I was shocked when, in late 2004, the Federal Court of Appeal found security certificates to be constitutional. So now its going to the Supreme Court… oh,great. I guess we’ll find out how liberal those Supreme Court judges really are. Anyway, I’m with you on this one; this is pretty basic injustice.
On the face of it, this seems to be an outrage; on the other hand, I don’t have all the facts, so I have to stay a solid opinion.
But about the terminology, “Gitmo North”: Some time ago, I did a little reading about Gitmo (library, reference, non-checkoutable dead-tree type books) and a couple of items tucked themselves into my memory…
1) Gitmo “officially” does not exist under International Law; and 2) Gitmo is not signatory to the Geneva Convention.
I remember reading it, but I wasn’t taking notes, and I don’t remember where I saw it. Does anyone know for sure if what I read is correct? Is Gitmo a blank spot on the map of legalities and rights? And if so, is this new Canadian prison the same kind of place — a legal black hole?
>a prison for people found guilty without a free trial
They haven’t been found guilty yet. Try to stick to the point, which is that they’re being detained indefinitely without disclosure of the evidence against them. Consider how long the Air India trial against the alleged terrorist bombers took to come to a hearing. The issue isn’t detention; the issue is absence of disclosure - charges, evidence, expectation of moving to a trial (and when) or not.
>2) Gitmo is not signatory to the Geneva Convention.
Ratification no longer matters. The Geneva Conventions are now customary international law, and hence universally applicable. Or, to be precise, the Conventions can be enforced against any party, by any party that cares to enforce the Conventions.
“Try to stick to the point…”
Ya gotta love lrC. Who else would have to the arrogance to tell the originator of a thread what the “point” of the thread is?
You’re hair splitting IrC, the practicle difference between “jailed indefinately without recourse” and “guilty” is pretty damned slim for people who have been tossed in jail under a process that denies them the right to see the evidence against them and, by extension, denies them the right to a fair trial.
Chimera: An additional reading suggestion from me would be Guantanamo: What the World Should Know - it took me a long time to read, usually after about 10 minutes or so I was so pissed off and frustrated I had to take a break from it. There’s a lot of the history on how Gitmo came to be there.
Weren’t you one of the people griping about “nuance”? You either treat the facts objectively, or you don’t, which in turn determines the reliability of whatever you say or write.
I don’t think so IrC, balbulican is in charge of nuance. There is no argument that you are correct on a technical point, something that doesn’t mean that I still don’t believe that you are hair splitting.
The idea that people can be pulled off the street and tossed in jail, indefinately, without any access to the evidence against them, should be offensive to anyone who lives in a free society…. given what we already know about governments how can rational and responsible people give government the power to say “we got the goods on him (or her), we can’t tell you, or them, or the lawyers, what that evidence is because it’s a secret, but you can trust us, it’s solid, they gotta be locked up”.
People who buy into that shite do not deserve freedom or the benefits of a free society, they deserve what that sort of crap leads to - the unfortunate thing is their sheeple mentality drags all of us into the same situation.
>The idea that people can be pulled off the street and tossed in jail, indefinately, without any access to the evidence against them, should be offensive to anyone who lives in a free society
I agree. What I object to is that the issue should receive an additional rhetorical nudge. It’s the very fact that guilt hasn’t been proven that allows us to object to the fact that there has been no trial, no disclosure of evidence, and in some cases not even any charges.
It's a sad state of affairs when Canadian kids are treated like this by the government - read about it here then contact your MP
1 year ago: 09/07/2007
2 years ago: 09/07/2006
There are 7 visitors currently online.
Powered by FireStats
When reading here you reminded of the words of Buddha: Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.
The Forte theme by Moses Francis
Valid XHTML and Valid CSS
“All the men are being detained under security certificates, which allow authorities to hold someone who isn’t a Canadian citizen, under unusual conditions.
The men are suspected of having links to militant organizations, but they haven’t been formally charged, and their lawyers can’t see the evidence against them.”
I am not sure where our country is going, but it sure looks very scary! This is not the Canada I grew up in and it should make all of us concerned, very concerned.