g_bambino

No. But, one isn't necessary.

Harper's time could be over if the majority of MPs put their confidence behind another person. An election and change of governing party isn't necessary, as happened when Martin became PM. The changes you're talking about seem more related to party than to person. Of course, Chretien--who'd been PM for 10 years--was gone before the Liberals lost their ability to govern in 2006. [ed.: +]

Mostly. But, like other monuments and sculptures, they were also propaganda tools. Some temple walls are carved to depict the pharaoh (colossally out of scale with the other warriors) winning a battle he actually didn't. They say history is written by the victor. Not in ancient Egypt, it seems.

Meh.

Oh. But, they aren't former Liberal senators; they're still affiliated with the Liberal Party. They just aren't part of the Liberal caucus anymore.

I was taught that, in grade 7. It isn't a phenomenon of the present day only. You should check out some reliefs on the walls of Egyptian temples some day.

What former senators?

From the wording I quoted, the convention obviously doesn't apply only to nations. Further, Common Article 3 outlines how the convention applies to non-international conflicts, including between government and rebel militia or even between two or more rebel militias. I don't believe a non-state militia can be signatory to the Geneva Conventions; yet, they appear to still be subject to its clauses. Apparently, the conventions can have "universal jurisdiction" via the UN Security Council.

Not impossible, but very expensive. A cost no politician would want to be responsible for. The original, 19th century part, yes. I walked past it a couple of times during construction.

No, she's not; the convention clearly says "parties to the conflict"; that covers any group involved in a conflict, whether a state army or rebel militia or terrorist organisation.

Indeed. Or renovated the jail.

It very clearly states "parties to the conflict", not the convention. Other than the above, your assertion that Khadr had no free choice.

That doesn't contradict what I said, it aligns with it; though the above speaks of national armed forces, which the Geneva Convention does not; it refers to the broader parties to a conflict. The matter of whether Khadr was a child or an adult is thus irrelevant. All that's pertinent is that he was over the age of 15 when he went to Afghanistan and became immersed in al-Qaeda there. Red herring. I said he chose to go to Afghanistan, contrary to your claim he wasn't able to make free choices.

The first isn't relevant and the second is untrue. Per the Geneva Convention, Khadr was, at 15, of an age when it was permissible for a party in a conflict to recruit him. He chose to go to Afghanistan; he appealed to his father to let him do it, against his mother's wishes.

Senators are no more controlled by the PMO when in the governing party's caucus than when out of it. Senators don't have to follow the prime minister's diktat; a number of Conservative senators have proven that to be true. Harper's "puppets" in the Senate voluntarily made themselves such, as much as any present Liberal senator can be Trudeau's puppet. Perhaps. But, he acted in the exact manner he criticises Harper for. It's the United Kingdom and the government there appoints lords. [ed.: fix quote]

It had the facilities of a 19th century prison and overcrowded to boot.

While it's probable nobody was regularly whipped at the Don Jail, the conditions were worse than simply the absence of high-end televisions and post-secondary education. I'm not saying it's necessarily right that someone held in such a prison should be deemed to have served twice or three times the amount of time they actually spent there; but, I see the rationale.

They recognise the rights set out in earlier laws.

Are you classifying acts of parliament as influence or direction by the dogma of a political party temporarily in charge of the government?

I thought the prison where the person had been detained factored into the decision. The Don Jail, for instance, was regarded a horrendous place and judges gave people who'd been held there while awaiting and through trial double or triple credit.

I know you didn't say it; I did, as illustration of just how far back his personal choices went. In early 2002, when he was 15, he was, in fact, still in his family's care, living with his mother in Waziristan. He hated the situation and asked his father to let him go to Afghanistan. His father accepted, against the mother's protestations, and off Omar went and in Afghanistan he stayed, in the fold of al-Qaeda, until he was captured.

He actually chose--asked--to go to Afghanistan in early 2002.

The charter does grant the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Given that wording, what constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment is left to interpretation. Whatever interpretation becomes most commonly employed by courts becomes the convention. That is, until cabinet or parliament create a law stating otherwise.

I don't see how your comment negates the trendiness of the cause; perhaps widen your view to take in more than just the activists. In the main-stream media, the cause is simplified (perhaps to fall in line with the current and common, generally simplified, bipolar view of human sexuality); the rights involved are those of more people than just those who self-identify as gay. As I feared would be the consequence of my earlier post, we seem to be getting off topic.

I don't think you read all of my post.