As for the bad guys…sorry, no trembling here, but that doesn’t mean you ignore reality….which seems to be your preferred method of operation.

Question for you. Of the thousands of Tamil protestors in Ottawa today….how many do you think support terrorism? How many do you think have already been involved in terrorism? How many have made a financial contribution to the Tamil Tigers’ cause?

One simply needs to remember the Tamil Flags marched around Pariliament Hill whenever one doubts the reality of today’s world. As well as the Tamils, we need to worry about Muslim etremists (some financed by tax-dollars) Sikh extremists, and every other nationalistic/religious/ethnic group that comes to Canada and brings their hatreds with them. Ignore them at your peril Jack, even if they are a good source of votes for the Liberal party.

Sorry Paul, but Jack Bauer is a fictional character. Osama Bin Laden, and thousands who think like him are a grim reality. I know that sitting in a chair writing about the real world is a lot easier than actually living in it, but perhaps you should get out more and see it for yourself.

As well, based on this comment of yours….I see that what I pointed out about you and Kady in a previous posting is still under your skin. Oh well, I’m sure the moderator will not let this one through either, knowing how upset you get when you don’t get the last word.

PS….you really should have taken my previous advice and read some Mark Steyn. He’ll really help you with your prose….however, humour doesn’t seem your strong point so take what you can from Steyn’s writing and improve what you can.

The idea that the state should be allowed to compel me, or anyone, to reveal information that I don’t want to reveal is a civil right I don’t want to give up. It is my birthright as a citizen.

Wow, I guess the Romans had it right then. Well hell, we should make sure everyone who is accused of a crime is tortured, particularly if they are shown to be of low moral character by being dissolute, poor, or merchants. That attitude worked in the 4th century A.D. and was revived several centuries later with the revival of Roman law among church and secular officials, and I don’t hear anybody passing judgment on the legal systems of either time period. Oh, and nobody ever faults the communist nations for their use of torture to extract information against enemies of the state either.

You know, I think you might know something. After all, you’re talking about doing something to terrorize someone with vice-grips. How about we torture you for awhile until we find out what you’re planning, or who you know who might be planning something? Then everyone will feel a little safer.

Have you ever looked in the mirror and asked why there are terrorists? Why are there suicide bombers?

What a sense of hopelessness one must feel if one is willing to stoop so low.

What kind of world do you want to live in?
I certainly hope that you do not have children.

I one is willing to stoop so low what is it that we are defending?”

Eddieo, you have been listening to too many “Human rights” lawyers. Torture does work……..on the guilty. If doesn’t work so well on the innocent. So you are wrong in the first instance, and correct on the second.

As for bringing people to trial and using info extracted by torture……who cares. We don’t pry information from people we suspect of being terrorists with the intention of taking them to trial. We want the information they have, such as locations and names. Easier to kill the bad guys than to try them.

As for torture being morally wrong……….you may have a point….to a degree. If Osama Bin Ladens right-hand man knew where the boss was hiding, you can be sure I’d find out where. Morality? I would only feel remorse if an innocent were hurt. Terrorists and their minions…..not so much. As for it being illegal………that’s not even a consideration when lives are at stake.

As for your comment about stooping low….relax. You can safely spout off from your soap-box while others do the dirty work required to keep you safe. As always, better men than you will do what is required. Now if you’ll excuse me…..I need to go find my Vice-Grips.

It should not matter if you are rich or powerful as far as the law is concerned. This is – possibly – the only case where our tendency to look at life in a binary fashion is just.

Section 35(1) (a) states that a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights or for committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Also inadmissible (s.35 (1)(b)) are persons who are, or were, senior officials “in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in gross human rights violations…”

Under sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act:

“crimes against humanity” includes murder, enforced disappearance, deportation, imprisonment, torture, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group. “war crime” includes wilfull killing, torture and inhuman treatment, unlawful confinement, willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of fair trial rights, intentionally launching that the attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

If there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has been complicit in any of these crimes, entry to Canada must be denied. The Supreme Court of Canada says reasonable grounds are “something more than suspicion but less than…proof on the balance of probabilities.”

I see that the cited United Nations Convention Against Torture was signed by Cuba as well. Do you feel that the “obligation to prosecute” also applies to the multiples cases of Castro-sanctioned torture?

All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition. This was affirmed by Saadi v. Italy in which the European Court of Human Rights, on February 28, 2008, upheld the absolute nature of the torture ban by ruling that international law permits no exceptions to it.[126] The treaty states “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture”.[127] Additionally, signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are bound to Article 5, which states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.[128] Many signatories of the convention have made specific declarations and reservations regarding the interpretation of the term “torture” and restricted the jurisdiction of its enforcement.[129] However, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, stated on the subject “I would have no problems with describing this practice as falling under the prohibition of torture”, and that violators of the UN Convention Against Torture should be prosecuted under the principle of universal jurisdiction.[130]
Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and former member of the United Nations Committee Against Torture has said:
It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture. In addition the CIA’s waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labeled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US.[131]

It would work if I was the one being tortured!

But such scenarios are completely illogical. How would you *know* that a dude had planted a bomb, but not have any idea *where* he planted it? It sounds like a dopey comic book plot written by sixth graders.

When this lame excuse (“what if we knew that a terrorist had planted a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles!” LOL) was presented to the public by the likes of Rush, Hannity, etc. it demonstrated what utter morons they consider the public to be. Not that they’re wrong (about the public) mind you, but still.

If you allowed silly loopholes to exist which allow torture and secrecy then do you think that maybe – just maybe – the loopholes might be open to abuse by unscrupulous, lazy, vicious thugs who just happen to work in the government? And that the partisan cheerleaders who clapped their hands when their guy committed tyrannical acts might themselves be subject to the same bestial acts of cruelty when the other party gets in power? Look at the Republican Bushite warmongers now protesting against Obama. They’re getting fingered in official memos as “extremists” and “potential terrorists”. Those dudes will be the next ones to get their fingernails pulled.

I one is willing to stoop so low what is it that we are defending?

If I had a dude in the room with me who I knew planted a bomb in my city, ………I would personally pull out his fingernails with a pair of dull vice-grips to find out where it was. I’m sure some of those opposed to torture in public would feel the exactly same way if their families were in danger. Ask Michael Ignatieff…he’s as much as stated the same thing.

Call me names now……I can take it.

He kinda flamed out after trashing “Rent” and then suggesting that “Capeman” was the best Broadway Show thing ever.

You are wrong when you say it’s not torture if it’s performed outside of the US. In fact, it’s ONLY torture if its performed outside of the US.

18 USC Section 2340A makes it a criminal offense for any person “outside of the United States
[to] comrnit or attempt to commit torture.”, which is immediately thereafter defined as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to iniflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody of physical control.”

Basically what this guy is saying is that diplomacy doesn’t count as a legal opinion, so when the State Department decries an act of a foreign country as torture, it does not mean that such an act violates United States law.

If someone tried to do this inside of the US, then it would violate habeus corpus as well as a host of other laws. Personally I think that the problem is that the US statutory prohibition on torture is too narrow. One can make a legal argument (as the Justice Department did) that waterboarding does not violate that law because of accepted definitions of mental suffering given by Congress. Clearly Congress should revisit this statute and broaden it so that the Executive branch cannot slip through interrogation techniques that clearly are torture under a too-narrow statutory definition.

Here in BC we are voting – again – on a single transferable vote system to replace the first past the post one. The hope is we will end up with a government that truly reflects the populous.

Just trying to help, LFL.