Canadian Court Limits Detention in Terror Cases--NYTimes

Highlights:

Quote:

---

OTTAWA, Feb. 23 — Canada’s highest court on Friday unanimously struck down a law that allows the Canadian government to detain foreign-born terrorism suspects indefinitely using secret evidence and without charges while their deportations are being reviewed.

---

Quote:

---

The decision reflected striking differences from the current legal climate in the United States. In the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress stripped the federal courts of authority to hear challenges, through petitions for writs of habeas corpus, to the open-ended confinement of foreign terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

---

Thank you, Canadian Supreme Court, for upholding the long legal tradition that limits the power of the government to deprive individuals of their freedom without showing cause.

Hello Ordinary:

Yup. Our neighbors to the North know what real democracy is. It's a shame Bush isn't listening...

excon

Well, their parliament passed the law, and their executive tried to enforce it, so they're prone to many of the same scare tactics we are. But at least their Court smacked it down. I hope ours takes inspiration from them.

Are you kidding O.G. The current administration will not take any inspiration from anyone but themselves.

Personally, I have been contemplating a move to Canada. It is located only a few hours north of me and I am sorely tempted. My problem is that I am very grateful that my ancestors came to this country. I probably wouldn't have been born if they didn't. And, I don't relish leaving my friends behind. Up until this current admin, I was very happy here. But, if there is no correction to the direction we are going in, it is becoming increasingly more than just a fleeting thought for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

Are you kidding O.G.? The current administration will not take any inspiration from anyone but themselves.

---

I meant our Supreme Court. I agree there's no hope for this president and his minions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

Personally, I have been contemplating a move to Canada. It is located only a few hours north of me and I am sorely tempted. My problem is that I am very grateful that my ancestors came to this country. I probably wouldn't have been born if they didn't. And, I don't relish leaving my friends behind. Up until this current admin, I was very happy here. But, if there is no correction to the direction we are going in, it is becoming increasingly more than just a fleeting thought for me.

---

I began the process of emigrating to Canada in 1970 to evade the draft, but drew #270 in the birthday lottery, so the point became moot. I spent parts of three years there (Ontario, north of Toronto near Parry Sound) and really liked the culture and the people.

I know you were talking about the Supreme Court. In my opinion they are part of the current admin as far as I am concerned. Look how many have been appointed by Bush and are in line with his way of thinking. I guess all we can do is hope that there will be a little less ultra-conservative thinking, and more independent thinking on their part, when he is out of office.

I have spent time up in Canada as well. More in Quebec City, and the surrounding areas, and Nova Scotia. I really do love it up there. I made the move to New Hampshire a number of years ago because it is more like an independent state than any other I have been in. You know the motto: Live Free or Die! People here take that very seriously. We have one guy, Brown, who has been in the news of late. He hasn't paid taxes in years and has blockaded himself in his home. He is a very rational guy. I understand where he is coming from but I don't have that kind of moxy in me. I would rather move out of country if I was as disenchanted as he is. That isn't any way to live. He has virtually built his own private prison.

Oh Nova Scotia is beautiful place. All of the east coast (maritimes). That would be cool if you came up to Canada. (;

Ruby would love it (;

5 years the US have held an Australian suspect without charge. It was only recently that they passed new laws to charge him with.

They created laws during the 5 years he he has been held in detention to charge him with.

WOW, that's justice at its best isn't it?

The sickest part is that John Howard, our PM just sits by and lets it happen. He would never want to offend his pal Bush. He is that far up his backside all you can see is his shoelaces dangling out Bush's rear end!

It is sick on so many levels it isn't funny and people down here are disgusted in the whole process I can assure you of that!

So WELL DONE CANADA!!

Wow, Skell, why don't you tell us what you REALLY think? LOL

It is sick on many levels. It undermines its own foundation. It is the fruits of fear and self-deception manifested as collective delusion. George Bush is often quoted as saying that September 11 "changed everything". Well, it changed his and many other people's perception of the level of threat to the U.S. civilian population from terrorist attacks. It should have changed none of the principles of law and government that the Nation was built on, and are embodied in our Constitution. But they (W and the Neo-Cons) decided that it did indeed change these principles and that the fundamental change is that protecting the "Homeland" from terrorist attack became Job One-And-Only for not only the President, but everybody else in the vast Executive Branch, and the Armed Forces. And furthermore, since the job is so overriding in importance, the Congress and the Courts should just butt out and let The Decider and The Enforcers take care of it.

I suppose I could understand why they might decide this, but the really scary thing is that WE (Congress, the Courts, and until recently public opinion) let them do it with very little protest or resistance. This scares me far more than the Neo-Con Cabal themselves. When the Collective is ready, the Cabal appears.

My impression (based mostly on news accounts, I suppose) is that public opinion in Re: the US in most of the world since 2003 has been negative and hasn't changed except to get more so. In the US, it started way positive, and has now turned way negative. I suppose the new Cabal will reveal themselves soon.

Hello again:

George Bush mistakenly says his job is to protect the American people, so he whittles on the Constitution. I don't know where he gets this from. He makes it up as he goes along. Presidents, who make up things must be stopped!

Actually, his job is just the opposite! In fact, he's supposed to protect the Constitution – not pare away at it. That's what he swore he would do in the oath of office he took. I've reprinted it here for your perusal.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Where does it say anything about protecting people??

excon

Hello again:

There's a prison phenomenon that I call, well I don't have a name for it, but I'll bet the social scientists do. Anyway, this phenomenon blew me away when I first observed it. You might recognize it, because it's happening to you, at least you Americans.

In the joint, when somebody would break a rule, say in the visiting room, instead of punishing the rule breaker, they took the visiting room away from everybody. What??

I know that they had something in mind when they did it. It wasn't just some odd reaction to a problem, but a specific planned reaction to it. I don't know what it's called, but the neo-cons adopted it.

It's exactly how George Bush reacted when we were attacked. Instead of going after the attackers, he took the visiting room away. The analogy isn't good, but you know what I mean.

excon

PS> I'm sorry if I've stolen this thread, but I'm angry, and I need to get it out.

PPS> Well, maybe I haven't stolen it, because if Canada is on the march to reverse stuff, this is the stuff that needs to be reversed HERE.

Ordinary Guy and excon, both have expressed themselves quite well here.

Skell, I think you are getting an inkling of how, I believe, the majority of Americans are not in agreement with the current administration's tactics. Not just NOT in agreement, but angered. There is so much more to this entire situation here than we have the time to write. But, the bottom line is, that for those of us who pay attention, we are witnessing a complete breakdown of what this country was founded on. It is more than scary. How do we ever get ourselves back on track? The damage Bush has done to our constitution, our way of life, is so extensive, it will never,ever be corrected fully no matter who we vote in. This is quickly becoming a country of the haves and have nots. The division of power has been on such a fast track, that we are in for a huge catastrophic event, much much larger than what has already occurred in the years that Bush and his cronies have taken control of our government. This one will be epic. I don't think we can ever recover from the damage that has been done here. It scares me enough to actually consider leaving my homeland. Something that never, ever entered my mind prior to 2003.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

In the joint, when somebody would break a rule, say in the visiting room, instead of punishing the rule breaker, they took the visiting room away from everybody. What???

I know that they had something in mind when they did it. It wasn’t just some odd reaction to a problem, but a specific planned reaction to it. I dunno what it’s called, but the neo-cons adopted it.

---

I guess one name for it would be collective punishment. It seems pretty obvious to me that what they had in mind was to make life miserable for everybody when anybody broke the rules. That way, the population becomes self-policing and self-punishing, divided and suspicious of one another. In the joint, they've already taken away so much of an individual's freedom that there isn't much left to threaten the individual rule breaker with. But if they can get his fellow inmates to mete out worse punishments than they can get away with, they're off the hook.

And yes, it worked on us, the population at large. Look what happened to The Dixie Chicks.

For Skell--

Vice President's Remarks with Australian Prime Minister John Howard

If that doesn't make you throw up in your own mouth, you have a stronger stomach than I do.

Lead Editorial NYTimes today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/op...r=1&oref=slogi

February 27, 2007
Editorial
Canada’s Move to Restore Rights

The United States was not the only country to respond to the horror of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with policies that went much too far in curtailing basic rights and civil liberties in the name of public safety. Now we see that a nation can regain its senses after calm reflection and begin to rein back such excesses, but that heartening news comes from Canada and not the United States.

Canada’s Supreme Court has struck down a law that the government used to detain foreign-born terrorism suspects indefinitely — employing secret evidence and not filing charges — while orders to deport them were reviewed. The law was actually passed in 1978, but was primarily employed to detain and deport foreign spies. After the 2001 attacks, the Canadian government began using it aggressively to hold terrorism suspects, claiming that it was an important tool for keeping Canada safe.

That is just the sort of argument the Bush administration used to ram the excesses of the Patriot Act and the 2006 Military Commissions Act through Congress, and offered as an excuse for other abusive policies, like President Bush’s illegal wiretapping of international calls and e-mail.

The Canadian justices rejected their government’s specious national security claim with a forceful 9-to-0 ruling that upheld every person’s right to fair treatment. “The overarching principle of fundamental justice that applies here is this: before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

The contrast with the United States could not be more disturbing. The Canadian court ruling came just days after a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that Congress could deny inmates of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp the ancient right to challenge their confinement in court. The 2006 military tribunals law revoked that right for a select group who had been designated “illegal enemy combatants” without a semblance of judicial process.

In late January, Canada created another unflattering contrast with United States policy when it offered a formal apology and financial compensation to Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was a victim of Mr. Bush’s decision to approve open-ended detentions, summary deportations and even torture after 9/11. Mr. Arar was detained in the United States and deported to Syria, where he was held for nearly a year and tortured.

Instead of apologizing to Mr. Arar, who was cleared of any connection to terrorism by a Canadian investigatory panel, Justice Department lawyers are fighting a lawsuit he has brought in this country, using their usual flimsy claim of state secrets. The Bush administration still refuses to remove Mr. Arar from its terrorist watch list.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled twice in favor of Guantánamo detainees on statutory grounds, but it has yet to address the profound constitutional issues presented by American practices, including the abuses Congress authorized when it passed the Military Commissions Act. Such a showdown does not seem far off, but Congress also has a duty to revoke or rewrite the laws that have been abused in the name of national security, starting with the 2006 tribunals law.

Lawmakers have only to look to the Canadian court for easy-to-follow directions back to the high ground on basic human rights and civil liberties.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

For Skell--

Vice President's Remarks with Australian Prime Minister John Howard

If that doesn't make you throw up in your own mouth, you have a stronger stomach than I do.

---

LOL!! Sorry I have taken so long to answer but I actually did have a day off work yesterday to be sick! Hahaha. It wasn't after reading this but I'm glad I didn't while my stomach was so weak. I was actually feeling better today until reading this.

Yes, the Vice Presidents visit caused a bit of a stir here.

I do have to say, that most Australians are very comfortable and proud of our relationship with the US. Us smarter ones realise that you of course mean a lot more to us, then we do to you, and the relationship we have with you is a necessity for us, and more of a convenience for you guys. But that is politics and how it should be.

But having said that, the events of recent years have left a lot with a sour taste in their mouths. It has nothing to do with your country or your people, but more the path we have been lead down due to our relationship. We are becoming more and more Americanized, and that scares a lot people. We are losing our identity and what made this place great!

We are in war that NOBODY wants, we got a bum deal in the trade agreements, our legal system is heading much down the same path as you guys in terms of litigation, our education system is heading much down the same path as you guys as far as it is becoming a very very expensive exercise.

A lot of things that made us great have been sliding away under this Government. He has been a good and solid leader in a time when we needed but this war in Iraq will bring upon the end of his reign I feel. It is very unpopular and the longer it is dragging on the worse it is becoming. We have an election later this year and I think we will have a much needed change in Government and hopefully some new policies.

One of those being we stand up for ourselves a little more and aren't simply a puppet for Big Brother. Much like our strong little cousins New Zealand. Now there is strong and proud nation who have no problem saying no t something they don't believe in!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

We have an election later this year and i think we will have a much needed change in Government and hopefully some new policies.

One of those being we stand up for ourselves a little more and arent simply a puppet for Big Brother. Much like our strong little cousins New Zealand. Now there is strong and proud nation who have no problem saying no t something they dont believe in!

---

Go for it! I agree about your kiwi neighbors, too. The only area of their government policy I know anything about is agriculture, and I sincerely wish we could learn from their example. They kicked the subsidies right out from under agriculture, and though it was a painful adjustment, they now have a much more competitive and flexible ag sector than almost anybody else in the world. Our ag policy establishment and the farm lobbying heavyweights (and Canada's too, regrettably) are wedded to their subsidies, preferences, quotas, export credits, etc. ad nauseum. It's a classic case of addiction--a short-term "high" that in the long run destroys not only our own health, but the health of third world economies as well.

Oh, and I do seem to remember NZ wouldn't let one of our ships dock in their ports because it was carrying nuclear weapons. Imagine!