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...PM brushes off Khadr abuse evidence
Unsealed documents reveal U.S. used sleep deprivation on teen
Andrew Mayeda, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, July 10, 2008
TOKYO - Canada has "no real alternative" but to maintain its policy on Omar Khadr, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said a day after documents confirmed Ottawa knew Khadr was "softened up" by U.S. authorities at Guantanamo Bay.
Newly unsealed documents reveal U.S. authorities used sleep-deprivation targets on Khadr before Canadian officials visited the terror suspect at the United States' military prison in Cuba in 2004.
On Thursday, however, the prime minister stuck closely to his government's line on the case.
Canada is monitoring Khadr's detention in Guantanamo Bay to ensure he is treated humanely, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"We always act as the government on the basis of our legal advice and obligations. The previous government took all the information into account when they made the decision on how to proceed with the Khadr case several years ago," said Harper, who returns home Thursday after attending the G8 summit in Japan.
Khadr, who was born in Toronto, was 15 years old when he was picked up by the U.S. army in Afghanistan during a shootout with American forces in 2002. He is accused of lobbing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier.
He is the only Westerner still detained at Guantanamo Bay, because other nations have repatriated their citizens to face justice at home. The Harper government has refused to repatriate him, noting the seriousness of the charges against Khadr, who is expected to be tried later this year by a U.S. military tribunal.
On Thursday, Harper once again emphasized that Khadr has been charged with "extremely serious crimes."
"There's a legal process under way in the United States. He can make his arguments before that process, but frankly, we have no real alternative to this process now to arrive at the truth concerning the accusations against him, and we believe this process should continue," the prime minister said.
Canada is monitoring Khadr's detention in Guantanamo Bay to ensure he is treated humanely, Harper added.
Khadr, now 21, was subjected to what's known at the Guantanamo Bay prison as the "frequent flyer program."
It entails waking up a detainee every few hours and moving him to another cell so that he feels continually disoriented.
This happened to Khadr just ahead of a March 30, 2004, visit by Jim Gould, an intelligence officer with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.
"In an effort to make him more amenable and willing to talk, (text blacked out) has placed Umar in the 'frequent flyer program'," says an April 2004 report by R. Scott Heatherington, then director of the department's Foreign Intelligence Division.
"For the three weeks before Mr. Gould's visit, Umar has not been more than three hours in any one location. At three-hour intervals, he is moved to another cell block, thus denying him uninterrupted sleep and a continued change of neighbours."
In releasing the documents last month, a Federal Court judge concluded the tactic violates a United Nations convention signed by Canada and the U.S. that prohibits the use of torture against detainees.
The documents "paint a picture of a victimized and exploited boy," according to his lawyers.
The lawyers argue that the documents show the Canadian government knew early on that Khadr had faced abusive treatment at the hands of the Americans.
"Notwithstanding this information, the government of Canada has repeatedly stated that they will not intervene in Omar's case since they have received assurances from the United States that Omar is being humanely treated," the lawyers say in a news release.
"This oft-repeated mantra has now been proven to have been an attempt to misinform the Canadian public."
Within days, the lawyers are also expected to release some seven hours of videotapes that the Supreme Court also ordered the government to hand to them. They were taken during the visits by Canadian officials, and are expected to show, among other things, Khadr breaking down in tears.]]>Featureshttp://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=116Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:28:55 -0700Exactly When Did We Surrender?
http://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=115
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.
U.S. jets could patrol Vancouver during Olympics: Norad
Joel Kom , Canwest News Service
Published: Saturday, July 05, 2008
CALGARY - American fighter jets will be involved in security operations during the Vancouver Olympics by keeping a close eye on airspace in the region, the head of the North American Aerospace Defence Command said Saturday.
Gen. Gene Renuart, the commander of Norad, said his agency will play a role in providing security during the 2010 Winter Games. Really, who in the Canadian government asked for that role to be played? Has NORAD now taken it upon itself to produce outrageous affronts to Canadian sovereignty without even token approval by some American sycophant in the Steven Harper government?
"Because of the proximity of Seattle and Vancouver, the airspace begins to fit together pretty transparently, so we'll have a piece in place that will allow for both U.S. and Canadian fighters to provide adequate oversight of that airspace," said Renuart, who was in Calgary for a meeting at the Calgary Stampede with Gen. Walter Natynczyk, Canada's chief of defence staff. If it's that transparent General Gene, how is it that you haven't noticed the border?
Renuart, an American Air Force officer, didn't rule out the possibility that American jets might fly in Canadian airspace during the games.
"It is a landmark event for Canada, it is Canada's time to shine in the international community, and Norad wants to ensure that we are value-added in that process," he said. "We'll continue to have a team effort to support those Games." Norad supports the Olympic games with jet fighter aircraft? What kind of games are they expecting?
Renuart noted both countries' air forces have always had the ability to support each other, saying Canadian fighters flew sovereignty missions in Alaska last year after some American planes were grounded. I seriously doubt too many Americans knew about that, because they would ask what kind of sovereignty THEY have if foreign fighters have to be brought in to protect it. What were they protecting it from? Invasions into their territory by foreign military aircraft, one would suspect.
He stressed that doing anything more than simple surveillance - taking action against a target in Canada, for example - would be a decision left up to Canadian authorities. He makes it sound like surveilling the affairs of Canadians and their territory in military aircraft over that territory is as common as mud. Isn't it special though, that the decision to take action is left up to Canadian authorities, but the decision to invade our territory is made and announced by an American general.
Renuart said he has been working with air traffic authorities in the U.S. and Canada to develop sovereignty and security measures for the Olympics. Who asked him to? Security has always been an issue at Olympics. When did "sovereignty" become one?
Some of those will be modelled on operations already run by Norad, the 50-year-old airspace military partnership between Canada and its neighbour to the south.
While the RCMP is the lead agency in organizing security for the Olympics, Norad has been given the job of protecting the airspace. By who?
Much of the work will be done by Canadian Norad command, though it could draw on the agency's full tool kit, which includes sophisticated surveillance planes.
On Saturday, Renuart also said Norad has been monitoring Russian aerial activity in the Arctic, though he added he wouldn't characterize that activity as any kind of threat against Canada or the U.S.
Norad will keep making information on the Arctic available to both Canada and the U.S. for each country to pursue its own security strategy, he added. Isn't that special, considering we own the Artic?
-------------
Usually when a country loses its sovereignty, its proceeded by a war and a treaty signing in which the citizens of the conquered country are made fully aware that they have been humiliated and cannot any longer rule their own lives and territory. Not so here. It seems to be done bit by bit.
For a number of years now, we have had American Drug Enforcement Agency personnel based in Canada, most notably in B.C. and many British Columbians believe that their role is not minor liason out of the US consulate, but full scale law enforcement on the ground in Canada. They are believed to be carrying arms in contravention of the Criminal Code.
A few months ago, we had an announcement that the Canadian and US military had entered into an agreement to come onto each other's soil in the event of a civil "emergency". What possible "emergency" could that be? Could it be an uprising against a Vichy federal government granting massive American control over the lives and fortunes of Canadians? Would it be an "emergency" which required American forces to bring weapons into this country? Not a single Canadian politician has attached his or her name to this announcement.
And now this. And not a single question from the Canadian media about how this could be allowed to happen.]]>The Neighborshttp://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=115Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:50:17 -0700More on Torture From Guardian
http://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=114
Link to Guardian article.]]>The Neighborshttp://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=114Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:28:33 -0700Top US General Duped By Rumsfeld Over Torture In Guantanamo
http://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=113
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.
General Richard Myers, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff from 2001 to 2005, wrongly believed that inmates at Guantánamo and other prisons were protected by the Geneva conventions and from abuse tantamount to torture.
The way he was duped by senior officials in Washington - who believed the Geneva conventions and other traditional safeguards were out of date - is disclosed in a devastating account of their role, extracts from which will be published in tomorrow's Guardian.
In his new book, Torture Team, Philippe Sands QC, a professor of law at University College London, reveals:
• Senior figures in the Bush administration pushed through previously outlawed measures with the help of unqualified and inexperienced military officials at Guantánamo.
• Myers believes he was a victim of "intrigue" by top lawyers at the department of justice, the office of the vice president, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld's defence department.
• Myers wrongly believed interrogation techniques had been taken from the army's field manual.
The lawyers who pushed through the interrogation techniques - all of them political appointees - were Alberto Gonzales, David Addingon and William Haynes.
Others involved were Doug Feith, Rumsfeld's undersecretary for policy, and Jay Bybee and John Yoo, two assistant attorney generals.
The revelations have already sparked a fierce response in the US from those familiar with the contents of the book.
They are determined to establish accountability for the way the Bush administration violated international and domestic law by sanctioning prisoner abuse and torture.
The Bush administration has tried to explain away the ill-treatment of detainees at Guantánamo and the Abu Ghraib prison, in Baghdad, by blaming junior officials.
Sands establishes that pressure for the aggressive and cruel treatment of detainees came from the very top and was sanctioned by the most senior lawyers.
Myers, the most senior military officer of the most powerful country in the world, was one top official who did not understand the implications of what was being done.
Sands, who spent three hours with the former general, describes him as being "confused" about the decisions that were taken.
Myers did not realise that fundamental safeguards provided by the Geneva conventions and elsewhere were being abandoned by his own junior officers as well as political appointees in the administration, the author says.
He believed new techniques recommended by Haynes and authorised for use by the military at Guantánamo by Rumsfeld in December 2002 had been taken from the US army field manual.
Hopwever, none of the severe interrogation techniques came from the manual, and all breached established US military guidelines and rules.
The techniques included hooding, sensory deprivation and physical and mental abuse.
"As we worked through the list of techniques, Myers became increasingly hesitant and troubled," Sands writes. "Haynes and Rumsfeld had been able to run rings around him."
Myers and his closest advisers were cut out of the decision-making process, so he was not given suffficient opportunity to object to measures he now says he strongly disapproved of.
He did not know that Bush administration officials were changing the rules allowing interrogation techniques, including the use of dogs, amounting to torture.
"We never authorised torture, we just didn't, not what we would do," Myers said.
Sands comments: "[Myers] really had taken his eye off the ball ... he didn't ask too many questions, or inquire too deeply, and kept his distance from the decision-making process."
• Read the full story in Weekend magazine in the Guardian tomorrow and on guardian.co.uk
]]>The Neighborshttp://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=113Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:05:20 -0700Immense Implications Of Emery Deal
http://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=112
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 does seem to me that much would be lost by a deal. It would mean the triumph of evil and the end of all of the good that was accomplished in what is called the Cannabis Culture. It would be premature, when there are very viable avenues of resistance both through the law and the political system in this country.
It would diminish us as a nation and mark us as a conquered people.
I know the reason for the deal. There is no money for lawyers. And at least one of the lawyers fails to see the big picture, fails to understand that ultimately the law in this country must reflect the will of the citizens of this country, not crush that will. Anybody can surrender, the greatest lawyers find the single stone that David can sling at Goliath. There are such stones available and every adult Canadian has that stone...the ability to lay charges in this country to preserve the sovereignty of this country. Every time these federal Vichy cockroaches stay one of those charges, more people become aware that traitors and lackeys of a foreign power fill the law officer positions of this country.
The will of the people in Canada is that these three of us not be sent out from us in these awful and despicable circumstances. If that will is not reflected in the decisions of those with political responsibility to ensure Canadian sovereignty and to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedom, rather than find weasel words to avoid its meaning, then every man and woman can look to their own conscience and their own capabilities to remove these sons of bitches from office and any control over our lives and the future of Canada. If it comes to that, there is no effective means that I would condemn, and a menu of choices that I think would be widely accepted by decent and patriotic Canadians.
Taking a deal now means abandoning the potential of the Nelson charges. It means abandoning the potential for the immense political pressure that will come on that dickweed Nicholson when the time comes, if it does come, for him to render a political decision on this. It means abandoning the chance to argue in front of the BC Court of Appeal and/or the Supreme Court of Canada that the extradition is not a reasonable limit to the section 6 Charter right of every citizen of Canada to remain in Canada because trial on the issues was possible in Canada and extradition was not necessary to ensure the law was upheld.
Then, if all that fails, then we know that we do not have a sovereign Canada. The option which I pursue, and which I expect others will pursue even to the extent of armed struggle, is a sovereign British Columbia.
The only differences between a deal and no deal are money for lawyers, and the continuing potential that this will all be sorted out in Canada and avoid a terrible, but necessary, beauty that could otherwise well follow. ]]>Justicehttp://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=112Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:51:54 -0800Them Killing Us, And Getting Away With It
http://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=111
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."
Although the RCMP officers investigating the incident admitted there were inaccuracies in Sheremetta's account of the events, they nevertheless concluded that he acted in self-defence, and the Crown decided against laying charges.
An inquest into the death heard Sheremetta's partner, Const. Colleen Erickson, who is a 24-year police veteran, testify that Sheremetta was standing up, in a "police shooting stance," when the shots were fired. A civilian eyewitness had similar testimony.
Further, a blood specialties expert testified that, based on the blood patterns found on the snow, St. Arnaud couldn't have been moving toward Sheremetta, but must have been standing still when he was shot. Plus, a forensic expert testified that St. Arnaud couldn't have been over top of Sheremetta, but had to be at least two feet away at the time of the shooting.
The evidence from a forensic pathologist corroborated this testimony. The pathologist testified that the bullets entered St. Arnaud's body in a downward trajectory of 30 to 45 degrees, which means Sheremetta was likely standing up when the shots were fired.
Police said Monday that they scrutinized Sheremetta's testimony from the inquest.
"During the inquest, it's alleged that Cst. Sheremetta provided misleading testimony under oath in connection with his experience in dealing with weapons seizures. Though the information was not directly related to the specific shooting incident, concerns were raised and the RCMP launched an internal and an external Criminal Code investigation into the allegations," an RCMP press release said.
The force told the officer that "on or about the 23rd day of January 2007, at or near Vanderhoof, British Columbia, you did conduct yourself in a disgraceful manner that could bring discredit on the force, by knowingly making false, misleading or inaccurate statement(s) while testifying at the coroner's inquest into the death of Kevin St. Arnaud, to wit: your experience in seizing handguns from suspects during your time as a member at Vanderhoof Detachment, contrary to section 39(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act Regulations, 1988."
The member was reassigned to administrative duties in August 2007 during the course of the internal investigation. He has been made aware of the suspension and internal procedures will move forward in accordance with the RCMP's internal process. A date has yet to be determined for an Adjudication Board Hearing into the matter.
A criminal code investigation was launched parallel to the internal investigation and the findings have been forwarded to Crown Counsel. The RCMP has asked the Toronto Police Service to conduct a complete independent review of the major crime investigation, and to provide any recommendations. Once completed, the entire file will be reviewed by crown counsel. The Chief Coroner for BC has been advised of all findings. It is unclear at this time, what if any impact the new findings will have on concluded proceedings, such as the Coroner's Inquest, the press release said.
]]>The Police Threathttp://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=111Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:23:52 -0800Plans For Global Police State Chugging Nicely Along
http://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=110
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.
The plan will make groups anxious to safeguard personal privacy question how much access to UK databases is granted to foreign law enforcement agencies. There will also be concern over security, particularly after embarrassing data losses within the UK, and accuracy: in one case, an arrest for a terror offence by US investigators used what turned out to be misidentified fingerprint matches.
Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency has been the lead body for the FBI project because it is responsible for IDENT1, the UK database holding 7m sets of fingerprints and other biometric details used by police forces to search for matches from scenes of crimes. Many of the prints are either from a person with no criminal record, or have yet to be matched to a named individual.
IDENT1 was built by the computer technology arm of the US defence company Northrop Grumman. In future it is expected to hold palm prints, facial images and video sequences. A company spokeswoman confirmed that Northrop Grumman had spoken to the FBI about Server in the Sky. "It can run independently but if existing systems are connected up to it then the intelligence agencies would have to approve," she said.
The FBI told the Guardian: "Server in the Sky is an FBI initiative designed to foster the advanced search and exchange of biometric information on a global scale. While it is currently in the concept and design stages, once complete it will provide a technical forum for member nations to submit biometric search requests to other nations. It will maintain a core holding of the world's 'worst of the worst' individuals. Any identifications of these people will be sent as a priority message to the requesting nation."
In London, the NPIA confirmed it was aware of Server in the Sky but said it was "too early to comment on what our active participation might be".
The FBI is proposing to establish three categories of suspects in the shared system: "internationally recognised terrorists and felons", those who are "major felons and suspected terrorists", and finally those who the subjects of terrorist investigations or criminals with international links. Tom Bush, assistant director at the FBI's criminal justice information service, has said he hopes to see a pilot project for the programme up and running by the middle of the year.
Although each participating country would manage and secure its own data, the sharing of personal data between countries is becoming an increasingly controversial area of police practice. There is political concern at Westminster about the public transparency of such cooperation.
A similar proposal has emerged from the EU for closer security cooperation between the security services and police forces of member states, including allowing countries to search each other's databases. Under what is known as the Prum treaty, there are plans to open up access to DNA profiles, fingerprints and vehicle registration numbers.]]>The Police Threathttp://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=110Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:02:29 -0800Prosecutors, Supreme Court Judge, Meeting, What The.....
http://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=109
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.
"We were so happy," said Eric Nash, who owns Island Harvest with wife Wendy Little. "Of course, we're not holding our breath, because we know the government will appeal."
Health Canada has said it's reviewing the court decision, but declined further comment.
Under Canada's medical marijuana regulations, people can apply to be approved as a legal user. Once approved, they can grow it themselves. They can buy it from the federal government, which has contracted a company to grow it in an abandoned mine shaft in northern Manitoba. Or, under the regulation declared unconstitutional, they could designate a person to grow it for them, but that person is limited to growing for that one person only.
Under that regulation, Island Harvest could only sell to two patients - one each for owners Nash and Little.
Nash called the ruling a victory for patients and businesses alike.
"It allows us to supply more patients, to help more people, and basically, as a business, actually have a potential to make some income," he said. "The impact on us is quite profound, because we've had hundreds of patients request our certified organic product over the last couple of years.
"Of course, now we have to scramble to get product available," he said. "It's a big difference supplying hundreds of people than it is two people."
A meeting has been scheduled with federal prosecutors and a B.C. Supreme Court judge next week to discuss the case.]]>Justicehttp://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=109Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:53:19 -0800How Britain Got Involved In a Million Murders
http://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=108
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.
Guthrie argued that parliamentary approval would mean intelligence had to be shared with MPs; that the other side could not be taken by surprise ("do you want to warn the enemy you are going to do it?"), and that commanders should have "a choice about when to attack and when not to attack". Tebbit maintained that "no prime minister would be able to deploy forces without being able to command a parliamentary majority. In that sense, the executive is already accountable to parliament". Once the prime minister has his majority, in other words, MPs become redundant.
Let me dwell for a moment on what Guthrie said, for he appears to advocate that we retain the right to commit war crimes. States in dispute with each other, the UN charter says, must first seek to solve their differences by "peaceful means" (article 33). If these fail, they should refer the matter to the security council (article 37), which decides what measures should be taken (article 39). Taking the enemy by surprise is a useful tactic in battle, and encounters can be won only if commanders are able to make decisions quickly. But either Guthrie does not understand the difference between a battle and a war - which is unlikely in view of his 44 years of service - or he does not understand the most basic point in international law. Launching a surprise war is forbidden by the charter.
It has become fashionable to scoff at these rules and to dismiss those who support them as pedants and prigs, but they are all that stand between us and the greatest crimes in history. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that "to initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime". The tribunal's charter placed "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression" at the top of the list of war crimes.
If Britain's most prominent retired general does not understand this, it can only be because he has never been forced to understand it. In September 2002, he argued in the Lords that "the time is approaching when we may have to join the US in operations against Iraq ... Strike soon, and the threat will be less and easier to handle. If the UN route fails, I support the second option." No one in the chamber warned him that he was proposing the supreme international crime. In another Lords debate, Guthrie argued that it was "unthinkable for British servicemen and women to be sent to the International Criminal Court", regardless of what they might have done. He demanded a guarantee from the government that this would not be allowed to happen, and proposed that the British forces should be allowed to opt out of the European convention on human rights. The grey heads murmured their agreement.
Perhaps it is unfair to single out the noble and gallant lord. The British establishment's exceptionalism is almost universal. According to the government, both the Commons public administration committee and the Lords constitution committee recognise that decision-making should "provide sufficient flexibility for deployments which need to be made without prior parliamentary approval for reasons of urgency or necessary operational secrecy". You cannot keep an operation secret from parliament unless you are also keeping it secret from the UN.
Tebbit appears to have a general aversion to disclosure. In 2003, the Guardian obtained letters showing he had prevented the fraud squad at the MoD from investigating allegations of corruption against the arms manufacturer BAE, that he tipped off the BAE chairman about the contents of a confidential letter the Serious Fraud Office had sent him, and that he failed to tell his minister about the SFO's warnings. In October 2003, under cross-examination during the Hutton inquiry into the death of the government scientist David Kelly, he revealed the decision to name Kelly was made in a "meeting chaired by the prime minister". That could have been the end of Tony Blair, but a week later Tebbit sent Lord Hutton a written retraction of his evidence. No one bothered to tell parliament or the press; the retraction was made public only when the Hutton report was published, three months later. Blair knew all along, and the secret gave him a crushing advantage.
The discussion also reveals that Guthrie and Tebbit appear to have learned nothing from the disaster in Iraq. They are not alone. Just before he stepped down last year, Blair wrote an article for the Economist headlined "What I've Learned". He had discovered, he claimed, that his critics were both wrong and dangerous and that his decisions, based on "freedom, democracy, responsibility to others, but also justice and fairness", were difficult but invariably right. He called his article "a very short synopsis of what I have learned". I could think of an even shorter one.
We have yet to hear one word of regret or remorse from any of the main architects - Blair, Brown, Straw, Hoon, Campbell and their principal advisers - of Britain's participation in the supreme international crime. The press and parliament appear to have heeded Blair's plea that we all "move on" from Iraq. The British establishment has a unique capacity to move on, and then to repeat its mistakes. What other former empire knows so little of its own atrocities?
When people call our unwritten constitution a "gentleman's agreement", they reveal more than they intend. It allows the unelected gentlemen who advise the prime minister to act without reference to the proles. Britain went to war in Iraq because the public and parliament were not allowed to know when the decision was made, what the intelligence reports said, and what the attorney general wrote about the its legality. Had the truth not been suppressed, Britain could never have attacked Iraq.
Real constitutional reform requires much more than the timid proposals in the green paper on the governance of Britain, which are likely to appear in a bill in a few weeks' time. Yes, parliament should be allowed to vote on whether to go to war, yes the royal prerogative should be rolled back. But the prime minister, his diplomats, civil servants and generals would still decide which wars parliament needs to know about, which crimes could be secretly committed in our name. Real constitutional reform means not only handing power to parliament but also confronting the power of the hard, unaccountable people who act as if it is their birthright.
monbiot.com]]>War on Terruhhttp://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=108Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:07:39 -0800US Not Sure If Simulated Drowning Technique is Torture
http://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=107
This from the Guardian.
null
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.
The inability of a senior US official to rule out such an interrogation method even in the case of it being used against Americans underlines the legal knots in which the administration has tied itself. The dispute over alleged US involvement in torture has threatened to derail the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as President George Bush's nominee for attorney general. Mr Mukasey, a retired federal judge, faces a confirmation vote from the Senate judiciary committee tomorrow and is facing opposition from Democratic members over his stance on waterboarding. In earlier hearings, Mr Mukasey said he found the method repugnant, but refused to declare it illegal. There has been speculation that he refrained from doing so out of fear that such a declaration would expose US interrogators, as well as their chain of command, possibly up to the level of the president, to possible criminal prosecution.
Waterboarding is a technique in which a prisoner is made to believe he is drowning by placing a cloth over his face and pouring water over it. The procedure is banned by the US military, but has been used in an unknown number of interrogations of terrorist suspects by the CIA. Reports have suggested the CIA outlawed the method last year, but the Bush administration has yet to confirm this.
Mr Bellinger made his remarks during a Guardian debate with Philippe Sands QC, professor of international law at University College London. Mr Sands asked whether he could imagine any circumstances in which waterboarding could be justified on an American national by a foreign intelligence service. "One would have to apply the facts to the law to determine whether any technique, whatever happened, would cause severe physical pain or suffering," Mr Bellinger said.
When Mr Sands said he found Mr Bellinger's inability to exclude waterboarding on Americans very curious, the US official replied: "Well, I'm not willing to include it or exclude it. Our justice department has concluded that we just don't want to get involved in abstract discussions."]]>The Neighborshttp://www.coldeye.org/blogindex.php?itemid=107Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:48:23 -0800
