William Ashley Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) So, the US has indefinate custody in Military Prison for civillians accused of crimes. (even if they are in Canada, and electronic data, which can be doctored or hacked is all that exists linking the person to the people who actually carried out the act. (Note the intenet logs were not handed over only a harddrive... and harddrives can be hacked. - they are not a secure medium) I've been hacked all the time. A Canadian is being requested extradited (perhaps) - but it isn't to a civillian jail with posibility of parole, it is to a military prison for indefinate holdings (re: guantanamo) ... actually the US is also open to just abducting people it wants... http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/31/canadian-accused-in-deadly-terror-plot-could-face-undemocratic-indefinite-detention-in-u-s-lawyer/ Canada should not support extraditions to countries who do not uphold constitutional rights Canadians enjoy in Canada. Edited January 31, 2012 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Canada should not support extraditions to countries who do not uphold constitutional rights Canadians enjoy in Canada. Thats pretty much how it goes anyhow. But one things I note, if the law was passed only recently, then it cannot be applied retroactively (IIRC that is) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Take a look at this website about this topic http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Thats pretty much how it goes anyhow. But one things I note, if the law was passed only recently, then it cannot be applied retroactively (IIRC that is) Obama revised it and kept that provision in it, not sure if it is in the same part thought but it is not new, but the act revision is. (apparently the bill stems to ... officially 2008 but there are other acts such as the alien and sedition act,spying for the enemy act etc.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act 1798 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 etc.. USC title 50 re: 1948 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_50_of_the_United_States_Code My main issue in all this is that it is an Iraq and Canadian Jurisdiction issue. Iraq had a provisional government at the time, its not a US jurisdictional concern. US jurisdiction does not extend to Canada and does not extend to Iraq. While an extradition request could be made, if the guy supported terrorism the RCMP should be the ones trying him not the US, since the crime was commited in Canada not the US. Where are the Canadian charges and trial? Arar and Kadir only go to demonstrate why the us justice system should not be trusted and a higher standard needs to be sought. Edited January 31, 2012 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Arar and Kadir only go to demonstrate why the us justice system should not be trusted and a higher standard needs to be sought. Doesn't sound any worse than a good ole fashioned Canadian security certificate and indefinite detention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Doesn't sound any worse than a good ole fashioned Canadian security certificate and indefinite detention. I don't see no security certificate. Also the system imposed by the security certificates is also unintentional and contrary to the intents of the constitution, as it violates a host of measures intended in the charter. The issue of fundamental justice is not at issue in this case because no charges exist in Canada. The reason for the security certificate is when National Security is at risk, essentially an invocation of the war measures, or current Emergencies Act, or Official Secrets Act. It is Canada providing evidence to the US, not the other way around. If a crime was committed it should be tried in Canada if the crime was commited in Canada, or contraversly in Iraq if the crime was committed in Iraq, the US has nothing to do with this aside from the fact us citizens were killed. If an american is killed in Canada, the trial does not happen in the US. Period. The US has not extradition rights in this case. Its like me attempting to extradite a robbery on a Canadian in Mexico by an American, not going to happen. The US has no legal claim to extradition, no crime against the US occured. US law DOES NOT extend beyond the borders of the United States. The US has NO fundamental rights to pursue crimes that do not occur in US jurisdiction. The US constitution thus Legal Powers of the United States do not extend outside the United States. The ONLY time extradition rights exist (aside from when someone is in custody for another purpose) is when a crime is commited in dual jurisdictions (or solely in the jurisdiction of a state, and the person who is accused is in another state) and one state has a greater interest. The US is not a jurisdiction in this case and no US court had juridiction over Iraq or Canada, the US has no rights in this NONEXISTANT case as no charges have been laid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States note the Official Secrets act may be stated as (more complex than simply a different act but I'll just post a link to the 2001 bill) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_of_Information_Act Edited February 1, 2012 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 I don't see no security certificate. Also the system imposed by the security certificates is also unintentional and contrary to the intents of the constitution, as it violates a host of measures intended in the charter. The obvious point was that indefinite pretrial detention is/was the law in Canada for security certificate, a practice that predates anything done by the USA in the WoT. The US has no legal claim to extradition, no crime against the US occured. US law DOES NOT extend beyond the borders of the United States. The US already holds these perps in extrajudicial detention, long accepted practice during war, and identical to Canadian detention of other nationals with Minister Security Certificates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) The obvious point was that indefinite pretrial detention is/was the law in Canada for security certificate, a practice that predates anything done by the USA in the WoT. The US already holds these perps in extrajudicial detention, long accepted practice during war, and identical to Canadian detention of other nationals with Minister Security Certificates. "extrajudicial detention" - what a sham. Note that charges under the secrecy of information act would be existent if Canada had reason to believe the US charges were true. canadian national security has higher importance in Canada than US national security so no extradition should be allowed if there are charges in Canada, and there MUST be charges in Canada to substantiate an extradition request on the same basis. This would be under "Communications with Foreign Entities or Terrorist Groups" of the Secrecy of Information Act. Note though that BIll C36 is in large part unconstitutional on the foundation of Canada 1982, and is archaic, and flatly violates the constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Anti-Terrorism_Act The bottom line hereis that the person should be tried in Canada, or at worst Iraq, the US has no right of claim or habeas corpus. Canada should not grant an extradition to a court that does not recognize habeas corpus. Edited February 1, 2012 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 "extrajudicial detention" - what a sham. Note that charges under the secrecy of information act would be existent if Canada had reason to believe the US charges were true. The US doesn't care what Canada has reason to believe in these cases. canadian national security has higher importance in Canada than US national security so no extradition should be allowed if there are charges in Canada, and there MUST be charges in Canada to substantiate an extradition request on the same basis. No following this line of thought...the Canadian and Afghan perps are already in US detention. The bottom line hereis that the person should be tried in Canada, or at worst Iraq, the US has no right of claim or habeas corpus. I think many Canadians suffer under such delusion, made evident whenever Canadians commit crimes in other countries. They bitch and moan about the laws back in Canada....funny. Canada should not grant an extradition to a court that does not recognize habeas corpus. Okay, but too late for that in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 The Canadian woman that Ottawa has left high and dry in the hands of Mexican authorities comes to mind. Cyndy Vanier, of Mount Forest, Ont., has been held under the country's "preventive arrest" laws for 80 days, accused of — but not charged with — leading the alleged smuggling plot.Under Mexican law, authorities can detain suspects for up to 90 days without charge. Story Governments of a feather flock together I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.