canfan

You've posted so many sources but in your very 1st post you've proven that you don't read what you post. You claim that 90 kids died in the care of CAS but if you'd actually read your source you'd see it doesn't support your claim.

That's not an easterner talking. It sounds like someone from 100 or more years ago. Maybe I'll give you easterner from 100 or more years ago.

I just don't see how this could've been properly handled any other way. As you say many different groups wanted an answer and the DND wasn't providing 1 right away. There was some suspicious things about the injuries mostly that they were very similar between the 3 detainees. Combat was 1 explanation but because they were so similar intentional harm was also an option. The investigation cleared the air and found that nothing wrong happened. There will always be people against the armed forces but in this case it wasn't a completely unfounded investigation. How would you have handled it? Ignoring the questions would've undermined our forces here and in Afghanistan more than having an investigation.

No faith is involved the wiki quoted an article and quoted it wrong. It's an obvious error article says valid visa and the wiki says improper visa. There's no basis for the conclusion in the wiki. Just because the error suits your opinion of Rae doesn't make it true but it's interesting to see the lengths you'll go to try and support your opinions.

That's an interesting conclusion given that the wiki cites the MSM when alleging an improper visa. Here's what the cite says: Most articles on the subject from most sources agree it was a valid visa and this includes the Canadian government. The wiki made a mistake stop trying to defend it. Just admit it and move on. It's barely even relevant to the topic.

That's not inconclusive at all. If a government gives you a visa it's presumed to be proper. And if you're going to claim the visa wasn't proper then you should have something to back that up and the cited article doesn't do that. There's no evidence the visa wasn't proper. Sure Sri Lanka can change it's mind and not allow someone in but that's got nothing to do with the visa. You seem to put too much faith in wikipedia. You didn't write that bit of the article did you?

I'm sure bruising can be expected. From your post can we all assume that you've actually seen the evidence on physical injuries that led to this investigation?

A risk is only foolish if it's got a real chance of happening. We can't protect everyone from everything that might be a risk. If that was true we'd be demanding our government spend billions of dollars to protect us from the small chance that an asteroid will crash into Vancouver. We've got people who try to evaluate the chance of someone reoffending and for the faint hope clause that's a jury of Canadians. It's not a perfect system but does balance some of the competing interests. You may not like the system but the government is fulfilling its responsibility to its citizens in trying to deal with these risks. If you want to keep talking about the tendency of convicted felons then you'll want to look at the stats on the prisoners who get faint hope and then get parole. And those stats up until 2001 at least show that few have reoffended and most of those have not been violent offences that would harm citizens.

For someone who's so concerned about winning you've got a strange way of going about it. If our forces go about beating on the people of Afghanistan it'll make success there much harder than if we treat them with respect. This investigation shows the people that we're there to help them not to flex some military muscle. The Taliban would have a much easier time recruiting if the people saw us as invaders instead of protectors.

Was the boogeyman behind this? Maybe it was evil Elvis back from the dead. Let's give the conspiracy theory a rest. This person saw a record of evidence that might've suggested problems and reported it. Someone in the military obviously thought they were serious enough to warrant an investigation. And that investigation cleared our forces of any wrongdoing. That's the way it's supposed to work in a free and democratic country. If you're going to put on the tinfoil hat then you'll also want to make up crazy questions about what the military might be hiding and who really ran the investigation and what're their political interests.

I can see your frustration in your post but please remember that it's not all the people in Canada shouting for a lynching. There're always a few who'll act like that no matter what but for the most part Canadians appreciate the job our armed forces do. Most Canadians were proud of how the forces acted in the operation you talk about and mourned those who were victims of the friendly fire accident. Despite what some anti-war people say don't think that most Canadians want to string up their soldiers. But we do like to see allegations of improper conduct investigated. Some people will assume guilt but that is sadly no different than any other allegation made in this country today whether it be accused criminals accused politicians accused business leaders or accused soldiers. Please don't think of the investigation as a black mark I see it as the exact opposite. Our forces are good enough to do their jobs well and handle criticism in an appropriate way. And as I suspected our soldiers were cleared of wrongdoing.

How does this look bad on Rae? He's spoken out against the Tiger's terrorist tactics before while still supporting their legitimate concerns. He got permission to go to Sri Lanka from their government officials here in Canada. The Sri Lankan government has refused entry to all sorts of diplomats and government officials from around the world including a Conservative MP. Perhaps you should explain why this is a black mark on Rae.

Saying that the Tamils had legitimate concerns that should be addressed and criticising the terrorist actions of the Tigers counts as standing for nothing? That position is barely nuanced yet people jump up and down and claim he's tying himself in knots with it.

A good example of why wikipedia isn't always the best source. Rae did have a proper visa the article linked by wikipedia even says so.

This thread started out with a criticism that we investigated abuse allegations against our military. Wanting our military to treat prisoners according to our own laws doesn't mean demanding 0% civilian casualties in war or being cowards who couldn't possibly be related to the Canadians who fought in ww2. Investigations like this can only help the fight in Afghanistan by showing that we're committed to human rights and following laws not just talking about human rights and then doing whatever we want.

I'm sure you think that's an interesting read but it's got nothing to do with faint hope clause statistics. Those people are on parole for life. If they commit an offense federal or provincial then their parole is revoked and they go back to jail. The criticism in your website applies to people who've finished their sentences and then reoffend not to people like those under faint hope who never finish their sentences. The threat you're trying to prove doesn't exist. Another classic argument in these types of discussions and it's as misplaced as the last 1. Obviously there're some prisoners who shouldn't be given parole early or otherwise. People who support the faint hope clause aren't demanding that every prisoner be given an early parole hearing let alone early parole.

I doubt Canadians're going to support our army shelling hospitals anytime soon. I also doubt our armed forces are willing to shell hospitals.

That's a classic response in this thread but the reality is that of the 57 people who actually got early parole up to 2001 only 4 had their paroles revoked for reoffending 1 for robbery and 3 for drugs 2 of which were minor offences. The claim that innocent citizens are being extremely victimized by faint hope doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Faint hope is about sentencing not apprehending trying or convicting. Justice is about punishment, rehabilitation, protection of the public, interest of the victims the prisoner and the families of both, society's interest in locking people up and society's interest in having people contribute to society instead of waste away in a prison.

How we treat prisoners after they've been captured has little to do with adapting to guerrilla warfare.

That's exactly what happened they tested the accusation by holding an investigation. What's wrong with that?

Your views on justice make you assume there's a problem. Mine don't. Justice is about more than locking people up and throwing away the key.

We've probably moved on past this point but when I saw this article I wanted to share it so people could see that claims that defense lawyers and only defense lawyers are manipulating juries aren't accurate. The government has been breaking a few rules when it comes to juries lately. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/200...istrial010.html

About 63% of those granted early eligibility get parole 17% day and 46% full. I can accept that those granted early eligibility are likely to get out early. This shouldn't be surprising since a jury of their peers have examined their cases and think they're worthy of having that chance. That still leaves a lot of prisoners with early eligibility in prison though.

You're living in a fantasy world. There wouldn't be very few cases every prisoner just like today would want to show that they are these rare men. We'd need a system of determining who meets our criteria and who doesn't. Even assuming 1 man could do that entire job the justice minister has better things to do with his time than spend all day every day hearing parole applications. We've got a system that does all of this. You don't like where the criteria are because you want people locked up for longer but your solution is to replace the system with something almost identical but worse.

Sorry you said that Canadians don't trust the people who make these decisions. It turns out that the people who make these faint hope decisions are other Canadians. Complaining about the process while being ignorant about the process doesn't help your case but consider this a more accurate reproduction of what you said.