ReeferMadness

Really? I thought that what made this case unique was that the employer, upon hearing her complaint, held her hostage at gunpoint, destroyed critical pieces of evidence and tried to force a criminal matter through a secret administrative process that it controlled.

Again with the Ayn Rand. Your statement is premised on the idea that all economic wealth flows from individuals and that the government is acting illegitimately when it pursues policies of wealth redistribution. This is a cornerstone of economic libertarianism. Why don't we test this theory? You move out to a deserted island and have no contact with anyone for 20 years. Build your own house, grow your own food, cut your own hair, be your own doctor. If your standard of living goes up, I'll admit that there is some merit to what you say. I'm guessing that it will go down, maybe all the way to zero (ie you don't survive). In fact, we owe our wealth to a whole bunch of factors including the abundance of raw materials on earth, thousands of years worth of knowledge acquired by our ancestors, a stable society in which to grow and work, a cooperative economy that allows each of us to focus on the things we do best/enjoy most and the efforts of individuals. So, individual effort is only one factor in the production of wealth. Since society as a whole is essential to our level of wealth, it is legitimate that society as a whole have some say in how that wealth is allocated. I could write a lot more on the topic but let's just say that in my view, economic libertarianism has much more basis in faith than logic. Nonsense. If I tell you that you can borrow my car anytime you like, does that mean you can move into my house? There are limits to what laws governments can pass. This is why we have constitutions and why it's very difficult to change them. I haven't seen a riot by anyone yet but there is already lots of police activity. You know, it's funny that often the same people who demand minimal government intervention economically also support a huge military and security apparatus. Government is inherently neither good nor bad, it's what the government does that makes it so. If we did away with government altogether, we'd have wealthy individuals with private armies. Would that be better? I don't think so. The solution is a healthy democracy where people get involved and educated about what's going on. Again. We elect a government to take actions. Those actions are supposed to be restricted by the constitution. Even those actions that are not restricted are subject to criticism. That's called representative democracy. Cry if you need to - it can be a healthy release.

Ultimately, to the extent that democracy actually functions, the people decide what is in the best interest of society. I don't think that our democracy functions as well as it should but that's another discussion. I take your point that determining what is in the best interest of society is a subjective exercise. Still, I'd rather have that discussion than, as you seem to wish, minimize government or eliminate it altogether. It is legitimate for the government to decide that the Olympics are in our best interests. It's also legitimate for people to disagree with that decision and for those people to be able to express their disagreement. It's not legitimate for the government to run roughshod over the rights of the people who disagree by passing laws which contravene the constitution. Certainly, you must be able to tell the difference.

If we in Canada need to spend a billion dollars on top of our normal police & military costs, then I propose cancelling the Olympics altogether. The Olympics have become a publicly funded gift to hospitality business owners, security firms and property developers. The "legacy" consists mainly of elite level sporting facilities that the vast majority of people will never get a chance to use. And, of course, the debt. Even the Auditor General can't figure out how much the games will cost. Not only is free speech being sacrificed, but other freedoms and protections from authority are apparently dispensable as well. The City of Vancouver seems to be so afraid of protest that they are going to make it illegal to So, you can't bring a motorized vehicle on to city land? Aren't streets city land? You can be arrested for carrying a metal water bottle or any "object useable as a weapon"? A pencil is useable as a weapon! The province is also preparing to round up the homeless and put them into shelters or jail. The billion-dollar security force is being accused of harrassing opponents of the Olympics with police showing up at their residences or work, questioning casual acquaintances and following people. Chris Shaw The reaction has to be proportionate to the threat. In some cases, it's the police who create the problem by abusing their authority when dealing with peaceful protestors. Look into what happened at APEC in 1997. A little research on the web shows that there is a similar pattern wherever the Olympics are held. Suppress free speech, temporarily remove the homeless, crack down on protest, all in the name of "security". "Big government" is a phrase that only has meaning to people who hold certain ideologies (mostly followers of Ayn Rand). I support government doing things in the best interests of society. In this case, the government is employing unconstitutional methods to promote business interests. Everyone should oppose that. You're right - it does sound like you're defending the actions of the government.

Grandstanding?? WTF??? Have you read anything that's been written about this case? This woman was drugged, gang-raped and assaulted by her co-workers. Her injuries required reconstructive surgery. The company's response was to lock her up and threaten to fire her if she didn't "get over it". Her father had to ask a congressman to intervene and the State Department rescued her from her own employer. The army doctor who examined her handed the evidence over to KBR who then "lost" it. The State Department eventually recovered the rape kit but somehow, cirtical pieces (photographs and the doctors notes) were "missing". It's going to be interesting to see what legal contortions KBR uses to try to deny liability. Since Jones went public, other women are starting to come forward with allegations that they too were victimized by assault and sexual harrassment. But if you're looking to spread the blame, you're in luck. You could start with the Bush administration for effectively creating a lawless society in Iraq. US citizens are exempt from prosecution by the Iraq government, yet there appears to have been no provision for Department of Justice involvement. Apparently, the State Department investigated this case but they have no authority to lay charges. And where, exactly are the so-called Department of Justice on this case? According to Congressman Poe and others, they have jurisdiction but haven't bothered to investigate.

The entire thread is dancing around the issue. No corporation or individuals should be shielded from legal action resulting from this type of serious criminal offense under any circumstances. It sounds like Franken is trying an end-run to bring some sort of accountability to organizations that seem to be above it. But this is a criminal issue and should be dealt with, first and foremost, criminally. First, KBR itself should be up on criminal charges. A corporation is legally a person and like any other person can be charged. Based on what I've read, the corporation could be charged with a whole list of offences including kidnapping, obstruction of justice, and accessory to rape after the fact. Second, criminal charges should be laid against all employees involved. They can start with the guards who illegally held Jones against her will. "I was just following orders" won't shield a civilian employee from criminal prosecution. The prospect of facing serious jail time might convince the guards to bargain by testifying against higher-ups who gave the orders or against the rape perpetrators themselves.. You say they have immunity? Well, I'm not a lawyer but Congressman Ted Poe disagrees. Link This whole case stinks. It seems the US never has a problem twisting international law to justify attacking and invading another country. But it won't apply its own law to protect its own citizens.

Aren't we smug today. Be careful what you wish for.

Are you getting angry? Good!! Now imagine what it would be like for some country halfway around the world to decide to drop a cruise missile in your neighborhood. Think that might make you even more upset? I don't recall using the term war monger and the spy plane incident is irrelevant. You posted your own link that contains a list nearly identical to the web page I linked so let's just agree that your country has used military force against other countries a lot since WWII. Also, neither of the lists include non-military interventions such as supported coups, interference in elections, political assassinations/assassination attempts, and other not-so-covert operations. I do contend that the United States has led the world in aggression against other countries in the post WWII period. If you think that's not right, name another country that you think has done more. And if your government feels that destructions in other countries is warranted because it's bringing democracy to those countries, it should be be prepared to have those claims evaluated in court. There are an awful lot of cynics out there (like me) who look at the pattern of actions and come to the conclusion that the aggression has a lot more to do with you forcing your ideological and economic interests than it does to do with democracy. Of course there are times when intervention is warranted. And perhaps some of the interventions on that list would meet the test. But there need to be rules and ways to enforce those rules. Your country is 1 of only 2 OECD states that refuses to sign on to the Rome Statute (the other being that great defender of human rights, Turkey). If your government is so sure there is nothing wrong with its actions, why hasn't it signed on?

You've said a bunch of things on the topic, including this: The definition of lifestyle is "way of life". At any rate, what part of your culture do you think they hate? Admittedly, most of what Hollywood pumps out is unadulterated crap but I don't think it would drive anyone to murder.

Actually, the list is incomplete. It ended in 2002 and so is missing Iraq and now Pakistan. But you go ahead and ignore the list and focus on the pictures instead.

First, there have been a lot of questions regarding whether the so-called smoking gun tape is real. Assuming it is real, a confession isn't proof of anything. When someone confesses to a crime, conscientious police officers will question the confessor for collaborating evidence, such as the possession of knowledge that only the perpetrator could have. As far as "believing bin Laden", which statement would you like me to believe? His original statement to the world (shortly after 9/11) claimed he had nothing to do with it. The bottom line is that, AFAIK, he hasn't been proven guilty of anything. You are familiar with the concept "innocent until proven guilty"? Or is OK for that not to apply to people you don't like? Keep the tinfoil hat - you seem to need it more than me.

Oh, there was a "strategy" involved in Rwanda? There are times when international force is warranted. Like, say, to stop a genocide. According to General Dallaire, four thousand troops would have stopped the Rwandan genocide in its tracks. But nobody had a national interest in Rwanda and it was ignored. But there have to be rules around when to intervene militarily. There needs to be international consensus and commitment. The force that goes in needs to be perceived as being neutral and there for the benefit of the local people. There need to be clear goals. As much as possible, the troops involved should be from a similar culture as the local population. I don't know enough about Somalia to comment. The best cure is prevention. If the major powers stopped messing with other countries to promote their "national interests", there would be fewer problems to begin with. Afghanistan has been an international chew toy for much of the last two centuries. First there was the British, then the Soviets and Americans, now NATO. Reagan was only too happy to provide funding and arms to radical Islamists and warlords when he could use them against the Soviets. And that isn't the first time the US has supported people at one point only to demonize and attack them later (ie Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein).

Why don't you stop dancing around and tossing insults? Just tell me what other post-WWII country you think has done more invading or attacking other countries. Here's a helpful list of countries you've bombed.. If you'd like, I could find a much, much longer list that covers events like participating the overthrow of democratically elected governments (e.g. Iran and Chile). Actually, we have plans to get out of Afghanistan. So, you you stop. Oh, OK. So you don't really care whether your soldiers are out chasing the wrong guy, possibly in the wrong country. They're killing people, occupying a foreign country and destroying people's homes but that's "not relevant". And why is it not relevant? Well, because, according to you, nobody is goint to retaliate because you destroyed their homeland, killed their parents, humiliated their country or left them with no future. If they attack, it's obviously because "they hate you for your lifestyle". Does that pretty much sum up the delusion you enjoy living under? Hollywood has made tons of cheezy films where early in the picture, the hero's mother/sweetheart/sibling/favorite goat is killed in front of the hero's teary eyes. Anyone who has a higher IQ than an eggplant knows that the film is going to end with the hero extracting revenge. And audiences get it! They don't walk out of the movie theatre saying "So do you think Conan cut off their heads because he hated their lifestyles?" Compare that with real life. A bunch of guys sacrifice their own lives in an attack. The guys come from an area of the world rich in oil where your country has been threatening, attacking and otherwise interfering with the affairs of countries for decades. Your president, widely considered a bit of an imbecile, says "They hate us for our freedom". And people take him seriously. It would never work in fiction because people would think it's too stupid. But apparently there are enough narcissists out there that it works in real life. So, if you want to prevent another 9/11, stop. If you do, all of the rest of the countries who send soldiers to support you will stop also. And that includes us.

Oh, please. Anyone who uncritically accepts whatever the White House says is either mentally feeble, a true believer or just not paying attention. Skepticism is healthy.

No, no, no. You don't get off that easily. What I said is that the US leads the world in terms of attacks and other aggressive actions on other countries. And I'm talking modern history, ie post WWII. Sure, it's possible the Ghengis Khan and the Mongols were worse but that isn't really relevant, is it? In that case what you're saying is irrelevant. You and bush_cheney should form a support group. Call it CJABAWA (Canada's just as bad as we are). The facts remain. Canada doesn't run around unilaterally bombing or invading other countries. We don't have the equivalent of the CIA, running around destabilizing regimes who politics we don't like. If Canada stops doing bad things, it will make very little difference to anyone else. If the US stops, it will make a great deal of difference. So, just stop. Then why bring it up at all? Oh. So your country went to war chasing a guy based on weak or perhaps even phony evidence and you don't think that's relevant? Maybe they're in the wrong country. Would that be relevant?

Actually I did read it and I think what you're saying is bullshit. There is no mention of minority or majority parliament. If Harper can pull a "The dog ate my homework" excuse and ask the GG to call an election in a minority parliament; nowhere is it stated he can't do the same thing in a majority parliament. From the reading I've done on the web, it seems like nobody can tell what the hell this legislation means. Some claim that it establishes a maximum duration of 4 years but I doubt it even does that. Only the GG can call an election and she is explicitly (and constitutionally) exempt from the legislation. The Conservatives wrote and passed a useless piece of legislation. Either they didn't understand it and they're idiots or they did and they're liars. Here's what Tom Lukiwski said about the bill when it was passed: Seems pretty cut and dried. unless the combined opposition determines that it wants to have an election. Nothing about the PM. Quotes from conservatives on fixed election legislation. After Harper went back on his word, he changed his tune and claimed that his legislation allowed for certain election dates during a majority parliament which is likely what you're parroting now. There's nothing to back it up, though. They're liars but it's OK because they're Conservative liars, right?

I was wondering how long it would be until you showed up. I see you haven't lost the art of twisting the context of what was said. It's mildly amusing that the best you can do to rationalize your country's behaviour is say "well you're just as bad". I could point out some of Canada's moral victories such as the campaign to ban landmines, our stand on the international criminal court and our refusal to engage in the illegal (and immoral) war in Iraq. I could point out that our contribution to the US military is, in the big picture, trivial and immaterial. Really, though, none of this is relevant. The predominant characteristics of international politics are (and have been for most of history) greed, self-interest, aggression, and backroom dealing. But democratic governments also have to convince their own citizens and citizens of other countries that they are morally good and so lots of good things get done as well. But the good that is done is usually calculated carefully to get the best possible return in terms of geopolitical aims, goodwill or economic returns. And when it comes to conflicts over competing ideologies or similar geopolitical differences, governments are capable of breathtaking hypocrisy and cynicism. It seems to me they get away with it due to varying degrees of apathy, self-interest, and xenophobia on the part of the citizenry. Often, the media seem to cooperate. A good example is the furore over Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Now, it's an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons - perhaps as many as 400. Yet Israel's western allies (Canada, US & others) won't even acknowledge this fact, much less challenge them on it. And the media (with their "left wing bias"), rarely if ever bring it up. All governments engage in this cynical, hypocritical behaviour, particularly in international politics, to varying degrees. The question of moral superiority is academic and largely irrelevant. So why do I focus on the US instead of just criticizing my own government? The first answer is simple. Canada isn't a big enough player to make much difference. If tomorrow, Canada stopped participating US-led attacks on third world countries, it make very little difference. The US invaded Iraq in spite of Canada's refusal to participate. The second is that Canada does not typically engage in some of the most egregious behaviour. Canada doesn't go off and invade countries on its own. Canada doesn't typically have secret agents undermining governments or 'advisors' training and otherwise assisting brutal dictators. For the most part, Canada sends in its military only when there is a solid consensus of the international community (ie the UN). As much as I have serious reservations about the UN, it is far better than having individual countries deciding on their own to 'save' some third world country by bombing it to bits. People need to wake up and smell the coffee. Bombing and shooting up third world countries may be satisfying to some and provide 'war porn' for others; but it isn't making us safer. On the contrary, it will ultimately make the world a more dangerous place. Again with the statement out of context. I wasn't proposing anything; I was only illustrating that Canada has very limited ability to influence behaviour.

ah yes. 1$ - 1 vote. Truly democratic.

Have engaged. Are engaged. Will continue to be engaged. None of this started yesterday and it won't end tomorrow. But the US is far and away the worst offender. Bar none. The first part is a cop-out. The US spends a grotesque amount of money on your military (calling it "defense" spending is truly Orwellian in nature). If you think that having a $600 billion dollar defense budget entitles you to attack twice as many countries as a $300 billion dollar defense budget, well, what can I say to that. WRT your comments on Canada, I think that's a little weak. I suppose theoretically Canada could take a strong moral stand and impose a blanket trade ban on you and everyone else who exercise a dirty foreign policy. I wonder how many days it would take for the hawks down there to come up with a pretext to invade us. No doubt it would be for our own good and you'd just be "bringing democracy" to Canada. You're worried bin Laden is going to "take you out"? Maybe the US needs to pump up its "defence" budget. Yes bid Laden is quite an enigma. Here's a guy who may or may not have kidney disease, may or may not have diabetes, may or may not have a heart condition, may or may not be dead. And he may or may not have been behind 9/11. Do you know that on the FBI's 10 most wanted list, he is wanted for embassy bombings, not 9/11? Why would that be? And how is it that a multi-trillion dollar military machine with eyes in the sky couldn't find one skinny Arab? In the aftermath of 9/11, the Afghan government offered to extradite bin Laden to a neutral country for a trial. Wouldn't it have been better for Bush to take him up on it? And the video of him bragging about it. Very convenient that it just happens to show up. More later.

Oh, my bad. So what you really mean is that the Conservatives crafted a meaningless piece of legislation and then lied when they said it would provide certainty on election dates. Much better. Thanks for the clarification. I still think Harper belongs in jail, though.

Yes, I was ignoring the benefits of capitalism in the same way that erecting a monument to the victims of communism ignored the good points of the communist societies. That was the point I was making. I can already hear the protests: but nothing good came out of communism. It was pure evil! In fact last year I worked with a guy who grew up in part of the former Yugoslavia who has very fond memories of life under communism. He said that people were content, everyone had a job, everyone had health care and there was a real sense of community. And while life fell far short of the utopian dream, there were positive things to be said about many of the communist regimes: more egalitarian societies free healthcare free education Soviets were first into space Soviet scientists were very advanced in many fields In fact, Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US. That's a very selective reading of history. For much of recorded history, there has been capitalism and the overwhelming majority of capitalists have been only too happy to allow their employees/slaves live in "grinding, hand to mouth poverty". Child labour, unsafe work conditions, 12 hour work days, 7 day work weeks, these are all characteristics of unregulated capitalism. It was in fact the influence of unions and socialists that resulted in government regulation that makes life under capitalism bearable. Public schooling, public water and sewage utilities, employment standards, safety standards - these are the things that create the environment under which a modern society can thrive. If we'd waited for capitalism to bring them, we'd still be waiting. Now you're just making stuff up. Most real scientific work is publicly funded - either through universities or government agencies. The capitalists come along after the science is mostly done and it's ready to be commercialized. Capitalism is good at commercializing science but that's a different matter. The bottom line here is that no system is all good or all bad.

Really? So, do you agree that Stephen Harper should be punished for breaking the fixed date election law when he called an election last year? Do you think it might be terrorism? The reason I ask is that a lot of us are truly terrified at the thought of Harper with his much-coveted majority government. I have to say, though, I'm happy you don't want to see him executed. That seems excessive. Maybe it would be fair if he was sent to jail for a bit. Under his rules, though. He has to earn all of his privileges and no early release. Ya know, I'm happy there is something we can finally agree on. It seems like I'm always disagreeing with you but I knew that deep down, you're a reasonable guy!

Oh. So do you think this is the first time the American military has bombed some third world country? This has never happened before? Do a little research. Read anything by Chomsky (who once said "If the rules of Nuremburg were applied, every post WWII president would have been hanged"). Roughly two dozen countries have been bombed and/or invaded since WWII. Worldwide, how many people do you suppose have had a family member, close relative or friend killed or maimed by American soldiers? And most of the rest of the third world have had their affairs interfered with in other ways (e.g. support for coups, support for dictators). That's particularly true in the middle east because of all the oil. And people tend to forget this but it was the middle east, not Afghanistan, where the bombers originated. In fairness, I should point out that all industrialized countries and major military powers have engaged in some of the same activities. But you guys are way in front of everyone else. Which is why you are target numero uno. No, I don't think you're getting it. Islam, like any religion or philosophy, is going to have a small number of fanatics. Normally, those fanatics are marginalized and can't do much. However, under harsh conditions like repression, war, famine or extreme poverty, these fanatics start to attract followers. (Incidentally, it was these fanatics that Reagan aided and abetted back when the great bogeyman was communism. Now, some of the same people are part of the new bogeyman, terrorism). By attacking countries, you're doing 2 things: helping create the conditions that turn people into fanatics giving these people reasons to hate you and giving their leaders a bogeyman of their own on which to blame all of their problems. So, your current actions in Iraq and our current actions in Afghanistan are helping to create the conditions for future 9/11's.

Oh, you're worried that this would attract too much of a crowd? No worries. Capitalism has the answer to everything. We'll sell tickets. That'll weed out the riffraff.

Terrorism (and by extension terrorist) has become a political pejorative. I would suggest that the main reason it is so widely used is that it has been so effective at instilling fear in the population. The word is almost interchangeable with the word 'communism' as used in previous generations. It's a rallying cry for all right-minded people to close ranks against the threat (real or perceived). Indeed, it could be argued that the rampant fear-mongering about terrorism constitutes a form of terrorism itself. ie. it's the usage of a threat to instill fear in people for political purposes. Admittedly there is a key difference in that they're using the threat of someone else doing something but the end goal is the same. If you look back in history, I would say there is a good case to be made that states themselves are by far the biggest users of threats and violence for political purposes. The main tools have been armies, security agencies and police forces - the very same actors that have spent the last decade demanding more money and authority to protect us from terrorism. So, when I see people sprinkle the word terrorist to describe everyone whose actions they don't like, I find it hard to take it seriously.