Oh, bother.
If you don't know the shit that went down in Gitmo...you're lucky.
Have you ever been force-fed through your anus? I haven't, and I hope that never changes.
Disgusted, but not surprised
If that's true then once again, anyone who has ever fought for a dictatorial regime—hell anyone who has ever committed a war crime against a civilian, which would include a distressing number of American, British, and Canadian soldiers—is a terrorist.
Disguising oneself as a civilian does not make you a terrorist, it makes you a war criminal. Killing civilians who cooperate with the enemy doesn't make you a terrorist either, it again makes you a war criminal. The Taliban's method of operation has a lot more in common with the Viet Cong than it does with al-Qaeda or the IRA; are we saying that the VC were terrorists?
And of course no matter how you describe the Taliban, what Khadr did whilst in their employ was not terrorism. Blowing up a soldier in a combat zone—even a medic—is not an act of terrorism. It may be a war crime, depending entirely upon whether or not said medic properly identified himself and Khadr was in a position to see that identification—if the medic wasn't wearing proper insignia, or if Khadr simply lobbed a grenade in the direction of a group of soldiers and the medic caught the worst of it, then even calling it a war crime is pretty questionable.
Khadr's behaviour was no different than that of a Viet Cong member or, as previously noted, a Hitler Youth member. Should the members of those organizations been shipped to Guantanamo or classified as terrorists?
A procrastination in of itself
Actually I think I was wrong on the disguising oneself as a civilian point, that's actually the distinction, if one is a civilian carrying out an attack on other civilians, or a member of military organisation carrying out attacks against civilians while disguised as a civilian. The former is s terrorist and the later is a war criminal. I can't be certain where the Taliban are on that axis, I suspect they cross it at multiple points.
Also I'd note that attacking a medic is not always a war crime, medics are only protected under the Geneva convention if they are unarmed, which I don't belive American medi s have been for some time. If they are armed than they are valid military targets for attack.
The point I wa trying to make is that the outrage at the payout would feel a lot more genuine if said people were also outraged about the Canadian government being complicit in the torture of its citizens and the American government carrying out said torture.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Disguising yourself as a civilian is a war crime. Killing civilians is a war crime. Doing both at the same time just makes you guilty of two war crimes.
The line between civilian and soldier is indeed somewhat blurred with the Taliban due to their lack of uniforms, but since that's a problem that many Third World military organizations—and particularly guerilla organizations—suffer from and the Taliban are both the former Afghani government and pursue military policy aimed at again becoming the Afghani government, I'd class them as war criminals rather than terrorists.
There's bad habit we've got of using "terrorist" as a pejorative when Muslims commit crimes—a white man who shoots someone is a murderer, a Muslim is a terrorist. The same problem seems to get applied on a larger scale to war crimes—a Muslim war criminal will probably get labeled a terrorist, while a white or Christian one will just be a war criminal.
And this is all a factor even before we get into the forced conscription of minors issue. Coercion is a defense for crimes, and that defense is strengthened if said defendant was vulnerable (like being brainwashed from childhood). Even for war crimes, low ranking soldiers (even irregulars) under pain of death or serious punishment to comply with illegal orders are generally not prosecuted under international law (more useful as witnesses anyway).
And that's not even getting into what a blatant mockery of law the American military tribunal was. Torture aside, they denied the defense information that was give freely to the prosecution, essentially made up their own status for defendants (if they were common criminals with no right to be on the battlefield, you charge them in civilian courts. Military tribunals are for recognized combatants. Instead they decided to take away all the safeguards in both systems and come up with a Kafka like rigged affair.), and made acquittals practically impossible. The Nazis at Nuremberg and most serial killers got better deals.
Really, even if this had gone on as it did, all the Martin and Harper governments had to do was try and stop it. They didn't need to succeed, they just had to give some basic effort to uphold his rights. Had they, we wouldn't have owed him anything so substantial. All we had to do was protest the US deciding that even the most basic legal principles didn't apply to them, we didn't and now we're out 10.5 million bucks (which, on the national budget level, is little more than a rounding error). Law is the law.
edited 16th Jul '17 9:14:43 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
So have we talked about the new Governor General? Granted I'm not sure what can be said beyond she's an astronaut that's neat.
edited 16th Jul '17 3:54:29 PM by phantom1
it's a living
Our new Governor-General came from space and Trudeau is going to lift off the whole country into orbit like Asteroid M, so that's pretty cool.
I brought it up last page, but yeah, she's definitely a great pick. Astronaut, distinguished scientist, no skeletons in her closet (knock on wood
).
That said, Johnson did a pretty good job as well, all things considered.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Perpetually Confused
I mean, when even the Conservatives are praising the decision, there isn't much to say.
She's smart, she's got media experience. It's an all aroung good job. Plus we can call her the Space Governor, so that works too.
Oh, bother.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
She'll still pale in comparison to the UK's Lord Buckethead, who is a Space Lord.
edited 16th Jul '17 11:54:43 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
Perpetually Confused
But he's never been in space. So he's more a Space-in-name-only Lord.
Also he's technically not a real lord either.
edited 17th Jul '17 10:23:44 AM by Ghilz
Oh, bother.
If the guy with the space-laser says he's a Space Lord, I'm going to call him a Space Lord.
Perpetually Confused
Point is, ours is real :-P
Oh, bother.
Yes, but the UK's is much more entertaining.
Which, sadly, seems to be what a lot of people want in their politicians.
...
edited 17th Jul '17 10:26:08 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
Student of Story
Speaking as an American, this bit of dialog seems like a microcosm of the UK-Canada relationship.
Of course, since I'm just looking in from the outside.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
I think M84 is also an American
Perpetually Confused
Yes, but the UK's is much more entertaining.
Only coz Chris Hadfield doesn't have the job yet. (Though Julie Payette is actually really fun, I've seen some of her speeches and presentation, she's really fun at explaining science stuff).
Christy Clark is resigning as Opposition leader and leaving politics.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Perpetually Confused
Not surprising, after how that last election ended.
Just got a CBC alert that Brad Wall is leaving politics, though he's staying on as Premier until his party picks a new leader.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
Canada Wants a New NAFTA to Include Gender and Indigenous Rights
Just two days before heading into the first round of negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally laid out its core objectives, and second on the list was to make the 23-year-old pact “more progressive.”
By that, the government meant not only strengthening the existing labor safeguards and environmental provisions, but also adding whole new chapters on both gender and indigenous rights, and addressing climate change.
Those “progressive elements,” the foreign affairs minister, Chrystia Freeland, told a university audience in Ottawa on Monday morning, “are how we guarantee that the modernized Nafta will not only be an exemplary free-trade deal, it will also be a fair trade deal.”
She later repeated the remarks to a parliamentary committee on international trade, but did not provide much detail as to how her government’s proposals would be carried out.
The speeches were the first time the government had revealed its goals heading into the much-anticipated talks, despite sending lobbyists to Washington and across the United States over the past nine months to ensure the trade deal survives President Trump’s rancor and threats to rip it up.
Tracey Ramsey, a member of the New Democratic Party in Parliament, posed a question during the committee meeting that many Canadians wondered about. “How confident can you be that the Americans will even include the words ‘climate change’ when they pulled out of what happened in Paris?” she asked. “They have a president who claims that climate change is a Chinese hoax.”
With much of the Canadian economy entwined in Nafta, Mr. Trudeau has admitted this government has no Plan B for its demise. Instead, he assembled a war room to ensure its survival.
“We’ve explained to our southern friends, at every opportunity, that Canada is the largest export market for two thirds of U.S. states, and America’s biggest overall customer — by far,” Ms. Freeland said on Monday. “Indeed, Canada buys more from the U.S. than China, the U.K. and Japan combined.”
Through Ms. Freeland’s speech, the Trudeau government again made clear that it sees itself as among the emerging champions of progressive ideals in the world.
“There are too many communities in our prosperous nation where people do not feel prosperous, where they instead feel left behind by an economy that is increasingly divided between the wealthy 1 percent at the very top, and everyone else,” Ms. Freeland said.
“If we don’t act now,” she added, “Canadians may lose faith in the open society, in immigration and in free trade — just as many have across the Western industrialized world.”
And in what was perhaps a reference to Mr. Trump, who has accused Mexicans of stealing American jobs and being rapists, she said the first essential thing for the country to do is “avoid scapegoating the “other.”
Canada recently added its first gender chapter in its 20-year-old free-trade deal with Chile, which called for both countries to apply a gender lens to trade. As for the “indigenous chapter,” Ms. Freeland told reporters it was a “fresh area” that came at the suggestion of Perry Bellegarde, who represents most of the country’s indigenous people.
“It may be an opportunity for creative rule making,” said Ms. Dawson, a former senior adviser on economic affairs at the American Embassy in Ottawa. “If a trade agreement is going to have longevity, it needs to reflect the broader public values and not just be a way to ease the trade of things.”
The Trudeau government has made gender equality, climate change and reconciliation with indigenous people central to its policies. The first thing Mr. Trudeau did as prime minister was to name the country’s first gender-balanced cabinet.
...And in blatant conflict with Mr. Trump’s “Buy American” campaign, Canada also wants to ban local-content provisions for government contracts, which Ms. Freeland called “political junk food, superficially appetizing, but unhealthy in the long run.”
Noting that the country had walked out of trade negotiations before and was willing to do so again, Ms. Freeland remarked that “we are committed to a good deal, not just any deal.”
But, it was clear to most Canadians that her bluster was addressed to them just as much as American negotiators who will sit across from her team on Wednesday, in the first of many talks that are expected to last months. Canadians may agree that Nafta is good for the country’s economy, but the notion of being pushed around by their larger, more powerful neighbor sets their teeth on edge.
“Our approach in these talks will be in keeping with our national character; hard-working, fact-based, cordial, animated by the spirit of good will and the pursuit of compromise,” Ms. Freeland said. “We also know that there is no contradiction between being polite, and being strong. It is no accident that hockey is our national sport.”
Canada shoots high
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Man Tries to Run Down Antifa Protesters in his Truck No one is hurt and he isn't arrested.
I would hope that those Proud Boy thugs are at least looking at administrative charges for crashing into that police vehicle, if not criminal ones regarding the use of weapons or even assault.
Those marchers really shouldn't have tossed rocks at a vehicle though, that's a crime itself. And they undermined themselves by using overt force first. They may have come close to giving him a self-defense argument, at least for the initial bit.
As for the asshole from Oregon, if he's not a duel citizen/resident, might just be easier to deport the prick.
Oddly enough, this story hasn't made much noise on the national news.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
United Earth
Attempted murder?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]")
Not "properly punished"? He was stuck in Guantanamo Bay! There is nothing on the Canadian roster worse than that.
Not Three Laws compliant.