Stephen Harper has brushed off the issue of Canadian citizen Omar Khadr's outrageous and illegal treatment by US forces both after his capture in Afghanistan and during his present confinement in the illegal torture center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
It seems no one has ever stepped back and had a good look at the whole Khadr story.
Khadr is alleged to have killed a US soldier during the illegal invasion of Afghanistan by US forces after the events of 9/11. The activities of US forces and the soldiers in those forces were and are illegal under international law at the time Khadr is alleged to have thrown a grenade at soldiers actively engaged at the moment in the murder of Afghanistanis. It is fairly clear on the facts that Khadr probably was not the person who threw the grenade and that person was subsequently murdered in cold blood.
Even if he did throw a grenade and killed a US soldier, so what? Why is that a crime? If US soldiers were ever to invade Canada as they did in Afghanistan, you could take it as certain that hundreds of thousands of Canadians would work in every way possible to kill them.
In failing to stand up for Khadr, and demand that he be returned to Canada, Harper cedes authority over a Canadian citizen in places outside the legal reach of US law to an internationally criminal administration led by a cocaine addict, a draft dodger, and a convicted criminal.
Illegally invade someone's country, begin murdering the people you find there, and then charge someone fighting back, as the whole world should have been prepared to do, with murder. Does it get any more insane than that?
Here's the story from the Vancouver Sun...
It seems no one has ever stepped back and had a good look at the whole Khadr story.
Khadr is alleged to have killed a US soldier during the illegal invasion of Afghanistan by US forces after the events of 9/11. The activities of US forces and the soldiers in those forces were and are illegal under international law at the time Khadr is alleged to have thrown a grenade at soldiers actively engaged at the moment in the murder of Afghanistanis. It is fairly clear on the facts that Khadr probably was not the person who threw the grenade and that person was subsequently murdered in cold blood.
Even if he did throw a grenade and killed a US soldier, so what? Why is that a crime? If US soldiers were ever to invade Canada as they did in Afghanistan, you could take it as certain that hundreds of thousands of Canadians would work in every way possible to kill them.
In failing to stand up for Khadr, and demand that he be returned to Canada, Harper cedes authority over a Canadian citizen in places outside the legal reach of US law to an internationally criminal administration led by a cocaine addict, a draft dodger, and a convicted criminal.
Illegally invade someone's country, begin murdering the people you find there, and then charge someone fighting back, as the whole world should have been prepared to do, with murder. Does it get any more insane than that?
Here's the story from the Vancouver Sun...
What the?
Today's Vancouver Sun has an article about NORAD announcing that American fighter jets will patrol VANCOUVER during the 2010 Winter Games. No, not Vancouver, Washington. Vancouver, B.C.
First off, here's the article...
Cold Eye comments in black and following.
Today's Vancouver Sun has an article about NORAD announcing that American fighter jets will patrol VANCOUVER during the 2010 Winter Games. No, not Vancouver, Washington. Vancouver, B.C.
First off, here's the article...
Cold Eye comments in black and following.
It was criminals in the administration behind it, not the Army.
Rumsfeld named as one of architects of torture crimes. This from today's Guardian
Top US general 'hoodwinked' over aggressive interrogation
* Richard Norton-Taylor
* guardian.co.uk,
* Friday April 18 2008
* Article history
About this article
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Friday April 18 2008. It was last updated at 18:44 on April 18 2008.
US military chief General Richard Myers
The US's most senior general was "hoodwinked" by top Bush administration officials determined to push through aggressive interrogation techniques for terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, the Guardian can reveal.
The development led to the US military abandoning its age-old ban on the cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Rumsfeld named as one of architects of torture crimes. This from today's Guardian
Top US general 'hoodwinked' over aggressive interrogation
* Richard Norton-Taylor
* guardian.co.uk,
* Friday April 18 2008
* Article history
About this article
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Friday April 18 2008. It was last updated at 18:44 on April 18 2008.
US military chief General Richard Myers
The US's most senior general was "hoodwinked" by top Bush administration officials determined to push through aggressive interrogation techniques for terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, the Guardian can reveal.
The development led to the US military abandoning its age-old ban on the cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Category: Justice
Posted by: Paddy Roberts
There is some considerable attention being paid by the West Coast media these days on a possible deal that Marc Emery may make with the US government . In a nutshell, the deal contemplates that a Canadian judge will sentence Emery to 10 years in prison for selling pot seeds, with a stipulation that he serve a minimum of five years before being granted parole. Once that sentencing is finished, Emery will then be extradited to the US, where he will plead guilty to the charges there, be given some kind of sentence, and then be sent back to Canada within 45 days. The Canadian Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson, is complicit in this deal, which raises many questions about Canadian sovereignty, and for the first time, about the independence of Canadian judges.
It is difficult to fathom how the deal makers are going to get a Canadian judge to substitute a normal $1000 fine with a 10 year sentence. It is more difficult to understand why a Canadian judge would put in the five year prior to parole stipulation.
Canadian judges, as are American judges, are not bound to accept any deal that is made between the prosecution and defendants. They are bound to sentence in accordance with the law, and in Canada, with sentencing guidelines. For a Canadian judge to go so wildly outside of those guidelines in respect of a pot seed seller, and to impose an American sentence in a Canadian court in open defiance of what Canadian courts and courts of appeal have ruled to be appropriate sentences, would be an open acknowledgment that the US can not only control the decisions of Canadian law officers, but judicial officers as well.
The issue is similar with the no parole for five years condition. Canadian parole guidelines specify that persons convicted of non violent offences, and it would be difficult to conceive of a more non violent offense than selling pot seeds, should be given day parole at one sixth of their time and full parole at one third. Automatic. Why would a judge impose such draconian variations to this rule unless his decisions were dictated directly by the US government.
Finally, the extradition treaty between Canada and the US specifically forbids double jeopardy. It says in Article 4 that extradition SHALL NOT be granted when the person sought has already been convicted in the requested state for the same offences for which extradition is requested.
It is difficult to fathom how the deal makers are going to get a Canadian judge to substitute a normal $1000 fine with a 10 year sentence. It is more difficult to understand why a Canadian judge would put in the five year prior to parole stipulation.
Canadian judges, as are American judges, are not bound to accept any deal that is made between the prosecution and defendants. They are bound to sentence in accordance with the law, and in Canada, with sentencing guidelines. For a Canadian judge to go so wildly outside of those guidelines in respect of a pot seed seller, and to impose an American sentence in a Canadian court in open defiance of what Canadian courts and courts of appeal have ruled to be appropriate sentences, would be an open acknowledgment that the US can not only control the decisions of Canadian law officers, but judicial officers as well.
The issue is similar with the no parole for five years condition. Canadian parole guidelines specify that persons convicted of non violent offences, and it would be difficult to conceive of a more non violent offense than selling pot seeds, should be given day parole at one sixth of their time and full parole at one third. Automatic. Why would a judge impose such draconian variations to this rule unless his decisions were dictated directly by the US government.
Finally, the extradition treaty between Canada and the US specifically forbids double jeopardy. It says in Article 4 that extradition SHALL NOT be granted when the person sought has already been convicted in the requested state for the same offences for which extradition is requested.
This story in today's Vancouver Sun about a Vanderhoof RCMP constable who killed a young man and got away with everything, except maybe telling a few porkies about weapons seizures he had made.
In the next weeks, I will be taking the lead in forming a British Columbia Public Prosecutions Service. The BCPPS will investigate incidents such as this in which members of the police appear to be able to kill with impunity and in which the political prosecutions service has failed to carry out the duties expected of it. Where reasonable and probable grounds exist to lay a private information under the provisions of the Criminal Code, those informations will be laid and the whole procedure of trying to make ALL offenders against the law answerable to the law will get underway. Until the political prosecutions service under Wally Oppal steps in and tries to make some of us above the law while holding the rest of us to it.
In this case, there is a prima facie case that this police officer unlawfully killed Kevin St. Arnaud. He admits he killed the victim. That is not in dispute. There is no independent verification of his claim of self defense, in fact, other police officers and witnesses have given sworn evidence that contradicts the evidence of the police constable. His own force appears to be saying that he gave some false testimony.
Where there is no independent validation of a self defense theory in such cases, it is highly appropriate that a BCPPS type of prosecution begin to see that the law is upheld in this province. In those circumstances, it is a Supreme Court judge or a jury that will decide if the shooting was really an act of self defense. Not the RCMP, who have much to lose if they charge one of their own for a killing and he or she is convicted.
Ian Bush is dead. Kevin St. Arnaud is dead. Two of us are dead. Those who killed them belong to a group which also decides whether they will face the consequences of the law. It's US v. Them and it has to stop before the RCMP kill any more of us.
RCMP officer involved in 2004 Vanderhoof shooting death suspended from duty
The Vancouver Sun
Published: Monday, January 14, 2008
The RCMP officer who shot and killed an unarmed theft suspect in Vanderhoof in 2004 has been suspended from duty, the RCMP announced Monday.
Constable Ryan Sheremetta has been suspended with pay following an internal code of conduct investigation by RCMP "E" Division.
In the early morning of Dec. 19, 2004, Kevin St. Arnaud, a 29-year-old drugstore robbery suspect, was shot three times by Sheremetta, who was 22 years old at the time. Sheremetta had been chasing St. Arnaud through an icy soccer field in Vanderhoof, and said that he slipped and fell on his back, that St. Arnaud advanced toward him and that Sheremetta fired the fatal shots when St. Arnaud was "basically . . . over top of me."
In the next weeks, I will be taking the lead in forming a British Columbia Public Prosecutions Service. The BCPPS will investigate incidents such as this in which members of the police appear to be able to kill with impunity and in which the political prosecutions service has failed to carry out the duties expected of it. Where reasonable and probable grounds exist to lay a private information under the provisions of the Criminal Code, those informations will be laid and the whole procedure of trying to make ALL offenders against the law answerable to the law will get underway. Until the political prosecutions service under Wally Oppal steps in and tries to make some of us above the law while holding the rest of us to it.
In this case, there is a prima facie case that this police officer unlawfully killed Kevin St. Arnaud. He admits he killed the victim. That is not in dispute. There is no independent verification of his claim of self defense, in fact, other police officers and witnesses have given sworn evidence that contradicts the evidence of the police constable. His own force appears to be saying that he gave some false testimony.
Where there is no independent validation of a self defense theory in such cases, it is highly appropriate that a BCPPS type of prosecution begin to see that the law is upheld in this province. In those circumstances, it is a Supreme Court judge or a jury that will decide if the shooting was really an act of self defense. Not the RCMP, who have much to lose if they charge one of their own for a killing and he or she is convicted.
Ian Bush is dead. Kevin St. Arnaud is dead. Two of us are dead. Those who killed them belong to a group which also decides whether they will face the consequences of the law. It's US v. Them and it has to stop before the RCMP kill any more of us.
RCMP officer involved in 2004 Vanderhoof shooting death suspended from duty
The Vancouver Sun
Published: Monday, January 14, 2008
The RCMP officer who shot and killed an unarmed theft suspect in Vanderhoof in 2004 has been suspended from duty, the RCMP announced Monday.
Constable Ryan Sheremetta has been suspended with pay following an internal code of conduct investigation by RCMP "E" Division.
In the early morning of Dec. 19, 2004, Kevin St. Arnaud, a 29-year-old drugstore robbery suspect, was shot three times by Sheremetta, who was 22 years old at the time. Sheremetta had been chasing St. Arnaud through an icy soccer field in Vanderhoof, and said that he slipped and fell on his back, that St. Arnaud advanced toward him and that Sheremetta fired the fatal shots when St. Arnaud was "basically . . . over top of me."
England is now considering whether it wants to join an American FBI initiative called "Server In The Sky", which is code talk for "Give Us All The Private Information You Have On Every One Of Your Citizens". It's odd that Canadian journalists haven't even uncovered this story, given that Canada is being asked to allow the US direct access to the private records of Canadians.
This story from the Guardian.
FBI wants instant access to British identity data
Americans seek international database to carry iris, palm and finger prints
Owen Bowcott
Tuesday January 15, 2008
The Guardian
Senior British police officials are talking to the FBI about an international database to hunt for major criminals and terrorists.
The US-initiated programme, "Server in the Sky", would take cooperation between the police forces way beyond the current faxing of fingerprints across the Atlantic. Allies in the "war against terror" - the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand - have formed a working group, the International Information Consortium, to plan their strategy.
Biometric measurements, irises or palm prints as well as fingerprints, and other personal information are likely to be exchanged across the network. One section will feature the world's most wanted suspects. The database could hold details of millions of criminals and suspects.
The FBI is keen for the police forces of American allies to sign up to improve international security. The Home Office yesterday confirmed it was aware of Server in the Sky, as did the Metropolitan police.
This story from the Guardian.
FBI wants instant access to British identity data
Americans seek international database to carry iris, palm and finger prints
Owen Bowcott
Tuesday January 15, 2008
The Guardian
Senior British police officials are talking to the FBI about an international database to hunt for major criminals and terrorists.
The US-initiated programme, "Server in the Sky", would take cooperation between the police forces way beyond the current faxing of fingerprints across the Atlantic. Allies in the "war against terror" - the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand - have formed a working group, the International Information Consortium, to plan their strategy.
Biometric measurements, irises or palm prints as well as fingerprints, and other personal information are likely to be exchanged across the network. One section will feature the world's most wanted suspects. The database could hold details of millions of criminals and suspects.
The FBI is keen for the police forces of American allies to sign up to improve international security. The Home Office yesterday confirmed it was aware of Server in the Sky, as did the Metropolitan police.
Category: Justice
Posted by: Paddy Roberts
A federal judge has ruled a section of Canada's Medical Marijuana regulations unconstitutional for failing to allow a designated private grower to grow for more than one patient. The story from the Vancouver Sun is reproduced below.
This story is essentially about something that isn't going to happen because the medical marijuana gravy train, when it leaves the station, is fully booked by the pharmaceutical companies. But what makes this story worthy of the Cold Eye is the last sentence.
Prosecutors will meet with a BC Supreme Court judge. Excuse me. When did this type of thing start. Prosecutors meeting a judge about what? Behind closed doors? What will they talk about? Who will the judge be? What are the odds it will be, oh, let me see, Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm? About 105 to 1, if they are just dropping in for tea. About even if you are one of those people that think the Crown out here will just make a neat little accommodation with the most powerful judge in the criminal justice system in this province.
Is it just me, or does this smack of a judge meeting with federal Crown officials to discuss a dilemma for prohibitionists and the pharmaceutical companies? And how at least that judge, if not all judges of the Supreme Court, will accommodate the concerns of the prosecution and come up with a work around for the federal judges ruling. All of this before a single case raises the issue, behind closed doors, and without anyone from the defense bar present.
If this is allowed to happen, the entire Supreme Court bench should be removed. It no longer serves the purpose of objective and unbiased arbitration between the individual and the state. The Crown commands, the Supreme Court obeys. Is that the way its going to be, Bob Prior?
Here's the Sun Story...
Medical marijuana grower ready to expand after ruling
Richard Watts and Lindsay Kines, Victoria Times Colonist
Published: Sunday, January 13, 2008
VICTORIA - A company in Duncan on Vancouver Island is gearing up to supply nearly 300 customers with medical marijuana in the wake of a federal court ruling striking down a key restriction on sales of the drug.
Island Harvest applauded the decision to declare unconstitutional a regulation that had prevented growers from selling marijuana to more than one patient.
Federal Court Judge Barry Strayer said the Health Canada policy violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This story is essentially about something that isn't going to happen because the medical marijuana gravy train, when it leaves the station, is fully booked by the pharmaceutical companies. But what makes this story worthy of the Cold Eye is the last sentence.
Prosecutors will meet with a BC Supreme Court judge. Excuse me. When did this type of thing start. Prosecutors meeting a judge about what? Behind closed doors? What will they talk about? Who will the judge be? What are the odds it will be, oh, let me see, Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm? About 105 to 1, if they are just dropping in for tea. About even if you are one of those people that think the Crown out here will just make a neat little accommodation with the most powerful judge in the criminal justice system in this province.
Is it just me, or does this smack of a judge meeting with federal Crown officials to discuss a dilemma for prohibitionists and the pharmaceutical companies? And how at least that judge, if not all judges of the Supreme Court, will accommodate the concerns of the prosecution and come up with a work around for the federal judges ruling. All of this before a single case raises the issue, behind closed doors, and without anyone from the defense bar present.
If this is allowed to happen, the entire Supreme Court bench should be removed. It no longer serves the purpose of objective and unbiased arbitration between the individual and the state. The Crown commands, the Supreme Court obeys. Is that the way its going to be, Bob Prior?
Here's the Sun Story...
Medical marijuana grower ready to expand after ruling
Richard Watts and Lindsay Kines, Victoria Times Colonist
Published: Sunday, January 13, 2008
VICTORIA - A company in Duncan on Vancouver Island is gearing up to supply nearly 300 customers with medical marijuana in the wake of a federal court ruling striking down a key restriction on sales of the drug.
Island Harvest applauded the decision to declare unconstitutional a regulation that had prevented growers from selling marijuana to more than one patient.
Federal Court Judge Barry Strayer said the Health Canada policy violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Category: War on Terruh
Posted by: Paddy Roberts
George Monbiot, one of the top five media commentators in the world, has just published a brilliant analysis of how it was that the UK got involved in the war crimes adventure that is Iraq.
The article says it all. Thanks to the Guardian.
How Britain became party to a crime that may have killed a million people
Not having a written constitution allowed Blair and his advisers to go to war without reference to parliament or the public
George Monbiot
Tuesday January 1, 2008
The Guardian
If you doubt Britain needs a written constitution, listen to the strangely unbalanced discussion broadcast by the BBC last Friday. The Today programme asked Lord Guthrie, formerly chief of the defence staff, and Sir Kevin Tebbit, until recently the senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, if parliament should decide whether or not the country goes to war. The discussion was a terrifying exposure of the privileges of unaccountable power. It explained as well as anything I have heard how Britain became party to a crime that may have killed a million people.
The article says it all. Thanks to the Guardian.
How Britain became party to a crime that may have killed a million people
Not having a written constitution allowed Blair and his advisers to go to war without reference to parliament or the public
George Monbiot
Tuesday January 1, 2008
The Guardian
If you doubt Britain needs a written constitution, listen to the strangely unbalanced discussion broadcast by the BBC last Friday. The Today programme asked Lord Guthrie, formerly chief of the defence staff, and Sir Kevin Tebbit, until recently the senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, if parliament should decide whether or not the country goes to war. The discussion was a terrifying exposure of the privileges of unaccountable power. It explained as well as anything I have heard how Britain became party to a crime that may have killed a million people.
Category: The Neighbors
Posted by: Paddy Roberts
And we still extradite people there?
This from the Guardian.
The state department's top legal adviser, John Bellinger, discusses his country's stance on international law with the British academic Philippe Sands on October 24. Photo: Ed Pilkington
Top US legal adviser refuses to rule out 'torture' technique
Aide to Rice declines to denounce waterboarding during Guardian America debate
Transcript: 'A decision was made not to talk about it'
Ed Pilkington in New York
Monday November 5, 2007
The Guardian
The top legal adviser within the US state department, who counsels the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, on international law, has declined to rule out the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding even if it were applied by foreign intelligence services on US citizens. John Bellinger refused to denounce the technique, which has been condemned by human rights groups as a form of torture, during a debate on the Bush administration's stance on international law held by Guardian America, the Guardian's US website. He said he would not include or exclude any technique without first considering whether it violated the convention on torture.
This from the Guardian.
The state department's top legal adviser, John Bellinger, discusses his country's stance on international law with the British academic Philippe Sands on October 24. Photo: Ed Pilkington
Top US legal adviser refuses to rule out 'torture' technique
Aide to Rice declines to denounce waterboarding during Guardian America debate
Transcript: 'A decision was made not to talk about it'
Ed Pilkington in New York
Monday November 5, 2007
The Guardian
The top legal adviser within the US state department, who counsels the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, on international law, has declined to rule out the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding even if it were applied by foreign intelligence services on US citizens. John Bellinger refused to denounce the technique, which has been condemned by human rights groups as a form of torture, during a debate on the Bush administration's stance on international law held by Guardian America, the Guardian's US website. He said he would not include or exclude any technique without first considering whether it violated the convention on torture.
