Family fallout from Security certificates

[August1991]

Charkaoui was arrested under a security certificate in May 2003, which was co-signed by Solicitor General Wayne Easter, and Immigration Minister Denis Coderre.[4] He was detained without charge or trial in Rivière des prairies Detention Centre. He was released from prison on $50,000 bail on 18 February 2005. His bail conditions include a curfew, electronic monitoring, designated chaperones for leaving his home, restriction to the island of Montreal, 24-hour police access to his home without warrant, and a prohibition on access to the internet, on the use of cell phones and on the use of any telephone except the one in his home.

But Charkaoui was free to leave Canada any time he wanted.

[bush_cheney2004]

But Charkaoui was free to leave Canada any time he wanted.

Nonsense...he was "arrested" and detained without charges for chrisakes. Did you think he could just ring a bell and walk to New York?

Edited March 26, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

Nonsense...he was "arrested" and detained without charges for chrisakes. Did you think he could just ring a bell and walk to New York?

At any moment, Charkaoui is free to return to Morocco. The Canadian government (taxpayers) would pay for his air ticket. Charkaoui instead prefers Canadian prison.

That is not the case of the men held in Guantanamo.

----

BC, I am not criticizing Bush Jnr's solution to this problem of the modern world. Gitmo is inevitable. (And I frankly think the problem will become worse.)

I object however to the comparison of a Canadian Security Certificate and Gitmo. They're not the same thing. We Canadians have CBC while you Americans have NPR.

[bush_cheney2004]

At any moment, Charkaoui is free to return to Morocco. The Canadian government (taxpayers) would pay for his air ticket. Charkaoui instead prefers Canadian prison.

It was not true during his detention. The SCC ordered that security certificates be revisted. It is silly to insist that he was free to return anywhere when it took $50,000 in bail just to leave detention.

BC, I am not criticizing Bush Jnr's solution to this problem of the modern world. Gitmo is inevitable. (And I frankly think the problem will become worse.)

I object however to the comparison of a Canadian Security Certificate and Gitmo. They're not the same thing. We Canadians have CBC while you Americans have NPR.

Of course you object, even in the face of Amnesty International findings and a "security" practice that predates 'Gitmo by many years. I did not coin the term "'Gitmo North". This has nothing to do with George Bush given the history of detentions in Canada.

[August1991]

Of course you object, even in the face of Amnesty International findings and a "security" practice that predates 'Gitmo by many years. I did not coin the term "'Gitmo North". This has nothing to do with George Bush given the history of detentions in Canada.

Please, Argus, explain this to an American poster.

BC, you're right in principle, but you're wrong in fact.

[bush_cheney2004]

Please, Argus, explain this to an American poster.

BC, you're right in principle, but you're wrong in fact.

If you say so...the fact is you are lumping all detainees in a one-size-fits-all pair of shoes that were free to walk at any time, which is patently absurd on its face, if only because of the agonizingly slow legal process.

Don't explain it to an American...explain it to Amnesty International and the Supreme Court of Canada.

[myata]

That is not the case of the men held in Guantanamo.

----

BC, I am not criticizing Bush Jnr's solution to this problem of the modern world. Gitmo is inevitable. (And I frankly think the problem will become worse.)

I object however to the comparison of a Canadian Security Certificate and Gitmo. They're not the same thing. We Canadians have CBC while you Americans have NPR.

Most obviously they aren't the same. Detaining people abroad, confining them and bringing by force to another place, where they are subjected to arbitrary detention, deprivation of basic needs, interrogations bordering on, or even constituting, torture, and so on, as per our learned friend's "traffic in evil" doctrine, has nothing to do with the right of any state to keep the unwanted would be residents out.

Only our good friend here would argue against that right. He's still going to demonstrate how it's going to work in some (any) practical sense.. or why he wouldn't apply the same generous principle to his own home.

Between the evils or terrorism (which is nothing new under the sun) and the Bush/Blairlike crusades, there's enough room for practical, working strategy to ensure our safety. It hinges on keepeng clear sense of reality though, i.e not giving in to neither fearmongers, nor daydreamers of the day.

[eyeball]

All 6 billion of them?

Eyeball, that's insane. Canadian taxpayers do not have the means to offer justice to everyon in the world.

Please get a grip. This is no different than trying to silence criticism by conjuring up the ghosts of dead dictators or imaginary armies of invading Jihadists.

We must pick and choose. Live with it.

Obviously, but once anyone is here I have no intention of standing by while the state arbitrarily picks and chooses their rights. There may have been a time when the state had the trust of the people to excersize this sort of discretion but that just doesn't exist anymore.

In case you hadn't noticed the entire world including Canada is gripped by a crisis of confidence. This crisis extends far beyond mere finances. Our most important institutions including those whose actions can affect people's most fundamental rights are likewise being assailed by growing doubt in their effiacy, methods and results. In light of the state's mishandling of people like Mahar Arar, Omar Khadr, Robert Dziekanski, not to mention so many falsely convicted individuals its hard to keep count, the list of individual cases the state has cocked up and the amount of human suffering they have caused goes on and on. We trust the government at our peril.

Mohammad Mahjoub is now a victim of the same sort of arbitrary lawlessness he fled and anyone who defends this should be as ashamed as the people perpetrating it.

[myata]

You're being hyperbolic again, get a grip.

....

Everybody, ...

Not in the least. Somebody's showing at the border with papers from ABCgeria, or with no papers at all. How can you know that he isn't a Bin Laden?

There're some 5,000 police force in this city of Ottawa of some 700,000, and probably a hundredth of that in the rest of this wide, 6 billion strong and multi continental world. Who's going to keep tabs on every single terrorist, criminal, crook, and such, and be able to present rock solid, beyond any reasonable doubt case for each and every one of them, the moment they decide to show up at the door? Wait, what if witnesses for the "accused" happen to reside on the other end of the globe in XYZlandia? Wouldn't we have a moral (smoothly transforming into financial) obligation to fly them in and provide all reasonable accommodations, just so that the fairness of the "trial" isn't affected and the integrity of our obligation to the world is retained gloriously intact?

No, it's a no starter from any practical point of view, so what you're saying in fact is "don't bother with any checks, and just let everybody in". Which is OK with me (i.e saying it), as long as it's stated as meant, with no irrelevant allusions to terrible deprivation of X boxes, or Jesus himself.

[bush_cheney2004]

Only our good friend here would argue against that right. He's still going to demonstrate how it's going to work in some (any) practical sense.. or why he wouldn't apply the same generous principle to his own home.

But I do...never suffering from your own pretzel logic wherein forced detentions, deprivation, and "torture" are justified to "keep people out". Seems it's not just me, but Amnesty International and other so called human rights wonks who take exception to security certificates in friendly Canada.

Between the evils or terrorism (which is nothing new under the sun) and the Bush/Blairlike crusades, there's enough room for practical, working strategy to ensure our safety. It hinges on keepeng clear sense of reality though, i.e not giving in to neither fearmongers, nor daydreamers of the day.

I agree...very clear....just like Ukrainian and Japanese internments.

Edited March 26, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

But I do...never suffering from your own pretzel logic wherein forced detentions, deprivation, and "torture" are justified to "keep people out". Seems it's not just me, but Amnesty International and other so called human rights wonks who take exception to security certificates in friendly Canada.

Nope, no deprivations (other than of X boxes) or torture, and the detentions, unlike Gitmo or secret prisons, aren't forced but self inflicted by the recepient's own choice to insist on staying in Canada. Unlike any of the detainees of Gitmo, they can be free in an instant, as soon as they agree to leave Canada. Sure it's not 100% absolute freedom (to go and do whatever they like) but still about 100 lightyears ahead of Gitmo's version of personal liberties.

I agree...very clear....just like Ukrainian and Japanese internments.

No those weren't pretty ... and were clearly wrong. Again, we're confusing application of arbitrary practices restricting freedoms of citizens in the country and (still quite arbitrary though aiming at at least some degree of fairness) standards of admitting non residents into it. As soon as we realize that we don't have an automatic right to go just anywhere (and stay in, whether welcome or not) the confusion settles itself, naturally.

[eyeball]

Not in the least. Somebody's showing at the border with papers from ABCgeria, or with no papers at all. How can you know that he isn't a Bin Laden?

You can't, no more than you could even if he had papers that checked out. In any case why does that automatically mean the state can suddenly just arbitraily suspend the fundamental rights that every human has?

There're some 5,000 police force in this city of Ottawa of some 700,000, and probably a hundredth of that in the rest of this wide, 6 billion strong and multi continental world. Who's going to keep tabs on every single terrorist, criminal, crook, and such, and be able to present rock solid, beyond any reasonable doubt case for each and every one of them, the moment they decide to show up at the door?

Nobody, who possibly could? You really insist on inflating and blowing things, especially fear, out of all proportion don't you? I see you were hung on the word everybody well, I meant everybody that comes before a judge given that was the context of the discussion at that point.

Before you use such ridiculous numbers as 6 billion in the context of trying to scare people into believing they are at risk from the terrorists and criminals and such amongst the entire human race you should do some research into the probabilities of actually being killed or harmed...by such. Here's a good place to start. How safe do you want to be?

No, it's a no starter from any practical point of view, so what you're saying in fact is "don't bother with any checks, and just let everybody in". Which is OK with me (i.e saying it), as long as it's stated as meant, with no irrelevant allusions to terrible deprivation of X boxes, or Jesus himself.

I'm sorry, but from your practical point of view? I suppose anything no EVERYTHING is possible. Heck even likely.

Let me state something right up front in no uncertain terms okay? I have not once said don't bother with any checks and just let everybody in. That is a fact.

As for Jesus, I'm still betting he'd distrust the state and tell it to go stuff it's so-called evidence where the sun doesn't shine. Lets face it, if there's anyone who knows what its like to be mistreated by the state on the basis of trumped up heresay its Jesus. I would have thought of all people he'd probably want to treat anyone walking in similar sandles fairly and squarely. Do you refute it? If you make me ask this again I will over and over and over, until you answer.

I'm an atheist and I don't invoke the name of Jesus lightly, as far as I'm concerned he was the greatest natural born humanist the planet has ever seen. I know goddamn well, with rock solid faith, he'd be just as pissed off at the deprivation of human rights today as he was 2000 years ago.

I want you to answer my question, do you refute what I've now said twice about Jesus? Just so there is no further misunderstanding, when I say "he'd probably want to treat anyone walking in similar sandles" anyone means EVERYONE in the entire human race if need be.

Any exceptions to this guarantees human beings will live in fear and eventually terror.

[myata]

You can't, no more than you could even if he had papers that checked out. In any case why does that automatically mean the state can suddenly just arbitraily suspend the fundamental rights that every human has?

This is the last time I try. Is there a fundamental right for you to come and settle e.g. in Germany, regardless or even against what Germans would think about it? If yes, then there should be a fundamental right for everybody to walk and live in your house, why no?

Nobody, who possibly could? You really insist on inflating and blowing things, especially fear, out of all proportion don't you? I see you were hung on the word everybody well, I meant everybody that comes before a judge given that was the context of the discussion at that point.

...

Let me state something right up front in no uncertain terms okay? I have not once said don't bother with any checks and just let everybody in. That is a fact.

Yet every single point is true. There're thousands, maybe millions criminals, crooks, terrorists, etc in the world and probably no more than a few Canadian police stationed outside Canada. With very limited rights to do work on foreign territory btw. Which means that the requirement to put together a solid legal case against anybody who comes under suspicion, is impossible, by any practical standard. So if you're saying A (state has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect is a terrorist, criminal, crook, etc), it in fact means B (don't bother to do any security check because in 99.99% cases it won't stand in the court anyways and it'll just be a waste of time and money). So just say B, with no unnecessary tearful allusions, and we can proceed with discussion from there.

Before you use such ridiculous numbers as 6 billion in the context of trying to scare people into believing they are at risk from the terrorists and criminals and such amongst the entire human race you should do some research into the probabilities of actually being killed or harmed...by such. Here's a good place to start. How safe do you want to be?

OK the risk of harm from terrorism isn't high after all. Should we still bother with security checks? What about crime?

I'm sorry, but from your practical point of view? I suppose anything no EVERYTHING is possible. Heck even likely.

I'm glad you're so optimistic, still waiting to hear some practical ways in which we can start (to track vigorously and to the full extent of legal requirements, every single terrorist, crimnial and other threats from foreign nationals to Canada). Unless I misunderstood, and no tracking is necessary because we're going to let everybody in anyways? And while we're at it, with our newfound potency on the world scale, why wouldn't we just go and fix the problems of the world wherever they are?

[eyeball]

This is the last time I try.

Do you refute what I said about Jesus?

I'm betting he'd distrust the state and tell it to go stuff it's so-called evidence where the sun doesn't shine. Lets face it, if there's anyone who knows what its like to be mistreated by the state on the basis of trumped up heresay its Jesus. I would have thought of all people he'd probably want to treat anyone walking in similar sandles fairly and squarely.

[myata]

Well, unless your name happen to be Jesus, how do you know what's "fairly and squarely" for that particular individual, who shows up on your doorstep? Do you know their sins? Can read their minds? What if their (original) name happens to be Bin Laden, Mladic, etc?

We're trying to extend a kind of fairness. By allowing people who we can reasonably expect to be able to make living here, and not cause trouble, settle in. As well as by keeping those we suspect couldn't or wouldn't, out. Short of omniscience and omnipotence of Jesus and his family, it's probably the best we can do. If we drop reasonable barriers, or set an impossible test for the state to satisfy each time application is rejected, it would mean, in all practical terms, opening the borders to everybody. Should we do that? Can we provide safe, stable and prosperous living for every single (claiming to be) prosecuted, threatened, denied, disenfranchised, underpaid, undereducated, etc, in the whole world? Or, if we did that, we'd be more likely to descend into the same kind of chaos that people are trying to flee from in the first place?

[bush_cheney2004]

I think if Jebus tried to emmigrate to Canada today, he would end up at Millhaven Institution.

[myata]

Some 200,000 manage somehow, every year. But of course, everybody simply loves to voice in for the J guy.

[eyeball]

I think if Jebus tried to emmigrate to Canada today, he would end up at Millhaven Institution.

He'd probably be better off coming here than your country.

[eyeball]

We're trying to extend a kind of fairness. By allowing people who we can reasonably expect to be able to make living here, and not cause trouble, settle in. As well as by keeping those we suspect couldn't or wouldn't, out. Short of omniscience and omnipotence of Jesus and his family, it's probably the best we can do. If we drop reasonable barriers, or set an impossible test for the state to satisfy each time application is rejected, it would mean, in all practical terms, opening the borders to everybody. Should we do that? Can we provide safe, stable and prosperous living for every single (claiming to be) prosecuted, threatened, denied, disenfranchised, underpaid, undereducated, etc, in the whole world? Or, if we did that, we'd be more likely to descend into the same kind of chaos that people are trying to flee from in the first place?

No we can't. The problem is this however, the world is rapidly filling up with prosecuted, threatened, denied, disenfranchised, underpaid, undereducated and dysfunctional people because too many country's like Canada turn a blind eye to many of the root causes of these things, i.e. the dictators and despots that we and our friends have propped up and who we continue to provide apologies for to this day. The best way to prevent billions from wanting to come here is to get in the face of the interfering super-powers and tell them to cease and desist their destructive practices. The only practical way to prevent mass immigration is to help make their home country's nicer places to live.

By the way have you noted the silence from the west on the refusal of a travel visa so the Dalai Lama can attend a meeting in South Africa? Do you suppose there might be some credence to the idea that he's virtually a terrorist?

Speaking of supernatural moral forces, is there really any difference between blowback and karma? I wonder what Jesus would think?

Edited March 28, 2009 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

.....The best way to prevent billions from wanting to come here is to get in the face of the interfering super-powers and tell them to cease and desist their destructive practices. The only practical way to prevent mass immigration is to help make their home country's nicer places to live....

Interesting...perhaps this explains Canadian emmigres to the United States....or vice-versa.

[eyeball]

Interesting...perhaps this explains Canadian emmigres to the United States....or vice-versa.

I doubt it, but I think maintaining the heightened level of paranoia the myata's of the world support probably explains why both our people's are becoming increasingly afraid of visiting each other.

I finally had some US tourists out on the boat today, the only two I've seen this year. I guess it could just be the economy though.

[bush_cheney2004]

I doubt it, but I think maintaining the heightened level of paranoia the myata's of the world support probably explains why both our people's are becoming increasingly afraid of visiting each other.

Not very likely...Canadians have more reason to be afraid of visiting Mexico.

[eyeball]

Not very likely...Canadians have more reason to be afraid of visiting Mexico.

It sure sounds like its a lot easier to visit Mexico, they don't seem to go out of their way to deter visitors the way your country does or the way myata would in the case of visitors coming here.

[bush_cheney2004]

It sure sounds like its a lot easier to visit Mexico, they don't seem to go out of their way to deter visitors the way your country does or the way myata would in the case of visitors coming here.

It is very easy to visit Mexico....but they don't go out of their way to deter a lot of other things too.

[eyeball]

It is very easy to visit Mexico....but they don't go out of their way to deter a lot of other things too.

Ah, I guess that explains why so many people would rather go there.