B. Max Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 911 the most obvious. I don't believe there is any number requirement. 9-11 was neither a rebellion or an invasion by any stretch of the imagination or meaning of the words. It is to those of right thinking people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 Don't go to the US if you don't like it. Do you expect Harper to provide you with a security team when traveling to Iran or Syria or other non-friendly nations? No. So why provide legal protection in another soverieign nation? Anyway, international pressure works pretty good, if a Canadian got stuck in that they'd easily be sent to trial with some pressure. And FTA, if it's as bad as you figure on the quick read, don't you think the Supreme Court will strike down such an act? Canadians can end up in the U.S. through third parties turning them over as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 It is to those of right thinking people. "Right" in the sense of political orientation, perhaps, but certainly not in the sense of "correct" or even "stable". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 It is to those of right thinking people. "Right" in the sense of political orientation, perhaps, but certainly not in the sense of "correct" or even "stable". Would that be politically correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 Would that be politically correct. What the hell are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 Would that be politically correct. What the hell are you talking about? You are the one that used the word correct and I asked if that was politically correct. There is nothing stable about those folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted October 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 Don't go to the US if you don't like it. Do you expect Harper to provide you with a security team when traveling to Iran or Syria or other non-friendly nations? No. So why provide legal protection in another soverieign nation? What the hell is with you and Syria? Who is talking about Syria? The thread is in the US/Canada forum. If it is such small potatoes why did Tony Blair ask for and get an exemption for Brits? Once again we have the George Bush fan club bending over so far backwards it's looking up its arse. It is ironic indeed to see a country that constantly harangues China over its human rights abuses turning itself into exactly the same sort of legal system. If Bush is so crazy about protecting US lives, let him do something about their gun laws. Get a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 You are the one that used the word correct and I asked if that was politically correct. There is nothing stable about those folks. You're right. Anyone who equates 9-11 with a rebellion or invasion is most definitely unstable. Let me explain it to you in simple terms. The Constitution guarantees the right of habeus corpus except in circumstances of rebellion or invasion. Nobody, and I mean nobody of any authority or credibility, is arguing that 9-11 meets those criterea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 Don't go to the US if you don't like it. Do you expect Harper to provide you with a security team when traveling to Iran or Syria or other non-friendly nations? No. So why provide legal protection in another soverieign nation? What the hell is with you and Syria? Who is talking about Syria? The thread is in the US/Canada forum. If it is such small potatoes why did Tony Blair ask for and get an exemption for Brits? Once again we have the George Bush fan club bending over so far backwards it's looking up its arse. It is ironic indeed to see a country that constantly harangues China over its human rights abuses turning itself into exactly the same sort of legal system. If Bush is so crazy about protecting US lives, let him do something about their gun laws. Get a clue. I think he is refering to the Maher Arar case in Canada. He went to the Middle East on vacation/business, stopped over in the US before going home to Canada, and was detained and renditioed off to Syria. Turns out he was innocent after all. Innocent untill proven guilty. I think I understood that the US can detain anyone not a US citizen on their own soil. Fair enough. No problems with that really. If the Patriot Act can basicly override the constitution. (not 100% sure it can) Bush can say 'enemy combatant' and you could find yourself in a living hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 You're right. Anyone who equates 9-11 with a rebellion or invasion is most definitely unstable. Let me explain it to you in simple terms. The Constitution guarantees the right of habeus corpus except in circumstances of rebellion or invasion. Nobody, and I mean nobody of any authority or credibility, is arguing that 9-11 meets those criterea. What would you call it. An early christmas present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 Canadians can end up in the U.S. through third parties turning them over as well. That's pretty tricky... can you think of some examples? Like when they catch a Canadian fighting for the Taliban? I don't really feel much sympathy for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Monk Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 This is about the US government removing checks and balances designed to prevent abuse of power. You simply cannot blindly trust ANY government to always do the right thing, that's why the obstacles were put there in the first place, by those who had learned from their past experiences. I bet the founding fathers are spinning in their graves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 Anyway, international pressure works pretty good, if a Canadian got stuck in that they'd easily be sent to trial with some pressure.And FTA, if it's as bad as you figure on the quick read, don't you think the Supreme Court will strike down such an act? Geoffrey, You need to read the excerpt I cited in my last post...for ease of reference, here's the part you need to read very closely: `(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination If you are someone in Mr. Arar's exact situation, wrongfully held prisoner by the US having been determined to be a person involved with Al Qaeda, you can't even make an application to a court to ask for a review of your detention...there is NO JURISDICTION for such an application. So, the fact of the matter is, you can literally vanish into indefinite US custody and no matter how many laws they break while continuing that custody...YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RECOURSE. You say, oh, don't worry...if you are Canadian, international pressure will free you no sweat. Let me ask you this...how will anyone know that the US has even detained you? I hate to be a scare-monger, and I ususally don't take such positions, but this legislation is terrifying...especially if you are of Middle-Eastern ancestry and a citizen of ANY country other than the US (and from what others here are saying the UK, because they've already used their "international pressure" when it matters BEFORE their citizens disappear into a now apparently fully approved US torture / non-trial facility). FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted October 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 That's pretty tricky... can you think of some examples? Like when they catch a Canadian fighting for the Taliban? I don't really feel much sympathy for that. The guy is being deliberately obtuse. Look at the above quote. Altogether now, can anybody remember an example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 So, the fact of the matter is, you can literally vanish into indefinite US custody and no matter how many laws they break while continuing that custody...YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RECOURSE...Let me ask you this...how will anyone know that the US has even detained you? Among the many horrible things about this legislation, I have to agree that this aspect (how will anyone know that the US has even detained you?) is the most alarming. When person X fails to come home from the grocery store one afternoon, will his family ever know what happened to him? For all they know, person X was kidnapped or decided to become a deadbeat dad or ran away with some cocktail waitress. He simply disappears. They won't even know to hire an attorney -- whatever good that will do as it seems the law strips suspects (*SUSPECTS!*) of all constitutional rights and freedoms. The government decides who is a threat and who should disappear and the families at home are left with no recourse, with no indication of where their father, son or brother went. Even if they suspect he's been detained, where he is being physically held and whether or not there is any chance to obtain a fair trial or fair determination of his status as a threat. This sounds way too much like 1970's Buenos Aires or 1950's Leningrad to me where people simply disappeared off the streets. Bush has opened up the door to our own potential "dirty war". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 What would you call it. An early christmas present. First: fuck you. Second: it was what it was on its face. A terrorist attack. Not an invasion. Certainly not a rebellion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted October 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 B. Max, why don't you regale us once more with your thoughts on Ghandi? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 That's pretty tricky... can you think of some examples? Like when they catch a Canadian fighting for the Taliban? I don't really feel much sympathy for that. The guy is being deliberately obtuse. Look at the above quote. Altogether now, can anybody remember an example? Khadr was Syrian as well, and was friends with al-Qaeda operatives. I feel little sympathy there. You or I wouldn't be held without a trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 so if i go to the states and get in a bar scrap, i can "disappear", not get a trial and be held indefinetely?, well if that's the case im not going there and the terrorists have won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 GeofFrey, your attitude towards justice is unjust. I get shot down all of the time for my preference of an anarchist sense of justice and believe me, your dismissal of due process horrifies me. We often hear people say that we should respect war veterans because they fought for our freedom. I do not believe that but since eveybody else does, try to extrapolate that thinking domestically: we should consider respecting due process and historical precedents in our criminal judicial system because every single defendent (guilty or innocent) fought long and hard to defend themselves. Our freedoms are enhanced today as a result of their trials because we respect due process -- more or less. The cheesy saying of "A hundred guilty men go free instead of convicting yadda yadda yadda...." is worth repeating. I believe it firmly. I actually would rather shut down our judicial system all together than have one person (innocent or guilty) be denied due process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 I will consider the law again and maybe change my mind on it a bit... FTA showed some good points. Personally, am I worried? Not in the least. You do as well bring up some good points Charles. It's a thinker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 Dear Charles Anthony, I get shot down all of the timeYou take it all with tremendously good humour and patience, and I commend you.geoffrey, You or I wouldn't be held without a trial.I don't see this as a valid reason to support 'injustice', and further, you don't know that for certain. Back in Stalinist Russia, people lived in perpetual fear of being denounced as an enemy of the state. That's all it took, a discreet word from a neighbour or co-worker, and poof!, (or should I say blam!) one disappeared, with no 'due process' of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0925-35.htm That is a link to an article from last month. At the end of the piece, there is an interesting little story about Khrushchev and the Politburo after Stalin's death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 21, 2006 Report Share Posted October 21, 2006 Suspending rights to people is a bad plan. It simply can't be justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted October 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2006 Rights are the top of the pile. The 1000 dollar bill. Rights are not chump change. Jefferson knew it and he knew why he was granting them. Bush just has not got a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.