Comments on: MMK Takeaway http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/12/mmk-takeaway/ Canada's only national weekly current affairs magazine. Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:13:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: s. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/12/mmk-takeaway/comment-page-1/#comment-95932 s. Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:33:52 +0000 http://blog.macleans.ca/?p=43002#comment-95932 I'm hesitant to engage in discussions on blogs, and not to put words in AP's mouth, but. . . There are, I think, two possible positions. The first is that the state has enough power, under the criminal law and the law of war, as they stand, to deal with terrorism. The second is that the state needs a third sort of power -- unbound by the procedural, common-law and constitutional protections that characterize criminal law, but outside of the traditionally narrow ambit of the law of war -- to deal with terrorism. That the state managed to capture, prosecute, convict and sentence a terrorist without the aid of special terror laws is certainly support for the first position, and is more persuasive than what is in essence an appeal to ignorance: "well, we got him this time, but we don't know what's going to happen next time." I’m hesitant to engage in discussions on blogs, and not to put words in AP’s mouth, but. . .

There are, I think, two possible positions. The first is that the state has enough power, under the criminal law and the law of war, as they stand, to deal with terrorism. The second is that the state needs a third sort of power — unbound by the procedural, common-law and constitutional protections that characterize criminal law, but outside of the traditionally narrow ambit of the law of war — to deal with terrorism. That the state managed to capture, prosecute, convict and sentence a terrorist without the aid of special terror laws is certainly support for the first position, and is more persuasive than what is in essence an appeal to ignorance: “well, we got him this time, but we don’t know what’s going to happen next time.”

]]> By: madeyoulook http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/12/mmk-takeaway/comment-page-1/#comment-95931 madeyoulook Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:59:39 +0000 http://blog.macleans.ca/?p=43002#comment-95931 You may well be right about the lack of necessity for the provisions you deplore. You may not conclude that MMK's conviction without those provisions is the single defining proof of their futility in other circumstances. Look! A flower sprouted in my garden even though I never watered the garden. Guess there's no point to ever water the garden again, or irrigate the corn field, or refill the gerbil's bottle... You may well be right about the lack of necessity for the provisions you deplore.
You may not conclude that MMK’s conviction without those provisions is the single defining proof of their futility in other circumstances.
Look! A flower sprouted in my garden even though I never watered the garden. Guess there’s no point to ever water the garden again, or irrigate the corn field, or refill the gerbil’s bottle…

]]> By: Critical Reasoning http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/12/mmk-takeaway/comment-page-1/#comment-95930 Critical Reasoning Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:53:35 +0000 http://blog.macleans.ca/?p=43002#comment-95930 When you're finished working through Judge Rutherford's reasoning, perhaps you could enlighten us how it relates to preventive arrests without a warrant. When you’re finished working through Judge Rutherford’s reasoning, perhaps you could enlighten us how it relates to preventive arrests without a warrant.

]]>