Sometime between Saturday morning and the middle of Sunday the Vancouver Sun has a story about RCMP liars on the front of its online version. It accused the Mounties of lying over the Dziekanski killing and named names and made it very clear that it was accusing those names of lying. It was accompanied by a picture of the back end of a few red serged officers with gloves clasped behind their backs. I didn't notice if they had their fingers crossed, but I remember thinking "Wait until one of the Aspers sees this". I meant to preserve it for posterity on the Cold Eye, but due to a technical glitch, wasn't able to get into the Admin section until this morning.
Sure enough, not a sign of possibly the most truthful story ever written in the Sun when I went to link to it this morning. But when I did a search on "RCMP" and "liars", this piece by columnist Ian Mulgrew did come up.
RCMP Commissioner Gets It Wrong
It isn't in the big three of economy, environment, health, but the present Liberal government is currently negotiating a new contract for an illegitimate federal police force to continue policing this province, instead of doing what the majority of British Columbians want and show them the door in favor of a new provincial police force. What can we expect, a convicted drunk driving premier, supporting a reckless speeder as Solicitor General, negotiating with liars and killers to enforce the law in this province.
And we though the two Bills were wacky.
Sure enough, not a sign of possibly the most truthful story ever written in the Sun when I went to link to it this morning. But when I did a search on "RCMP" and "liars", this piece by columnist Ian Mulgrew did come up.
RCMP Commissioner Gets It Wrong
It isn't in the big three of economy, environment, health, but the present Liberal government is currently negotiating a new contract for an illegitimate federal police force to continue policing this province, instead of doing what the majority of British Columbians want and show them the door in favor of a new provincial police force. What can we expect, a convicted drunk driving premier, supporting a reckless speeder as Solicitor General, negotiating with liars and killers to enforce the law in this province.
And we though the two Bills were wacky.
But it won't happen because it would cost alcohol and pharmaceutical companies maybe 3 billion.
From today's Guardian...
Legalisation of drugs could save UK £14bn, says study
Duncan Campbell
The Guardian, Tuesday 7 April 2009
The regulated legalisation of drugs would have major benefits for taxpayers, victims of crime, local communities and the criminal justice system, according to the first comprehensive comparison between the cost-effectiveness of legalisation and prohibition. The authors of the report, which is due to be published today, suggest that a legalised, regulated market could save the country around £14bn.
For many years the government has been under pressure to conduct an objective cost-benefit analysis of the current drugs policy, but has failed to do so despite calls from MPs. Now the drugs reform charity, Transform, has commissioned its own report, examining all aspects of prohibition from the costs of policing and investigating drugs users and dealers to processing them through the courts and their eventual incarceration.
As well as such savings is the likely taxation revenue in a regulated market. However, there are also the potential costs of increased drug treatment, education and public information campaigns about the risks and dangers of drugs, similar to those for tobacco and alcohol, and the costs of running a regulated system.
The report looked at four potential scenarios, ranging from no increase in drugs use to a 100% rise as they become more readily available.
From today's Guardian...
Legalisation of drugs could save UK £14bn, says study
Duncan Campbell
The Guardian, Tuesday 7 April 2009
The regulated legalisation of drugs would have major benefits for taxpayers, victims of crime, local communities and the criminal justice system, according to the first comprehensive comparison between the cost-effectiveness of legalisation and prohibition. The authors of the report, which is due to be published today, suggest that a legalised, regulated market could save the country around £14bn.
For many years the government has been under pressure to conduct an objective cost-benefit analysis of the current drugs policy, but has failed to do so despite calls from MPs. Now the drugs reform charity, Transform, has commissioned its own report, examining all aspects of prohibition from the costs of policing and investigating drugs users and dealers to processing them through the courts and their eventual incarceration.
As well as such savings is the likely taxation revenue in a regulated market. However, there are also the potential costs of increased drug treatment, education and public information campaigns about the risks and dangers of drugs, similar to those for tobacco and alcohol, and the costs of running a regulated system.
The report looked at four potential scenarios, ranging from no increase in drugs use to a 100% rise as they become more readily available.
The Cold Eye in the coming weeks will be looking at probably society's most questionable tolerance, the tolerance of the superstition that is religion. We must reach the limit of that tolerance when crackpots such as those named in the linked article by Vancouver Sun columnist Douglas Todd can attain the highest levels in the administration of our democracy.
Much more to come, but for now here's the link to Douglas' column. No problem with him at all, an excellent and thoughtful writer and someone who understands that religion, when practiced as a private belief, is an acceptable part of our society and that when it attempts to impose its principles on those who do not accept them, is a threat to our democracy.
Link To Douglas Todd Column
Have a close look at the comments that follow, and particularly the lunatic commentator "MaryLou". Jesus!
Much more to come, but for now here's the link to Douglas' column. No problem with him at all, an excellent and thoughtful writer and someone who understands that religion, when practiced as a private belief, is an acceptable part of our society and that when it attempts to impose its principles on those who do not accept them, is a threat to our democracy.
Link To Douglas Todd Column
Have a close look at the comments that follow, and particularly the lunatic commentator "MaryLou". Jesus!
Or anywhere else in the Asper controller Israel biased media in Canada.
Simply disgusting. Israeli army snipers murdering unarmed innocent women and children.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/19/israeli-troops-gaza-shootings-civilians
Simply disgusting. Israeli army snipers murdering unarmed innocent women and children.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/19/israeli-troops-gaza-shootings-civilians
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: Patrick 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.
