Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[Guest trex]

You sure have the leftist rhetoric down pat, up to and including an anti-American dig.

Lets not descend into name-calling, please. I am not a leftist, nor do I come here to promote rhetoric.

I mentioned a DEA style drug war, how is that anti-american? There's many things I admire about America, but the drug war isn't one of them. So I'm not anti-American just because I disagree with certain things they do. But I'm also not a nationalist who believes in everything they do, that they cannot do any wrong. Quite frankly people who identify themselves as a left or right-winger, do not impress me. I prefer to think issues through on their own merits, not stamped out by some pre-conceived ideology.

As detestable as the guy in this particular case is, it's not only about him. And people are not executed only for murder, either, even in the US. Marc Emery, a Canadian who is under request for extradition, faces a possible death penalty for selling marijuana seeds by mail into the United States. The US drug czar identified him as a major "kingpin". They argue that, by counting each seed he sold as a full plant worth about $1000 on the street, he is responsible for millions of dollars worth of drugs flooding into the country.

In Canada Emery was not in much danger, the Canadian authorities seemed to ignore him (because it was only seeds?) and he claims that Health Canada even referred mj patients to him, to get seeds to grow their own!

So with this the stage is now set for Emery to be extradited even facing a death penalty, for something which was not treated as a crime within Canada. Now what he did was clearly illegal so the question is not, did he commit a crime but does he deserve death, and knowing this could happen should he be extradited?

[Wilber]

US military courts martial, per the UCMJ, as is customary and according to law. Point is that bk59's assertion was false.

I think that bk59's point is that the US would never allow them to be tried by Iraq even though the alleged crimes took place in Iraq and were against Iraqi citizens.

[Wilber]

What concerns me on this issue is that for most Canadians who probably do not follow the story of Ronald Allen Smith, the dead-horse topic of capital punishment has seemingly come out of nowhere, and for no apparent reason.

It's further disconcerting that it was raised with no parliamentary debate whatsoever, that Stock Day didn't appear to welcome any questioning of his statements and that it is fundamentally inconsistent with other policies of the canadian government, such as its current support of a UN resolution on the matter.

I'm more concerned about the way in which this has been handled than about the issue itself. It's played right into the waiting hands of the Opposition that we are secretive, inconsistent and untrustworthy lapdogs for the US. There was absolutely no need for it.

The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves when their mishandling of this blows up in their face come election time.

Yup, just plain stupid.

[noahbody]

As detestable as the guy in this particular case is, it's not only about him. And people are not executed only for murder, either, even in the US. Marc Emery, a Canadian who is under request for extradition, faces a possible death penalty for selling marijuana seeds by mail into the United States.

Did you miss the word "murderer" in Day's statement? We're not talking about marijuana seed growers or homosexuals in Iran as you brought up earlier. That's ridiculous.

[capricorn]

Lets not descend into name-calling, please. I am not a leftist, nor do I come here to promote rhetoric.

trex, if you categorize my comments as name-calling, then you need to develop a tougher skin. What I have observed and pointed out is that you use a vocabulary commonly associated with left thinking individuals so what am I to conclude? That you are a Harper and Conservative supporter? Hardly.

I mentioned a DEA style drug war, how is that anti-american?

A comment which was entirely outside the scope of the discussion we were having. It also appeared quite deliberate and made to provoke a reaction. I suggest you read your post again.

Quite frankly people who identify themselves as a left or right-winger, do not impress me.

Those are the descriptors that people use to identify their political leaning or that of others. I see nothing objectionable about that. That said, your impressions are your own.

Regarding Marc Emery, you're clearly exaggerating about his facing the death penalty in the US. No such thing will happen and I have to wonder why you make these wild, unfounded statements.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Columnist...627818-sun.html

[luvacuppajoe]

Did you miss the word "murderer" in Day's statement? We're not talking about marijuana seed growers or homosexuals in Iran as you brought up earlier. That's ridiculous.

I know you were speaking to Trex, but while what you say is true, Day also said a bit more.

"We will not actively pursue bringing back to Canada murderers who have been tried in a democratic country that supports the rule of law," Day told Parliament.

"It would send a wrong message. We want to preserve public safety here in Canada."

The Tories' might also not want to send the wrong message where it relates to crimes other than murder, such as the case of Marc Emery as was mentioned earlier. Given their recent anti-drug policy announements, for example, it might be perceived as inconsistent to fight for clemency of a convicted drug dealer.

The more I think about this, the more wrong-headed and destined for failure it appears. Undoubtably there will be a test case at some point, perhaps Emery or perhaps someone else, and the Tories will be caught with their pants down.

Will they still be prepared to take a hands-off approach in the execution of a Canadian juvenile or mentally challenged, given the record of the US?

[Guest trex]

Well pardon me but the press release doesn't go into more specifics than-

The Conservative government "will no longer stand up for Canadians who face the death penalty in the United States."

and,

"The Tories officially announced a change in Canada's foreign policy when it comes to Canadians on death row." Not the details of what those crimes could be that puts them there. In the United States that can also include rape and kidnapping.

That's exactly why I said earlier, they are not being very clear about this. When Day was questioned he made the statement in regards to murderers, but that does not necessarily mean exclusively for murderers.

And even so. It would still open up all the old questions. Stephen Truscott. David Milgaard. Guy Paul Morin.

---

"The charges carry penalties of 10 years to life in prison (technically, selling 60,000 or more seeds — considered to be seedlings under the law — constitutes "king-pin" status and can carry the death penalty, though this would make impossible any extradition from Canada). Canadian police have not laid charges."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_emery#2005_arrest

Thats not an opinion, just trying to discuss these facts backed by evidence from internet sources.

The question remains, now that we are free and clear of the problem of allowing Canadians to be executed by so-called democratic countries operating under rule of law, will we allow Emery to be sent there to face possible death sentence?

[capricorn]

The Tories' might also not want to send the wrong message where it relates to crimes other than murder, such as the case of Marc Emery as was mentioned earlier. Given their recent anti-drug policy announements, for example, it might be perceived as inconsistent to fight for clemency of a convicted drug dealer.

luva, is it your contention that the Conservatives might fight for clemency for Emery if he is convicted? That sounds contradictory to your statement that the Conservatives are anti-drug. Clemency in what way? A reduced sentence, bringing him to Canada to serve his sentence? I'm not clear.

The more I think about this, the more wrong-headed and destined for failure it appears. Undoubtably there will be a test case at some point, perhaps Emery or perhaps someone else, and the Tories will be caught with their pants down.

I think more so than Emery, there is a serious test coming with the 2 alleged pedophiles facing charges in Thailand. One of them is being investigated for alleged crimes in Canada. One is currently held in Thailand and the other is held in BC. That's something to keep a watch on.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Thats not an opinion, just trying to discuss these facts backed by evidence from internet sources.

The question remains, now that we are free and clear of the problem of allowing Canadians to be executed by so-called democratic countries operating under rule of law, will we allow Emery to be sent there to face possible death sentence?

I sure hope so....the ironic thing is that Emery wouldn't be facing extradition if BC had just prosecuted him for violating Canadian law in the first place. Emery will never face the death penalty, but if he gets to a US penitentiary, he may wish he had.

[shavluk]

As I said emery shouldn't go anywhere ,,that would be the biggest punishment for him!

As far as the person who had spent 20 years on death row ,well I would be ready to go myself.

We don't kill them here because we are nastier than Americans as in my view death is by far better than living in a box for the rest of your life.

The fact ol stockwell and his seadoo made this irrelevant announcement should have come with the disclaimer that it has never worked anyway!

Then all would realize he just got a little jealous of the finance minister lately getting all the press.

I see why Harper kept them all under wraps for the first injection of his poison ,,because they were all talking heads.

Oh well carry on

I just got bored and couldn't believe all the chatter over here about a none issue because it always boils down to if you are the eye for an eye type or not.

I left the first 11 pages till it eventually got again back to the real issue separating each side again ,pot hahhah

Bush killed the last one didn't he? Dam coke users!

[luvacuppajoe]

luva, is it your contention that the Conservatives might fight for clemency for Emery if he is convicted? That sounds contradictory to your statement that the Conservatives are anti-drug. Clemency in what way? A reduced sentence, bringing him to Canada to serve his sentence? I'm not clear.

I'm not clear either in what position the government would take in the case of Emery, I don't know that any of us are which is my point, this policy has the potential to be quite contradictory in execution (pardon the pun). I'm going on the Tories' own words when Day said "It would send a wrong message" to ask for extradition because it flies in the face of their tough-on-crime policies.

I wonder therefore, which other cases (besides that of a confessed murderer) may come to light where extradition would also fly in the face of Tory policy -- Emery for example. It all just seems so very ill-thought out on their part. There well may be a very thorough and comprehensive policy already in place, but if so they would do well to be more forthcming about it.

I think more so than Emery, there is a serious test coming with the 2 alleged pedophiles facing charges in Thailand. One of them is being investigated for alleged crimes in Canada. One is currently held in Thailand and the other is held in BC. That's something to keep a watch on.

Good point, and because some may not view Thailand as being a democracy in the quite same way they would view our own country as such, the terms of reference could get a little shaky when the hair-splitting commences.

It's one thing to consider our citizens facing death row in a relatively comparable country such as the States, it could be quite different in a case somewhere else and for crimes other than murder confessed to by a legally sane adult.

[Guest American Woman]

"The charges carry penalties of 10 years to life in prison (technically, selling 60,000 or more seeds "considered to be seedlings under the law" constitutes "king-pin" status and can carry the death penalty, though this would make impossible any extradition from Canada). Canadian police have not laid charges."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_emery#2005_arrest

Thats not an opinion, just trying to discuss these facts backed by evidence from internet sources.

The question remains, now that we are free and clear of the problem of allowing Canadians to be executed by so-called democratic countries operating under rule of law, will we allow Emery to be sent there to face possible death sentence?

The fact is, no one has been executed in the U.S. for anything other than murder since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, so it's really nothing but drama to say Emery could face execution.

"The death penalty in the United States is used almost exclusively for the crime of murder. Although state and federal statutes contain various capital crimes other than those involving the death of the victim, only one person is on death row is there for a non-murder offense (Patrick Kennedy in Louisiana). No one has been executed for such a crime since the death penalty was re-instated in 1976. In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, held that the death penalty for the rape of an adult was 'grossly disproportionate' and an 'excessive punishment,' and hence was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The Court looked at the relatively few states that allowed the death penalty for rape and the few death sentences that had been handed down.

Recently, some states have passed new laws allowing the death penalty for the rape of a child. In 2007, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for Patrick Kennedy for the rape of his step-daughter, STATE OF LOUISIANA v. PATRICK KENNEDY (No. 05-KA-1981, May 22, 2007). Kennedy was convicted in 2003. However, the constitutionality of this law has not been reveiwed by the U.S. Supreme Court. See Kennedy's petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (Sept. 11, 2007)."

Link

I will add that Kennedy's step daughter was eight when he raped her, badly injuring her-- and as quoted above, the constitutionality of his sentence still has to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Edited November 4, 2007 by American Woman

[bk59]

The other question is the extradition of Canadians to the United States where they might face a death penalty... will they now permit it? Don't see why they wouldn't.

The Supreme Court has said that Canada cannot extradite anyone to the US without an assurance that the death penalty will not be used. I think I put a link to the case, United States v. Burns, somewhere in this topic.

In fact, the last Canadian to have been extradited to the US on a murder charge was Shirley Turner by...get ready for this trex....by the Liberal government. So it seems extradition of Canadians for murder was permitted before the Conservatives were elected. Imagine that!

I think you missed the point though. trex was talking about extradition to face the death penalty, not simply being extradited for murder. And if you look at the link you provided you will find this:

As a condition of her extradition, the U.S. courts will have to promise not to seek the death penalty if Turner is found guilty.

[bk59]

US military courts martial, per the UCMJ, as is customary and according to law. Point is that bk59's assertion was false.

I think that bk59's point is that the US would never allow them to be tried by Iraq even though the alleged crimes took place in Iraq and were against Iraqi citizens.

Allow me to clarify since bush_cheney2004 seems to be unclear about what I am saying. The complaint has been made that somehow Canadians on death row in the US get special treatment by having the Canadian government advocate for clemency. I pointed out that if you want to see special treatment, look at some examples of how the US will actually take away the sovereignty of another state to ensure that its citizens get special treatment. Order 17 is a perfect example. This order meant that Iraq had no jurisdiction over any US citizens for anything. bush_cheney2004, your example of the soldiers being charged is actually a good example of what I am saying. The murders took place in Iraq, against Iraqi citizens, but Iraq is totally unable to do anything about it. Wilber is right that the US would not allow Iraq to exercise its own sovereignty.

[noahbody]

Well pardon me but the press release doesn't go into more specifics than-

The Conservative government "will no longer stand up for Canadians who face the death penalty in the United States."

and,

"The Tories officially announced a change in Canada's foreign policy when it comes to Canadians on death row." Not the details of what those crimes could be that puts them there. In the United States that can also include rape and kidnapping.

What you're quoting is a news article; not a press release.

I believe this was announced publicly in the House by Day. As noted, he very clearly stated "murderers."

[bush_cheney2004]

... Order 17 is a perfect example. This order meant that Iraq had no jurisdiction over any US citizens for anything. bush_cheney2004, your example of the soldiers being charged is actually a good example of what I am saying. The murders took place in Iraq, against Iraqi citizens, but Iraq is totally unable to do anything about it. Wilber is right that the US would not allow Iraq to exercise its own sovereignty.

Then you should have stated as much....your original assertion stating "immunity" for "anything" was false. The Iraqi government can/did bring pressure on the US to investigate and charge for line of duty misconduct.

Edited November 5, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

This should be treated very seriously. The previous policy was there because death penalty was abolished in this country - for many years. It wasn't intended and did not let criminals to get any lighter treatment than what they'd had gotten in this country. Only to spare them the one which is infinitely more severe than what they'd been given here and isn't acceptable as a valid sentence in this country. It is not an expression of PM's personal opinion of who deserves mercy and who doesn't, but the expression of the attitude of the people of this country toward death penalty. And only voters of this country can decide otherwise.

Of course, conservatives will never bring it as an open question - it would be suicidal even with Dion at the helm of Liberals. So, as becoming usual, Harper sneaks it in as a policy change. Testing the ground, no doubt. What if we swallow it, on the heavily buttered promises of tax cuts?

I'd like everybody to see it for what it is: either, the conservatives are misinforming the public about their true attitude toward death penalty; or the PM is using his position to express his own personal beliefs and judgements. Either one is inacceptable and should be strongly rejected if we want to continue to live a free society under the rule of law. I hope very much that the opposition will be smart enough to recognize it for what it is and won't let them off the hook this time. Only (their) god knows what could be next.

Edited November 5, 2007 by myata

[bk59]

Then you should have stated as much....your original assertion stating "immunity" for "anything" was false. The Iraqi government can/did bring pressure on the US to investigate and charge for line of duty misconduct.

As I said, there was obviously some confusion. Then again, other people on this board were able to figure it out, so perhaps not as much confusion as you would like to believe.

Begging someone to enforce the law is not the same as having the right to enforce it yourself. Would you be happy if someone from country X murdered a US citizen, in the US, but then the US had to ask someone from country X to please arrest that person? And then try that person under country X's law, with country X's punishment?

[bush_cheney2004]

As I said, there was obviously some confusion. Then again, other people on this board were able to figure it out, so perhaps not as much confusion as you would like to believe.

Begging someone to enforce the law is not the same as having the right to enforce it yourself. Would you be happy if someone from country X murdered a US citizen, in the US, but then the US had to ask someone from country X to please arrest that person? And then try that person under country X's law, with country X's punishment?

Yes, if country X invaded and occupied my country, there isn't much of a practical alternative. Do you think Canadian Forces can be arrested and prosecuted by Afghan police? Your strawman offers no value to the topic of Canadian prisoners not getting federal clemency support in democratic nations.

[Wilber]

Then you should have stated as much....your original assertion stating "immunity" for "anything" was false. The Iraqi government can/did bring pressure on the US to investigate and charge for line of duty misconduct.

Actually I think it does.

From Order 17

1) Unless provided otherwise herein, the MNF, the CPA, Foreign Liaison Missions, their Personnel, property, funds and assets, and all International Consultants shall be immune from Iraqi legal process.

2) All MNF, CPA and Foreign Liaison Mission Personnel and International Consultants shall respect the Iraqi laws relevant to those Personnel and Consultants in Iraq including the Regulations, Orders, Memoranda and Public Notices issued by theAdministrator of the CPA.

3) All MNF, CPA and Foreign Liaison Mission Personnel, and International Consultants shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their Sending States. They shall beimmune from any form of arrest or detention other than by persons acting on behalf oftheir Sending States, except that nothing in this provision shall prohibit MNF Personnel from preventing acts of serious misconduct by the above-mentioned Personnel or Consultants, or otherwise temporarily detaining any such Personnel or Consultants who pose a risk of injury to themselves or others, pending expeditiousturnover to the appropriate authorities of the Sending State. In all such circumstances, the appropriate senior representative of the detained person’s Sending State in Iraq shall be notified immediately.

4) The Sending States of MNF Personnel shall have the right to exercise within Iraq any criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the law of that Sending State over all persons subject to the military law of that Sending State.5)

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually I think it does.

No...it really doesn't, unless you consider "Iraqi legal process" to be the full extent of domestic and international law. CPA Order 17 may or may not afford protection from even Iraqi law.

Using such logic, the entire MNF (not just Americans) could go on a rampage of murder and mayhem in Iraq without legal consequence. This is not the case.

[Wilber]

No...it really doesn't, unless you consider "Iraqi legal process" to be the full extent of domestic and international law. CPA Order 17 may or may not afford protection from even Iraqi law.

Using such logic, the entire MNF (not just Americans) could go on a rampage of murder and mayhem in Iraq without legal consequence. This is not the case.

It is quite explicit

All MNF, CPA and Foreign Liaison Mission Personnel, and International Consultants shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their Sending States. They shall be immune from any form of arrest or detention other than by persons acting on behalf of their Sending States

They are only subject to Iraqi law if their Sending State agrees to it.

Yes they could go on a rampage and the only legal consequences would be Sending State consequences. The Iraqis would be SOL unless the Sending State agreed to prosecute and even then the Iraqis would have no say in the legal process.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is quite explicit

They are only subject to Iraqi law if their Sending State agrees to it.

Yes they could go on a rampage and the only legal consequences would be Sending State consequences. The Iraqis would be SOL unless the Sending State agreed to prosecute and even then the Iraqis would have no say in the legal process.

That's my point.....there would be and have been consequences, not total immunity from "anything". The original assertion was false, and as of 10/30/07, a bill is working its way through Iraq to end CPA Order 17. How is that possible if only the "Sending Authority" has "say in the legal process".

Are Canadian Forces subject to arrest by Afghan police?

[Who's Doing What?]

scary, scary, scary

Kudos to all the other posters here, regardless of the side of the issue, for avoiding such a false and misleading post.

Shame, shame, shame.

And yet you couldn't avoid it yourself. Nice to see your favorite target for a punching bag is still the same.

[myata]

What is a democracy then and what is rule of law? Not your opinion. What exactly is it? What can we count on from our country? Day won't be commenting further because I don't believe he can answer any of those questions.

We cannot, but Harper and his ministers must be grilled until we get a clear answer on what exactly do they mean by this change of policy:

- that death penalty is OK in general, but it's not convenient for them to bring it forward at this particular time?

- that the PM or a minister's opinion should be sufficient to condemn somebody to a cruel and unusual treatment people of Canada decided to not use in this country since long time?

- what some in this world merit so high in their esteem that they deserve applause even they use the treatment of people we decided to never exercise here?

- what Canada will only help those of its citizens who its current government judges to be worthy of assistance?

Btw, what are those "democratic" countries which still use death penalty? Oh sorry, but of course: Afganistan, Iraq ... any more?

Edited November 5, 2007 by myata