Scotty

I'm reminded of a scene in Game of Thrones, where there is a trial by combat. After the knight dies, the winner is told that he doesn't fight with honor. The man looks up, says "No, I don't." Then he looks at the body, or where the body was before it fell into a hole and says "He did." Your beliefs are a recipe for military failure.

If we tried to do that today the courts would be intervening every day to demand better treatment, to ensure the prisoners had the option of appealing against their status, to ensure they got the right to communicate with their families, get conjugal visits, and probably to allow them to declare refugee status.

Repatriate them to whom?

I think they were saying "The Liberals are using this as a lever to attack us, not caring at all what that does to Canadian support for the war, and we need to ensure they have as little ammunition as possible."

Because those people engaged in an orgy of self hatred and murder, slaughtering each other indiscriminately and blowing up everything they could?

More like six months. It's a shame, really. Afghanistan will be dragged back to barbarity again due to the cold-blooded, ruthless machinations of men in places like Iran and Pakistan, to whom Afghanistan itself really doesn't even matter. The Pakistanis simply want to keep their crazed Mujahadeen religious wackos alive and well so that they can be used against the Indians should the Indians ever want to invade their misbegotten excuse for a country. The Iranians simply want to make trouble for the Americans.

Oh I rather doubt that. I mean, if you want to talk about old time pacification, the Romans had a simple enough methodology in that they simply killed anyone within miles of where a Roman was killed. And as long as you have enough troops you can get away with that. If NATO had simply slaughtered every village nearby whenever IEDs were planted there would have been a huge drop int he number of IEDs planted, as one example. Would that have resulted in gross missaplications of force on occasion, and the murder of innocents? Sure would. But there the roads would still have been safer. Have some doubts as to which of the villagers is a guerrilla? Not a problem. Kill them all. That was the Roman way, and it worked quite well for many, many centuries.

And you still didn't answer the question. Nobody has.

There's no evidence Canadians broke any Canadian laws. Nor is there any law I'm aware of which governs how the Afghan government treats its own citizens. The fact is that the treatment of prisoners, political or otherwise, in almost any third world nation would be, in comparison to the safeguards in Canada, against Canadian law. Should we never hand over criminals, terrorists or anyone else to a nation which does not meet our delicate definition of human rights? And remember, just last week a federal judge in Canada demanded Corrections Canada rescind its 30 days in solitary punishment of a prisoner who refused to provide a urine sample for drug detection on the basis that asking that of the prisoner (known to be involved in drug trafficking) was too humiliating.

While you're correct, I don't think you can necessarily dismiss his suggestion on that basis. We are not, after all, fighting a civilized foe. Nor are we fighting a nation which has any rules, or coherent governance. These people, as such, cannot be expected to 'surrender' in the same sense as that of a nation state. Nor can they ever be exchanged as the foe in question routinely tortures its prisoners to death.

How? Keep careful records and watch over them for YEARS? And what about when we leave? Are we supposed to leave behind a special detachment to keep watch over these prisoners? Afghanistan is a violent society all the way around, from top to bottom, and infinitely corrupt. The only way to ensure the safety of prisoners, by Canadian standards, is to bring them to Canada.

Your odd belief that the Liberals were so determined to operate only on the evidence of science and just study is charming but laughably naive. Do you really have no concept of how you do these things in the big world? You simply stock your committee or commission with the proper people, ensure that those who are given leave to testify are, for the most part, favourable to the outcome you want, and then presto, you have justification for what you wanted to do to begin with. This works especially well when you have a media which is largely sympathetic to your ideological viewpoints. The Tories are just not really bothering with the expensive and time-consuming showcase for the masses, and instead cutting to the chase. And hopefully, there'll be more and tougher laws on violence, now that they're the majority, laws which greatly expand definitions to encompass obvious actions and don't require the criminal actually testify about his intent. Because when you shoot guns at people or stab them, your intent is patently clear from the outset.

I don't think you reason very well. The law has been written by liberals and largely interpreted by liberal judges for most of the last generation.

You know, it gets really annoying how often any discussion of crime, even involving violent crime winds up getting taken off the rails by potheads who obsess on the Tories' new anti-drug laws.

You fire a gun at someone across the street and that's not proof of attempted murder. How exactly is this common sense? You stab someone in the chest or belly but that's not proof of attempted murder either. Common sense has little to do with the way laws are written in Canada. .You have *any* evidence to support that, whatsoever? We are a wealthy western country. If you compare us to Zimbabwe or Russia then sure, we're safe. Compared to other wealthy, western nations, we appear to have higher rates of violence and murder than most. What safety we have as individuals is far more dependent on the cohesion of our society and its wealth than the laws written by incompetent political hacks over the years, and their poor enforcement by bleeding heart judges and prison authorities, not to mention highly undermanned and under-trained police forces.

And here I thought you didn't have a sense of humour! :lol:

You do your hunting at a night club, do you, and carry a hand gun in the back of your belt in case you see a deer flying past?

Might depend on what era you grew up in, as well. You have to remember that Canada Day is an invention of the Liberal Party of Canada designed to appeal to Quebecers. Dominion Day was our "national holiday" when I was growing up. It was a pretty sleepy holiday, a long weekend to start the summer. It wasn't political. And in fact, when we saw our American neighbours to the south do their loud rah-rah, face-painting, flag waving celebration a few days later we tended to roll our eyes tolerantly at their somewhat immature nationalism. No Canadian would act like that. Paint your face and wrap a flag around yourself!? The police would have stopped you to see if you were some sort of escaped psychiatric patient! Canada Day was invented by the Liberals to use as an excuse for propaganda against separatists. They changed the name because ignorant Frenchmen didn't understand what a Dominion was, and associated it with the British. Then they poured millions of dollars into political propaganda every year to churn out parties and huge celebrations about how wonderful it was to live in Canada, and how much we all loved each other. All of it was aimed at Quebec. They didn't care about Alberta, and in fact, only reluctantly spent some of the budget outside of Quebec. But the majority of money was always spent on their target market. It never really worked, but the side-effect was to convince so many younger people who grew up in this time that this was the way to celebrate; with big, American style rah-rah, flag waving, nationalistic parties and bragging about how great Canada was. The irony, of course, is that this jingoistic stuff went completely against the Canadian character, and tends to make us more like Americans.

Don't like Albertans. Don't like Quebecers. Gee, maybe you should consider emigration... perhaps to Cameroon?

I've seen cases where a gun was fired at a victim, the victim was chased, got away, found again hours later and shot again, and the crown still couldn't convict of attempted murder. The law really is written by incompetants and bleeding heart liberals.

You are correct. That is why the law needs to be changed. The moment you make the decision to walk out of the door with a gun that should be considered premeditation. Anyone who dies because of that should bring automatic first degree murder charges and convictions.

Dignity Respect

That you are offended by the statement has no actual impact on its truthfulness.

How can you possibly have read anything in this topic and not be aware that the vast, vast majority of people arrested and beaten did NOT in fact, break any law, had no intentions of breaking any law, and were simply going about their business in a peaceful, law abiding way?

Toronto doesn't have a great deal of money, nor do the police have all they need. Every lawsuit which costs them millions of dollars gives them reason to start cracking down on violent police and their lazy-ass, thoughtless supervisors, and maybe improve training requirements. Hell, give Salvatori a hundred million. That'll make the idiots start looking at better training and control of cops. And I suppose if separatist terrorists are blowing things up the police are perfectly right to start arresting all separatist sympathizers, hmm?