Radsickle
-
Posts
798 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Radsickle
-
-
Nonsense, I'm not a pedant that cares much about the nomenclature of where they languish, so long as they do...the nick, gaol, the big house, the pen, the joint, the hole, prison, hell....
They all have their place...
Who's `they'?
-
I disagree. The National Post comments section is full of idiots too....the difference is, they aren't getting funded by the taxpayer...and they suck at journalism.
Wow, I'm surprised. The people who read the National Post can type?!
-
Correct. It means keeping convicted people in jail longer.
you confuse `jail' with `prison'.
Jail: A place of detention; a place where a person convicted or suspected of a crime is detained.
Prison: A place of long-term confinement for those convicted of serious crimes.
"The most notable difference is that prison inmates have been tried and convicted of crimes, while those in jail may be awaiting trial."
Omar Khadr has been rotting in an uncertain `jail' for more than 8 years.
-
Waiting time could count as served time, rather than double the time. It makes no sense to try to rush a trial just out of fear that someone who is guilty will have part of their sentence cut in half -- not because of remorse, or good behavior, or being ready to go back out in society -- but based on nothing other than a two-for-one law.
The private interests who are discovering a new incarceration market in Canada agree; best to spend taxpayer money on new jail$.
-
Public safety doesn't mean letting someone out before they've served all their time, either, and by cutting time off of their sentence based on nothing other than 'two for one,' that's exactly what you're doing. It also, as I've pointed out, could mean less evidence in a rush to go to trial, and could result in someone guilty being found not-guilty.
Could also work in reverse.
As I said, "speedy trial" isn't synonymous with "best possible" trial.
There has to be an incentive to move forward with prosecution, otherwise the prosecution can sit forever, building their case for years, objecting and deferring and re-scheduling; a sort of torture for the accused. The 2 for 1 meant that the longer they torture the accused in the legal limbo commonly known as `jail', the less punishment the prosecution could mete out upon conviction. It was a test of confidence meant to speed up cases that were certain and clear the backlog in the courts. Harper's just added to the congestion.
Wake up, this move has little to do with being `tough on crime'; It is to please the private corporations who are starting to run Canadian jail$.
Harper's a thug who doesn't mind torturing 15 year olds and needs the Supreme Court to tell him it's wrong.
-
That may be true but it is not in the interest of public safety
Public safety does not mean keeping more untried people in jail longer.
-
Also, seems to me that trying to rush a trial doesn't exactly promote having as accurate evidence as may otherwise be possible if more time were devoted to it. I'm not so sure "speedy" trials are always the best game plan.
Nah, best to drag it out for eight years, eh?
Heck, while we're at it, let's drag the accused through hell too.
-
I've tried to post on the CBC comments a few times and most of my comments never made it through, since they were somewhat right wingish. Of course my post about global warming did make it through, since I do agree that it is occurring, and that is in accord with the "leftist" position.
There is no doubt in my mind that the CBC comments are heavily censored.
That's a hell of an accusation. Let's test it. What was one of your comments? Maybe someone else with a CBC account can try to post it again? It'll have to be word for word though...
-
it goes with being the PM...who else is there to bash other the the government and it's leader, it would be a bit odd to bash the Liberals and NDP for government policy would it not?...
This is the truth of it.
The majority of taxpayers who disagree with the current government aren't going to spend their online efforts nitpicking the opposition or going to shady, less-well-known sites like MLW to voice their vitriol. I bet CBC's forum participants were just as hard on the Liberal government during those (sigh) better days...
-
Thankfully that nonsense has now ended.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/02/23/12992871-torsun.html
Great, now we'll have more and more Omar Khadrs sitting in legal limbo for longer amounts of time in Canada's jails too, awaiting `trial'. This is already an epidemic in Canada's jails.
Harper's removed an incentive to speedy justice; the two-for-one credit inspired the prosecution to make as short as possible the accused's waiting time.
Way to speed up the process, Stevie! Or did you just want to be able to keep more accused people behind bars without access to justice for longer periods of time?
-
From what I've read, all of the evidence against Khadr has not yet been disclosed or made public. Which would mean that even if all the evidence collected during interviews conducted with Canadian authorities present was excluded, it's doubtful the charges against him would be thrown out for lack of evidence. The Conservative government knows this and the diplomatic note was merely intended to appease the bleeding hearts. Khadr will get his day in court, but not in Canada. Where he serves his life sentence is another matter.
Oh good, an inside scoop! Please, tell us what else the conservative government "knows".
This bleeding heart is FAR from `appeased'. This bleeding heart, for one, is quite certain 99% of the `evidence' against Khadr has been fed to the media by now. I'll be very surprised if the American army tries to conjure up some forensic evidence gathered from an exploded sandcastle. Exactly what shred of damning proof against the child Omar Khadr do you think they have up their sleeve? Ballistic evidence? Fingerprints?
This Kangaroo Court will not stand the light of day. Omar will be brought back here and dealt with by fellow Canadians.
-
CBC Comments Section is Nothing but a Harper Bash Fest
this just in... "Canadian discovers right-wing tactic of exaggerated, reactionary headlines."
Nothing but a bash fest? Please. Are you trying to inspire pity for Harper?
Just like this forum, the right-wingers are free to post on CBC's public website if they want. What they'll discover when they do is an enlightened, politically-active audience that will freely challenge their posts in a non-biased, tax-payer-funded forum.
Opinions matter.
Game On.
-
"The federal government is asking the United States not to use evidence collected by Canadian agents in the prosecution of Omar Khadr after the Supreme Court ruled his Charter rights were trampled during repeated interrogations."
Only because the Supreme Court told him to say something, here's Harper's whimper of a human rights cry for Omar:
http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/article/766675--u-s-asked-to-ignore-khadr-reports
Luckily, this will probably be enough to scuttle Omar's Kangaroo Court and give him a chance in a real court.
-
Yes but only in Canada. Canadian law has no problem with Canadians in other jurisdictions.
Case in point as brought up in another threads, In Saudi Arabia, they are going to cut off a kids head over a school yard fight gone bad.
There is a reason why no one whining about Khadr cares about this Canadian miscreant...being a non terrorist who may have killed a non american.
BTW...the pewrson who the left seem unfamilair with is the only one in years who has probably been tortured....and had an unfair trial...
I'm familiar with that case too. This just in....
Canadian spared execution by Saudi, granted retrial
Oddly, it was one of Harper's thugs who "appealed for clemency and raised objections to the sentence with Saudi human rights authorities."
-
There are serious constitutional problems to subjecting any Canadian citizen to unfair trials and torture. That alone won't stop Harper though.
-
I just wonder what would have been Canada's reaction if the media came back an annouced he'd been killed on the battlefield that day...would we have even blinked an eye...would it even made the paper....would we be calling for an inquiry on the death....would we have looked into his family past and held them accountable....I don't think so....Omar would have been put in a shallow grave his mother crying vowing vengence....and that would have been it....
Good question. I suppose we wouldn't have noticed; the battle-winners usually write the history.
Thank goodness there was a soldier there that day who noticed Omar's age and ability to speak English. Thank goodness for free press too.
-
CBC Radio 1's 8:30am EST morning show, "The Current", will have a segment about the child, Omar Khadr, on Friday, January 29th, 2010.
-
Most Canadians could give a rats ass what happens to those people...
Aside from missing your apostrophe, did you realize you couldn't have mis-typed your cliche any worse?
Why are you trading in rat pelts anyway?
-
If one company ownes all the stores, it's a monopoly.
If one poster can't spell "Owns", their point is ignored.
-
When this issue was raised years ago during the Mike Harris era,I remember reading something about what happened in Alberta when liquor sales were privatized.This article basically stated that profits(taxes going to the gov't) went up,and the selection of booze to consumers was expanded.Sounds good to me.
I've been to Alberta, dude. The selection sucks and the prices are higher.
-
There is a war on last I checked. Yup...it's still on. Someone I knew even died in it today. She was killed by a roadside bomb. The same sort Omar is seen building. So go join your pal.
I politely waited till the recent, tragic casualties were brought back here but now, I must say, this is one of the reasons I'm disliking more and more Canadians lately; their willingness to use this war's deaths to stoke their own hateful biases, melodramatic emotions, divisive anger, and tears.
Sorry for your sorrow but...
`Go join my "Pal"'? This attempt to instill guilt in me over my opinion about the specific case of Omar Khadr during the mourning of some of Canada's best is devious, mischievous, deceitful and shameful -- a typical, discussion-ending tactic of Harper's immature thugs but I thought you were a better dog...
Name one positive thing the Khadr family contributes to this country?
I'll name three: Children, taxes, and an important learning experience for a young, imperfect country.
-
What a moronic opinion in the form of a equally moronic question. Surely you don't think her role is to ignore constitutional protocal and instead placate mouth breathing morons?
Now is the time for that Coalition, Iggy! It was `constitutional protocol' to suggest it to the GG before. IT STILL IS!
(Harper's breath smells VERY BAD)
-
The Khadrs are fifth column enemies of Canada that their supporters insist are just normal hockey loving citizens. If there was a war on, I'd have them arrested. Oh wait...
Could you explain `fifth column' for us normal people?
Nevermind: A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group, such as a nation, from within, to the aid of an external enemy.
Yes, we should be suspicious of them and externalize them and alienate them and...
Be afraid. Be very afraid! There's a war on! The enemy is everywhere!
woof woof
-
I didn't say it meant nothing; I said it didn't really tell me anything. Two very different things.
Usually, a sentence conveys meaning... `tells' the reader something. Why do you tell us Khadr was shooting at Americans even after reading the sentence "He was found unarmed"? What part of "bang bang" don't you get? Oh, he threw the gun away~! eh!? Still Guilty!?
You try to re-direct the conversation to something non-related, as far as a citizen's rights are concerned. Are you trying to Prorogue the thread and form a committee about current parenting practices in Canada? So Canadians don't start thinking about the monsters they're becoming?
Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian
in Moral & Ethical Issues
Posted · Edited by Radsickle
Sorry, the points you raise are typical clap-trap logic.
Firstly, who are you to second-guess a judge? "should be serving"?! It's up to the judge, not you, Stevie, or your pitchfork-wielding comrades.
Secondly, I would think an innocent person has access to compensation for those day$ spent in pre-trial. I would double their compensation if they're innocent, wouldn't you?