Gabriel

So the moderators never contribute? I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. Are they political geeks - i.e. degrees in political science or public administration, etc?

In a super general way, I am so damn thankful that I was born and raised in this country. For all of our healthcare system's flaws (and there are many!), I wouldn't have it any other way.

They didn't label him a dupe, neither did I not "deny" that such a label was used to describe Colvin. I've said this bout ten times, now, saying someone has been duped isn't the same as calling someone a dupe. You are frustratingly dishonest. And you still haven't provided any evidence to support your assertion that the government engaged in character assassination with respect to Colvin. Go bother someone else.

Well Canada is a signatory to international treaties that govern the laws of war. Being part of a terrorist organization that intentionally attacks civilian targets and engages in illegal warfare (no uniforms, illegal weaponry such as IEDs, etc) certainly must be a breach of some the laws of war, making him a war criminal. That's some of how Khadr could be dealt with legally in a Canadian context. I'm no lawyer, though, so I'm not the best person to ask this question. As I've already said, I don't put much stock into the whole idea of "war crimes" in many ways. How can we expect our enemies to abide by the rules of war if it would result in their annihilation? Of course the Taliban and other terrorist organizations will no come out for a "fair fight" in a non-civilian combat zone with uniforms, declarations, etc. Their survival depends on them maintaining their terrorist tactics from the shadows, exploiting every opportunity they have of us abiding by the rules. It's understandable, in a way. It's just frustrating that adherence to dignity and rules is one-sides in these battles, with us following the rules and being chastised harshly by leftists at any breach of the rules, however insignificant (whether real or falsely perceived), while the enemy gets to operate with impunity with complete disregard for these rules. One more thing about criminal liability in the Canadian context, I imagine fighting for our enemy is a breach of something - isn't that called treason? Even if Khadr isn't a war criminal, he's certainly a bad person and guilty of other offenses.

The CGI was pretty cool, but I just don't care about CGI in a movie. Show me CGI in a video game, or something. CGI can't salvage an otherwise boring film. I don't really like extended scenes of action or violence in movies, either - it's a total yawnfest. Give me some plot, give me some story, give me twist, give me character development, give me interesting broad themes (no, not Syriana).

Those people aren't sophisticated film fans.

Perhaps that's why Khadr's team tried for so long to get him repatriated to Canada... and why some bleeding hearts want him back here, too.

Centralization/decentralization in Canada and the USA isn't really a subject I want to discuss, as it's obvious that Canada is more centralized (generally speaking). We can use generalities like the PM being more powerful than the President or other examples, but it's not something I want to talk about. Besides, this thread isn't really about that although I did touch on it in an earlier post. EDIT - Premiers being more powerful than Governors isn't a fact that supports the assertion that Canada is more decentralized. You need to ask the question - more powerful with respect to what? They're more powerful with respect to their provincial legislatures than their Americn Governor counterparts are with respect to their legislatures. It's not about power with respect to the central government, but about power with respect to their provincial/state legislatures.

The USA deporting Maher Arar to Syria isn't the same as the USA torturing him. Canada has apologized for its role in the Maher Arar scandal, already. The Harper government has issued an apology and worked on Arar's behalf to assist him with respect to American travel (to get him removed off the terrorist watch list, for example). Anyways, we're talking about Omar Khadr, here. Maher Arar is irrelevant. Please don't try to sidetrack this thread in an effort to build some sort of case alleging that the USA is a country that engages in torture. The USA has the strongest tradition of any country towards upholding civil liberties and freedoms. Spare us your broad diatribe and let's get back on topic, specifically, your assertion that Khadr was tortured (he wasn't).

All that does is confirm what I've already stated earlier regarding the specifics of the sleep deprivation Khadr was subjected to. You misleadingly suggested that Khadr wasn't permitted to sleep for weeks, then it became clear the was moved every three hours for three weeks to prevent him for getting more than three hours of uninterrupted sleep. His condition was never described by interrogators as bad. Again, I see no evidence of abuse or torture. Of course Amnesty International will view basic imprisonment as an infringement on human rights. They are not the authority on what does and does not constitute torture. You can agree with their definitions if you want to, and I will disagree with them. More interesting to me is what institutions with power think of this issue, not extreme leftist organizations like Amnesty International. Your very own link mirrors exactly what the link I provided says, that Khadr did not seem affected by the frequent-flyer program, was not yawning and was able to keep his attention on the interview. Hardly evidence of torture. I doubt you've actually read the document you linked me (thanks for linking it, though, it's very interesting). It's interesting to see how uncooperative and contentious Khadr has behaved, and how it is likely that he has been coached from other terrorists at Gitmo (and most likely his lawyers) on how to behave during interviews. It's interesting to read about how he defends his father and other such craziness.

Wyly again goes off on serious tangents that are way too broad in scope to be addressed in this thread. For example, race being entirely a social construct (which isn't true) is an entirely separate discussion. Wyly may have a point about persons of colour having a lower life expectancy due to the tendency that they tend to have poorer living conditions as they are overly represented in poverty statistics, and by extension are probably more likely to develop heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc. If the USA has a higher poverty rate than Canada (does it?) then this could perhaps explain the slight difference in life expectancy between Canada and the USA. Also pointed out is that impoverished Canadians still have access to healthcare, whereas in the USA their access is possibly more limited. Although those who are poorest qualify for Medicaid, right? This gives them increased access to healthcare over a medium-earner without benefits who earns more than is permitted to be eligible for healthcare. I'm thinking those who are stuck with the shortest end of the stick in the USA are not those at the bottom of earnings, but those in the lower middle, those who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid (or is it Medicare?) yet whose employment provides them little to no benefits with respect to healthcare.

When compared to the USA, we are more centralized. You're not going to dispute that, are you? I should have been more clear, I am aware that there is no national standard in Canada for paramedic licensing, but we'll see more uniformity among the various provinces with respect to educational standards (length of education, material covered, etc) than in the USA. Perhaps this is inevitable because of Canada smaller size, of course we have less provinces and less people than the USA has states and people. Either way, you'll see greater variation in standards for paramedics, and other medical professionals, in the USA between states than in Canada between our provinces. I think we've got a CMA list of "approved" school which train paramedics, as well, and I think this is recognized by most is not all of our provinces (and territories, of course) - allowing graduates from these programs to have easier mobility between provinces. Again, this mobility, generally speaking, is higher in Canada than in the USA. Simply put, we've got more uniformity here. Whether or not that's a good thing is another discussion altogether.

Here's a link to an application (or something else?) from Khadr's legal team to Justice O'Reilly. If you go to page six of the document, you'll find this quote of DFAIT official when describing Omar's conditions and his subjection to the "frequent flyer" sleep deprivation techniques: In an effort to make him more amenable and willing to talk, [blank] has placed Umar on the “frequent flyer program.” [F]or the three weeks before [the] visit, Umar has not been permitted more than three hours in any one location. At three hours intervals he is moved to another cell block, thus denying him uninterrupted sleep and a continued change of neighbours. He will soon be placed in isolation for up to three weeks and then he will be interviewed again. . . . Certainly Umar did not appear to have been affected by three weeks on the “frequent flyer” program. He did not yawn or indicate in any way that he was tired throughout the two hour interview. It seems likely that the natural resilience of a well-fed and healthy seventeen-year old are keeping him going. For accuracy's sake, it doesn't look like Khadr was never permitted to sleep for more than three hours at any given time. Rather, he was never permitted more than three hours of uninterrupted sleep. The more I look into this, the softer the treatment towards him becomes. There are other details in the linked document (I've only read a bit of it) indicating that Canada did make efforts that were in Khadr's best interests - such as seeking assurances that the USA not seek the death penalty and requests to remove him from Gitmo to a more "suitable" place for a person accused of committing a crime under the age of sixteen. I'm still looking for information regarding official Canadian policy or legal precedents with respect to defining torture, specifically with respect to sleep deprivation: how, if at all, may it be applied during interrogations? The only thing I've found so far is that at one time there was a document provided to Canadian diplomats regarding warnings for possible torture of prisoners, with the USA and Israel on the list as possible at-risk countries. The document was eventually made public via Amnesty International, and the Harper government apologized for this and removed the USA and Israel from the list, suggesting that at least our current government doesn't believe (rightly so, I might add) that the USA or Israel engage in torture.

I highly doubt Khadr was subjected to dleep deprivation to the degree that would be viewed as torture by reasonable people. I have sated plainly already that sleep deprivation can indeed constitute torture, but it also may NOT be torture.[]quote] You have also tried to trivialized the whole thing by joking that "not having 10 hours of sleep at night is not torture'> Three weeks of sleep deprivation, consisting of short repetitive periods so short that a person no longer knows where they are and don't even know if it's day or night, is a form of mental torture. And that's the process that, according to CSIS, was applied to Khadr before its interrogation. To quote a spokesperson for Amnesty International Australia: Why don't you just link us to the report so we can see it for ourselves? Also, Amnesty International is not the kind of group that I'd consult to identify what does and doesn't constitute torture. Reasonable people know that Amnesty International is entirely too sensitive in this regard. Their definition of torture isn't important to me. I'm trying to find information on what Canada defines as torture from official sources, at the moment.

Please link me to those reports. Also, the effect is certainly NOT the same. It is much harsher to not be permitted to sleep for six straight days than it is to only be allowed three hours of sleep at a time over several weeks. I do not consider what you described to constitute torture, but I'm just a guy. For what it's worth, the Obama administration has put a stop to several of the advanced interrogation techniques. Sleep deprivation, for example, can now not extend beyond a 4 hour uninterrupted sleep every 24-hour period. So the Obama administration partially agrees with you on this subject.

Before trying to broadly characterize the Harper government as thugs, why not try to prove a simple assertion you've made first? Prove that the government engaged in character assassination with respect to Colvin. I've already addressed how you're intentionally bending the words of MacKay with respect to him suggesting that Colvin was duped by Taliban prisoners. You restated is as MacKay calling Colvin a dupe, which he didn't do. Again and again, I'm having to correct your mischarcterizations of the statement. Why don't you just admit that the government didn't engage in personal attacks against Colvin? Or, at the very least, show some evidence and find some quotes where they did indeed denigrate Colvin's character. If you can simply show us where Colvin was denigrated, I'll concede that the government did indeed get personal with respect to Colvin. I watched the exchanges, though, I watched the full testimony, I watched the question periods (like I do now, I had a lot of free time during that week), and I never saw anything that crossed the line towards insulting Colvin. Just prove me wrong, that's all I'm asking. Otherwise, stop parroting the nonsense we saw on CTV claiming otherwise.

Menachem Begin's experience was his own. You're free to read the link I provided to the Huffington Post article which has the memos released by the Obama administration regarding the interrogation dialogue between the CIA the DoJ: there are three parts embedded on the webpage. The memos quite clearly define the type of sleep deprivation that was permitted by the DoJ at the time. There are degrees of sleep deprivation, to some lengths it constitutes torture, at other lengths it does not constitute torture. Furthermore, it depends who you're asking. I endured nearly a month of sleepless nights due to severe health complications involving severe pain. I have some degree of experience with this sort of thing and of course it's no fun. I'm not trying to imply that care must not be implemented when utilizing these techniques towards assisting in an interrogation, but it's simply incorrect to say that all sleep deprivation amounts to torture without having the details and context. I highly doubt Khadr was subjected to dleep deprivation to the degree that would be viewed as torture by reasonable people. I have sated plainly already that sleep deprivation can indeed constitute torture, but it also may NOT be torture. It depends on the degree to which it was implemented as well as other details regarding how the sleep deprivation technique was implemented.

Did you seriously just bring up some Paul Martin accusation in a thread about the military inquiring into allegations of abuse towards Afghan detainees? You can't honestly expect me to reply to that. Talk about pointless and off-topic. Look, don't try to convince me that MacKay is a thug. Start small - show me evidence that the government engaged in character assassination to discredit Colvin instead of simply attacking his testimony. Then we can grudate together and talk more broadly of the alleged "thuggery" of the Harper government. It doesn't matter how many times you try to spin it, saying that Colvin is a suspect source because he has been duped by Taliban prisoner is NOT character assassination, no matter how many times you try to twist MacKay's words. Prove me wrong and take me up on my challenge - show me real evidence of the government's engagement in character assassination and personal attacks against Colvin. Colvin wasn't called a liar or dishonest or a terrorist sympathizer, rather it was suggested that he was naive in believing allegations from TWO interviews he had taken part in with Taliban prisoners who claimed they were abused. Colvin then extrapolated that to suggest that ALL detainees transferred from Canadian forces to the Afghan security forces were "likely tortured".

Did anybody in here actually enjoy this movie? I knew it was going to be terrible, but my sister coerced me into joining her to go see it. It was as boring, clichéd, predictable, and lame as I had expected It's just mindless CGI, action/violence, one-dimensional characters, etc. Not to mention it has this cheesy semi-political message, but maybe I'm reading more into this film than it deserves with respect to a broader theme/message. Lame, lame, lame.

I really really really liked this movie. Anyone who liked military movies will dig this. It's not as broad and all encompassing as Oliver Stone epics or something like Apocalypse Now, it's a much narrower storyline without broad themes. But it's believable, realistic, and fantastic. Apparently the director is a female, too.

Why are you artfully dodging the point? Colvin wasn't called a dupe. MacKay said Colvin had been duped by Taliban prisoners who sought to exploit Canada's concern for abiding by international standards with respect to the treatment of prisoners. Saying someone has been duped is not the same as calling someone a dupe. You're either intentionally being disingenuous or you have some serious comprehension issues with the English language. I'm going to assume it's the former.

I agree, and the media was largely complicit in detracting from an analysis of the credibility of Colvin's assertions towards false allegations of character assassination from the government. It drove me nuts to watch that CTV segment with the talking heads all expressing outrage at how mean the government was being to Colvin, when in reality the government was walking on eggshells and biting their tongues with respect to what they really wanted to say about Colvin (that he's obviously a Liberal hack opportunist trying to build some name for himself as a courageous whistleblower championing human rights by disparaging our military, government, and country).

But whowhere, they DO benefit from the taxes that they may pay. They live in cities with municipal services like garbage collection, road maintenance, and a police force. They get ill and go to emergency rooms where they cannot be denied care. They send their kids to schools which are publicly paid for (schools rarely, if ever, check for valid citizenship). These kids even go to universities and colleges which are largely subsidized if public. These laws also cost money to enforce, from paying the border security guards to the court fees. Not to mention the downward pressure it has on wages for certain lines of work. It is SO incorrect to make this suggestion, and I've heard it from many folks who seem to think illegal immigration is a good idea. There are many studies and reports out there, if you're inclined to read them, which compare the costs of illegal immigration to the benefits, with respect to finances alone. In other words, we can compare the money they pay into the public purse via direct and indirect taxation (and many of them really don't pay any taxes aside from sales taxes when they purchase goods and services) to the cost of benefits they receive. Illegal immigration always costs more than it delivers.

That's simply not true and wrong on many aspects. First of all, there are many very important parallels affecting the quality of care in Canada in the USA. First, and probably most important, are the similar standards for education and residency for physicians. We have very similar standards for entrance to medical school, as well. There are also many parallels between standard for other health professionals, such as x-ray technicians and dentists. Given that the USA is more decentralized, you'll see variations in the standards for some of these positions between states, such as EMTs in ambulances not having the same training standards in one state compared to another. We've also got very similar standards for operation in hospitals and clinics, as these procedures are highly regulated by government and associations that are very similar between our two countries, such as the AMA and the CMA, Health Canada and the FDA, etc. The medical professions also share information and research via unified research channels between the two countries. The largest medical research, technology, and pharmaceutical companies harmonize their operations between both countries. I could go on and on, but the standards are largely the same. You're likely to see more variation in quality in American hospitals and clinics, though, given the larger degree decentralization with respect to some medical standards and regulations as well as free market impacts. So some hospitals or clinics will tend to cater to a wealthier type of clientèle, with others catering to less financially secure folks (hospitals and clinics that accept Medicare and Medicaid, for example). I don't want to go too much into this, but let me assure you that your oversimplification doesn't enhance the understanding of others with respect to this issue. Unfortunately I have had to have extensive experience with the medical system in Canada, and let me say I wouldn't have it any other way. Only someone with very little global context would suggest that healthcare in Canada is a Chevy Cavalier. In the global context, we've got the Bentley Continental. With respect to America, our standards are largely comparable. Of course there are some situations where the quality of care in the USA will be superior, though (most notably very rare illnesses).

I can't BELIEVE wyly pulled the racism card... actually, I can. Apparently wyly isn't 20-year-old, either. He's like a full-blown adult and still still has his itchy finger on the extremist trigger for talking points such as "racism!". Unreal. On a more serious note, I imagine the USA's slightly lower life expectancy, if accurate (who knows? maybe the bookkeeping is slightly off on either side of the border) is largey the result of lifestyle. People in America, on average, are heavier than their Canadian counterparts. So since a multitude of lifestyle variables contribute to America's larger waistline, I'd imagine that these variables are the cause of the USA's slightly lower life expectancy. It's probably connected to obesity-related illnesses. I know when I go parts of the USA like Florida and California, and when I've been places with other Americans like business conferences or even vacation cruises, Americans tend to be larger. It's sad.