Sir Bandelot

"It's not what you know, it's what you can prove." - Denzel Washington I don't see this case as an indictment of the military. Obviously its an extremely rare circumstance. Any organization with thousands of people will have some who are sociopathic, and criminal. But it is certainly the kind of material that makes for big headlines.

You mean henceforth I am to be lumped in with the likes of you? Ugh. Moderators, ban me now

Oh, so obvious. They existed for a long time in America. Sure even in the 1950's they could have elected a black president, just that no one from the ghetto applied for the job... It's easy to criticize the difference for the sake of political correctness, while living in the security of white collar neighbourhoods.

I know what words he reportedly said. I know he used the word negro. Despite that, the implications of what he said was offensive to many people. I know what it is. While I may not drop the precious pearls you do, to me it matters not. I was glad to see Obama win the election, not because I believed he would bring any substantive change. I know the US agenda will continue, no matter who is the leader. I was glad because I thought black kids in America might get a boost from him, get inspired, see that there can be opportunities. I hope Obama does not spoil that opportunity for them. It's a tall order but certainly not the greatest of his challenges. I stand by my opinion, Obama is not different than Bush, other than he has a different style. He comes across as a friendly, happy, pleasant guy with more youthful enthusiasm. but at the end of the day, he'll be the one who signs the executive order to aprove torture of high value terrorists, approve the bombing of suspected al qaeda hideouts, order the launching of cruise missiles knowing there will be co-lateral damage. All that stuff. I have no doubt he has dne so already, as part of his regular job. -> Your clumsy reference would not be tolerated in any political context. But it's nice to know where you stand on such matters. Yeah... Guess I'll never make Senator

Not really. It was a JOKE, ok? Heck if your Harry Reid can use the N word, and he's a SENATOR... Just suggesting, someone could check and see if its a mask

Not incorrect, but you interpret what I wrote in a different way. For #1), I meant US soldiers prosecuted by international court, under the GC. I read somewhere that the US will not allow its soldiers to be prosecuted, by anyone else. Assume they mean, the US will decide for itself what for and when a US soldier should be prosecuted, and they will do the prosecuting. From your link- "Green was arrested as a civilian, and convicted by a civilian court, the U.S. District Court in Paducah, Kentucky. The other four, all active-duty soldiers, were convicted through courts-martial." So they were tried by the US. It's all good and well, as long as the US agrees there was a violation. No one else can tell them what to do. For #2), I meant not that the US should bring its prisoners before international courts, but that they use the rules of the GC where and when they see fit, against their enemies but not against their own citizens when it's disadvantagous to do so. "The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures." http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/us-un-and-international-law-8-24/us-opposition-to-the-icc-8-29.html "The opposition of the United States to the International Criminal Court appears as either a puzzle or an embarrassment to many of the nation's traditional supporters. A puzzle, because it is not at all obvious why the United States should feel so threatened by this new court. Supporters of the Court point out that there are ample provisions in the Rome Statute designed to protect a mature democracy's capacity to engage in legal self-regulation and self-policing. To raise the specter of an irresponsible prosecutor before the ICC, or of other nations manipulating the Court's jurisdiction for anti-American political purposes, is to create a straw man. An embarrassment, because the United States appears to be exempting itself from rules of the game that it believes should apply to others." http://www.crimesofwar.org/icc_magazine/icc-kahn.html I have a memory, I remember.

But there is no one else to turn to. If the US or its allies decide that they need not abide by the GC, based on some lawyers advice they will go ahead and just do that. And no international court is going to tell them nothing. They have made it quite clear that US soldiers will be exempt from any such prosecutions. Not, evidently true for US prisoners of war. The double standard is clear, everyone who has eyes can see that, but not a damned thing can be done about it. It's an example of might makes right.

I think she should stick to the important political issues that make sense for her country. Her problem is that, if left unscripted whe collapses into non-sensical jibberish, that is self defeating. Her greatest enemy is not the media, but her own self. She gives them all the sound=bites they need to have a field day, and thats what sells papers. Eg. to say, Obama should attack Iran because it will help him win the next election. those are the things she typically says and comes across as a clue-less air head who would only be useful as a mouthpeice for some other real leader, were she ever to become president.

Bush baby, Obama baby, different day same smell. One wonders how the GOP would have dealt with the economic dilemma any differently, as they essentially ignored the problem for as long as possible. What alternate solutions would they offer, that the great conciliator would not listen to? I don't miss Bush baby, we still have him with us in a sense... only now a more comical version. This one in black face... "We thought that the incoming Obama administration signaled a new day with respect to these cases, a new respect for civil liberties, an abhorrence of torture, a respect for the time-honoured legal procedures and protections that are mandated by the Constitution and enforced by the federal courts," he said. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Khadr+faces+military+tribunal/2222022/story.html Well, "we" were certainly wrong about that.

Go to war, to score political points at home. That's about the depth of her understanding.

I have never quite understood how the definition of war crime applies to Omar Khadr, because he killed a US soldier in a war zone. A person is in a war zone, soldiers will kill them if they can see them. The fight is on and they end up killing a US soldier. Is the war crime definition based solely on the fact that Khadr was not an official Afghani soldier, and because he's not wearing a uniform? If that's the case, aren't all the detainees also war criminals by that definition?

Although the original poster did break the forum rules, I think he had good intentions to engage a useful political discussion. He broke the rules and as a new member he should have been warned and asked to modify rhe thread accordingly, or have it deleted. I think sometimes the admins are a little heavy-handed, they should ask what the intentions of the post are and allow the OP to explain, then determine whether it's good for mapleleafweb or not. I don't know if that was done in this case, but if so, good, fine job. I think the quality and intent of some posts here, by existing members is poor and questionable as to whether it makes a good thread. Before posting, one should ask WHY the post is necessary. A post that is just a trolling antagonistic thread of no real value beyond raising the ire of other members is, in my view not good for the forum. I think the majority come here to talk about things of importance to Canada, in news and politics but there are a few who seem to get off on taunting and ridicule. If we must delete anything at all, I would like to see some of those posts deleted, and these other type of posts allowed even if they might be cross posting. Better yet, just leave it alone and let us get on with it.

So happy that the world is a shithole, thanks largely to the actions and inactions of these people. ha, ha, ha,

Not to derail your thread, but at the present time I do not vote, because I feel it's a waste of time. I despise the corruption. I try to be an honest person in everything I do and will not sign my name in support of the conceited liars.

I guess this means you're either an expert in neuroscience, or a legal expert. Which is it?

Yeah ok, maybe I will make a trip to China and negotiate some business deals. It is me and everyoe else like me that can only do one thing, vote. And that may seem fine to you but remember I can only vote for what is presented to me. Exactly, hence the reason I and others like me can do little about the mess we are in. Do I detect a note of sarcasm here? Not if might makes right.

WE? How many people voted for, or even just supported the idea of outsourcing and importing almost every product we now buy. I don't believe that "We" ever did. I think "they" (the politicians over which "We" have this "modicum" you claim) were bought out by big business interests who are far more powerful than the displaced ordinary citizens. Money moves around the globe for a reason, because it benefits somebody but not us. But the fools who are in charge don't have a long term view, that would require someone who truly cares about the future of the country and its citizens. When someone wants to make a fast buck, they just grab the cash and run, tomorrow be damned. Well tomorrow does come, and will come. When the most stable safe currency will be the Yen.

Simple answer: Might makes Right. But explain more your premise that the strength of the US dollar stems from confidence in the people. Do you mean the debt-strapped, over-mortgaged, unemployed, newly homeless who have outsourced their childrens futures to India and China? You think maybe they all have a stockpile of gold in the basement, or what.

"On average, 85 Canadian men will die of prostate cancer every week." http://www.cancer.ca/canada-wide/about%20cancer/cancer%20statistics/stats%20at%20a%20glance/prostate%20cancer.aspx?sc_lang=en Yeah I guess these guys all won the lottery. Only if you will call yourself M. Asshat

LOL Yes indeed, and we thank you...

Anyone for scrabble? http://word-games.pogo.com/games/scrabble?sl=2

Exactly. Jack on his death bed, on election night. Imagine the votes he would get, if he dies. Anyway I will let you carry on, MDancer. To all those who don't like you, they should note- there is no need to attack you directly, whatsoever.

Well that is certainly always going to be a part of the problem. The point of the thread though is not the obvious thing about Haiti, it's about the rip-off from those who collected big money in the guise of charity for Haiti. First we have the collosal media hype, now virtual silence. Not much attention given to what still appers to be a problem. If I gave aid to Haiti, and the money never got used towards that, I want my money back please. Twenty-three days after the earthquake jolted Haiti and killed over 200,000 people, as many as a million people have still not received any international food assistance. On February 4, the UN World Food Program reported they had given at least some food, mostly 55 pound bags of rice, to over a million people. The UN acknowledges that it still needs to reach another one million people. The 55 pounds of rice are expected to provide a two week food ration for a family. Beans and cooking oil are scheduled to come later. Slowly, criticisms of the Aid effort have come out even as the morality play around the orphans rivets public attention. England’s respected medical Journal The Lancet carried a blistering attack on the delivery of aid indicting “the aid industry.” The Daily Mail reported: “The Haiti earthquake relief operation faced scathing new criticism yesterday after aid organizations and U.S. forces (and celebrities - SB) were accused of being involved in a 'vanity parade' to show solidarity with victims. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17440 That's the shame.

One can also make the case, the world wouldn't be WITH people like Saddam, if we didn't have people like Tony Bliar. ie all the political intrigue and manipulations, propping up of dictators when advantagous, all that sort of jazz. But I don't want to go far into that, the pissing match would just go on for pages. See my view is, there's the ruthless manipulators who inevitably rise to positions of "leadership", if I could call it that. Then there's the people who just want to live ordinary lives...

And yet, I don't recall that Saddam was actively making any threats at the time. Not beyond the typical sabre rattling that all of them seem to make. I don't think they truly believed he was an imminent threat, that wasn't the real reason. That's just the empty lie they told us. But who really knows In my view they have no regrets, not because they believe their own public stated BS on this but as they often like to say nowadays, "the world is a better place without Saddam..." Yes it is. The world would be a better place without the likes of all of them, including people like Tony Bliar