatives. Does that mean I don't deserve present government? or does it mean I do deserve the present government by not voting for them? And by not deserving the present government what changes? Zilch. Your statement is silly and nonsensical. We neither deserve nor not-deserve governments. People who don't vote don't particularly give a damn which group forms the government. Deserving has nothing to do with it.

I cuncur.

Lictor says: Society must eliminate or subjugate the unfit. And who are the unfit Lictor? The Dull? Panamanians? And who are the fit who will be doing the subjugating and eliminating?

This is the welcoming sign to Lictor's never-never land where a inexorable law of nature requires enforecment by mankind. Will there also be a department of Gravity?

The failure, if you must label it such, is the voters failure - not the NDP's. Here's the party platform; vote for it or not as you will. I see no failure there. The goal is to have thier policies put into effect. As government or pressure the governing party to do so. I think they have pulled it off quite nicely over the years. Thats the point. I see failure of the conservatives and liberals. Someday, if you're lucky, so will you. Or not - such is the democratic system.

No dispute there, kimmy. But that doesn't mean there is something wrong that needs fixin. There's lots of people who hold their nose and vote Liberal or hold their nose and vote conservative but very few hold their nose and vote NDP.

Thats not a failure of the NDP. It's not the NDP's fault if Liberal voters continue to vote Liberal. Those events would also, by your logic, imply that an explanation is necessary for why Liberals don't vote Conservative.

If us dippers want the NDP to form the government we must stop voting for the NDP. and if Liberals want to form the government they must stop voting Liberal ...doesn't apply to conservatives though. What a load of bunk

jbg: Were the 14 dead and dozens wounded in Anbar part and parcel of Barbarians of the Islamophere? Perhaps the victims were of another faith than the barbarians lifting them out of the Barbarian catagory and into 'civilization? If the victims were also barbarians of the Islamophere what makes them different from the murderers. Or is jbg claiming the victims are as barbaric as the murderers? I'm with Rue. jbg is a bigot.

Years ahead of the Taliban though...but not a threat like the Taliban or Iran!

not even

Oooh! Oh! Can I kow-tow to you? please? Oh please let me honour you as my Uber-philosipher. Get a grip Lictor. You are not superior to anyone on this earth.

They are 'shot right there'....unless taken prisoner. How would a soldier know the person to be executed is al queda? Do they wear a uniform? Carry ID cards? Have identifying tatoo's? Seiko digital watches?

Double standard indeed... Most of fascism's victims after all were mere communists. Were not most of the victims of Communism also mere communists?