Discussion in 'Canada Discussion Boards' started by TragicLad, Mar 18, 2003.
Trade you a Leinie's for a Moosehead any day, Tragic.
OK, JediJeff, I am going to answer to your post but first I'm going to start with a not so serious one. You see if you wanted to get Canadians behind the war, your country should have started one that we could have gotten behind. For example, Personally, I think you should have invaded Burlington Ontario.
You see, if you happened to raid and pillage Burlington, we have this guy who's hoarding stuff, CrazyDespotMikesStarWarsroom and though, I'm in the will, that could take forever. It would help if an invasion speeded things along. Check out the pictures link and tell me that's not worth a war.
Ok now if you invade Burlington, your country will unquestionably have more support that for invading Iraq. What's in Iraq? It's a dustbowl. There's nothing of worth invading there. I don't know what you are thinking. Call back the troops already, they don't even have a decent comic book store there. Where's the toy stores?
I called it first! Stop the war in Iraq! Invade Burlington.
Actually Lynora and I will be invading Chicago in about 6 weeks...
M'kay in response to jediJeff.
"Why are protestors being imprisoned? For the simple law breaking. The First Amendment says (and I am only stating it here just in case you do not know. If you know, I'm not being a smart ass) that Americans have the right to peacefully assemble. "
I agree that they were disruptive. It's these attacks that on your first amendment that worry me. Oregon
If this bill goes through, it is so vague that still peacefully in from of a consulate to protest could be seen as a terrorist act and persons could be be imprisoned for life.
As for people disappearing I am posting a clearer link to the American anti-patriot act.more
In in Patriot II, is found in Section 201. According to this section, "a federal court decision can be overturned, mandating that the government reveal the identities of those persons it has detained in the investigation of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The new bill states that "the government need not disclose information about individuals detained in investigations of terrorism until ... the initiation of criminal charges," no matter how long that might take...If passed, this would become the first time in American history that secret arrests would be specifically permitted under the American rule of law.
Therefore, making my comment on people disappearing is not an exageration.
Further section 501 states:
"Expatriation of Terrorists': This provision, the drafters
say, would establish that an American citizen could be expatriated "if, with
the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or
provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated
as a 'terrorist organization'.'' But whereas a citizen formerly had to state
his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his
intent can be "inferred from conduct.'' Thus, engaging in the lawful
activities of a group designated as a "terrorist organization'' by the
Attorney General could be presumptive grounds for expatriation.
So basically, you could be giving money that you though was for your homeland or a charity and if it became designated a terrorist group, you loose your citizenship. What if you have no other citizenship? Where are you going to go without a passport? What about proof of guilt? It's not stated that guilt has to be proved in a court of law in the act.
Second point, Jedi Jeff posts:
Kurds attacked. One simple question, Shmi - should we sit back and continue to let him kill people? Maybe we waited too long, but we now understand it has to stop.
This is why I question the timing of the war. There are many, many places in the world where minorities are being silenced. Again, as in my earlier post and links I point out it was OK to gas the Kurds when Saddam went along with US foreign policy. So now that he doesn't the Kurds become important? This is an excuse.
Third point, Jedijeff writes:
"But yeah, our policy was stand offish. Until a country asked for help, we did not give it. But the moment our interest is in jeopardy, we are Sammy on the spot."
Actually, Americans were desperately needed and called on in WWII, but nothing until American personal interests were attacked. However, your original post was "Maybe, one day, we'll turn our backs when a ruthless killer invades a country and the country cries for help." That's a re-write of history. Futher, the link I gave you does state why they were turned away from US. US could have accepted them on humanitarian grounds but choose not to do so. I never stated what Canada's actions were.
Finally, you state that Iraq had 12 years to conform to Un resolutions but you fail to mention that the UN inspections stopped because the Americans were using the UN inspections to spy on Iraq. spying Has this war proven that they haven't compl
Just read through the debate between TheRealShmi, and JediJeff.
Both of you are making valid, and interesting points. I have a few light things to add....
1) Re: Taking action, not taking action.
It was mentioned previously by the two of you that America has acted in both ways in the past.
America was isolationist in their views in the first 1/3 of the 20th century. That is NOT the same as neutral. Isolationist views were imbedded in the US's creed from it's inception. The point of making a 'brave NEW WORLD' was to say the hell with the 'OLD WORLD'. The US was NOT neutral, they were only looking out for themselves (with no fault towards them) until FDR decided to change that, with America's new found power after the reconstuction in the 1920's. This change from Isolationism to Political and Militaristic Activism mirrors the change in the nation itself. Today, the US is partaking in it's role as a Political and Militaristic Activist, as established in it's foreign policy.*
2) The Constitutional Debate
The important thing to remember (as with all dealings with political history) is the context in which it was declared. Again, in the late 1770's and early 1780's the United States was a place where free assemblies could be legally put down by the King's troops through violence. (Ie: The Boston Massacre**)
What men like Jefferson and Danton(Delcaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen: France Constitution, 1790) wanted was the right to assemble freely without persecution from the KING. And they weren't even thinking of things like the Million Man March, they were thinking more in terms of 6 guys talking politics at a bar, which was at that point in time, extremely illegal.
Both never intended for such rallies as the one in downtown Toronto on the 30th, and as a result, constitutions are EXTREMELY 'grey' in the application of their meaning today.
3) Personal Opinions:
The next time I'm heading down to the bus station at Bay and Dundas, and I miss my bus because of a bunch of retards protesting about something they can't change, I'm going to kill someone.
If you're mad about something, that's your right. If you want to show that you're mad about something, that's your right. If you want to show that you're mad about something, and that show interferes with my life, that's where I get pissed off. I allow you your own life, you allow me mine. That 'assemby' did not allow me mine, and all those people are responsible for it.
I have one part red and white, and one part red, white and blue running through my viens. I'm sensitive and appreciating of both sides. Ultimately, I'm looking out for myself. Whatever happens from this, I can't tell. But if my life's better because the United States is oppressing another dinky little country 10000 miles away, that's find by me.
And for those of you that care: Authoritative References!!!
* Dr. Ricard Hoffstader, American Political Tradition, and the Men who Made it. Banbury Books, London.
**Dr. William Wheeler, Discovering the American Past Volume 1, 5th Edition. Houghton Company, Boston.
Random sidenote from Tragic:
The Presidential Prayer Club for Kids. I swear to god, you couldn't make this sort of thing up if you tried...
shhh - don't tell the kids that National Council of Churches and the Pope are against war. And whatever you do, don't let the kids know that the top US brass are banned from visiting the birthplace of Christ.
:end of random sidenote.
Random sidenote is part of a complete breakfast
a) Oregon bill. [opinion]It'll never pass, and if it does, it'll never stand up in the Supreme Court. Yes - it is way to vague, and no feelings of national patriotism will allow that bill to stand as is. It must be rewritten. [/opinion]
b) Patriot II. I need to research a rebutal. Please remind me if I forget to post something about it.
c) Kurds. Excuse or not, WHO CARES!!!! It was a crappy foreign policy before. Should we continue to allow such things to happen? And unless you can find otherwise, I cannot find a statement from Canada or other countries concerning the Kurd killing back in the late 80's. I would be curious to see what Canada's response was. And if they were against it, so be it. I'll eat my words (and wash it down with a Dundee's Honey Brown ).
d) St Louis. You said "US could have accepted them on humanitarian grounds but choose not to do so. I never stated what Canada's actions were." What were Canada's reason? We can't seem to find any, so we have to assume the reason Canada turned away the boat was the same reason we turned away the boat. Because we did it first makes us the bigger jerks? Both countries are to shame for doing that. A simple head nod will tell me you agree.
e) Spies. You put a link up from an EZBoard as your proof? At least you could have linked here. Geeez.
And we spied. Every nation spies on the next. Like this, this, and this.
Lastly, you will need to expound more on your comment about my lack of knowledge of the First Admendment. Free speech is a great thing. However, there is a point in time when free speech goes way too far. Here's what happens when you allow people to think and feel whatever the hell they want. *. Nice, huh. That, my friends, is the main issue I have with the First Amendment. When it was written - great. Now? Needs a little tweaking. There are plain, simple issues that need to be addressed, with one at the top being the protection of our future - our children. With technology growing as it has, it's becoming harder and harder to keep my kids safe, with the proliferation of sick individuals having the right to say what they want, prompting others to do what they want. The damage is done, folks. It will take a long time to get back to what was. But too damn many people wrap themselves up in the "free speech" load of crap, which makes it too damn hard to just live sometimes. Granted, it skirts the fine line of censorship. That's the rub, and that rub makes it hard on me. Long before I had the right to free speech, 11 years in fact, I was given rights. Certain unalienable rights. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Guess what......some people's use of their freedom of speech violate those rights of mine, as well as the rights of a majority of the people here.
M'Kay, to the last worrior - interesting post. Perhaps neutal was not the proper term no explain their foreign policies. From now on I will discribe it as isolationist policies.
As for the constitution debate, though at the time the constitution's first amendment was used as protection from the king, the right to assemble is still as important today as it was then. Even if, as you point out, it can be a pain if you are in a hurry and need to get through the crowd. However, I would rather live in a country where people have the right to express their views rather than be silenced by force.
Back here again. As to your post, I hope that Oregon Senate bill doesn't go through, it shouldn't. However, on the fun side, weirder laws have been passed. yagottawonder...
Other countries reactions, (and Canada's) to the attack on the Kurds is in the link I posted to you earlier. I did some other searching. Other than allowing the Kurds to immigrate as refugees nothing else was done. Stating the obvious, no one went to war over it.
As for the denial of the Jews in the country. On the surface, Canada refused them because their visas were for United States, not Canada. Our prime minister was quoted for a different reason in my link, but I don't buy it. Stlouis I'm sure religion was an influeing factor. However, I can't find a link that doesn't come from a religious faction. I do agree though shame on us for not accepting them.
Finally, I never said you lacked knowledge of the first amendment just saddened that you didn'think it was important.
DOES NO ONE WANT TO GO WAR WITH BURLINGTON???
They know better Shmi
Please don't think that my post regarding isolationism was directed solely at you. There was a heated debate on the earlier pages of this thread, and others seemed to share the same.....misconception....of American foreign policy.
It's just that, for someone in History, that 'neutral' is more applicable to nations like Switzerland and Sweden, where as the US was not merely avoiding taking sides, but they were strongly against taking sides.
But hey- you say tomAto, I say tomato.
And right to free assembly? Yeah, it's a good thing. Make that a great thing. But do people really need to walk right down the middle of the busiest fricken intersection in all of Canada?!? Arrr....that still ticks me off.
The right to assemble and express your feelings are fine. Like I had said before, Chicago, days AFTER the anti-war people shut down LSD, stated that you will follow this route to stage your protest or be arrested. The ones that followed the route were not arrested - others choose poorly. The point is that you can assemble, but not at the expense or other people's freedom to live a normal life. What if the pro-war decided to match down the middle of Main St? That's crap too. You cannot drag me and my time into your little beef. All the people that were held up because of these radical actions basically took part in a rally they didn't support. Shmi, would you like to be forced to be a member in a group that you didn't believe in?
The right to assemble and protest is all well and good... But there rights shouldn't affect and take away mine.
If i want to get somewhere then people have no right to block me.
Unless of course i am trying to get into a crack house and the police are standing in my way.... but that is just ludicrus and would never happen!
Re: freedom of assembley and blocking the streets
That damn Santa Clause parade. How dare they block off a major city street for some crazy frenzy of Christianity and Capitalism. I say that we send in the cops to bust those candy cane pushers and keep our streets clear.
Streets and sidewalks are going to be blocked from time to time. It?s a part of living with other people. From time to time they?re going to want to get together to celebrate or to protest.
The freedom of assembly aspect is usually balanced against your ability to move by requiring permits for large demonstrations ? so for those, they have just as much a right to the street as any other parade or festival or event.
Blocking the street without a permit or other forms of civil disobedience are non-violent forms of protest. It is a way of forcing attention on an issue through disruption. Now if these people are arrested for ?disturbing the peace? or ?trespassing? ? I?ve no problem with that at all. Block a street or sidewalk and you should be charged with trespassing. Impede the normal course of life or business and there will be consequences
What I object to is when the response or consequences of civil disobedience is disproportionate to the action. Pepper spray or clubs should not be the response to words. Imprisonment for months or years or life should not be the response to non-violent action.
What I object to is when the permits for protest are granted in a biased manner. Civil disobedience is not treason. Civil disobedience is not terrorism. I object to those who label them as such.
As a side note, took part in my first protest on the day the war started.
It was a small affair in Mississauga. Just a group of students, trade unionists and such on the sidewalk with candles, signs and a megaphone - standing in the rain and shouting out against the war. The chanting and the slogans were not really my cup o tea though and so I bought the protesters a box of Timbits to see them through the rest of the event and made my way home.
The event was - for all intents and purposes - an empty gesture without a hope of changing policy. My participation was minimal at best. But I tell you, walking away from it I felt better than I had in days.
They issue plenty of permits for parades and protests. The key when you request a permit is to state the route you plan to take. When you stay on that route, you are fine. Deviate, and you will be arrested.
And yes, Tragic - at times too much force is used to remove people not abiding by the law. I will agree with that. However, if the police give you ample chance to stop your disruptive behavior, and you fail to follow, they will use whatever means needed to move you. No one gets shot, and pepper spray does not have any permanent damage. the moment you are placed under arrest, you have but a few rights. The right to continue your civil disobedience is not one of them.
I'm just wondering how you would hold the government accountable without freedom of speech or assembly.
As JediJeff pointed out, Afganistan and Iraq have democratic elections but I wouldn't want to live there.
Shmi - was that questioned asked of me?
Random items of note:
Glad to know that aid is now arriving for the people of Iraq... well, the people of Iraq who can afford it *
What does Bush say about the head of a country with a list of human rights abuses as long as your arm?
"[He's] a leader of great courage and vision." *
When American troops evict you from your home, be sure to get an IOU. * **
Bush said it. Doesn't mean I agree with it.
Note: If the way you come to power as the leader of a country is via military coup, you probably are not the person who should be in charge.
Hey.....right now I'll take a receipt for some of my stuff!
Bush said it. Doesn't mean I agree with it.
I think very few Americans do or would.
If the Democrats can pull together a half decent canidate, 2004 may make for an interesting election year.
Just remember Dubya's legacy: the very first elected US president to lose the popular vote.
LOL! Bets there's invasion on Pakistan in ten years!
Note, the above comment was in reference to your first post, not a question.
I know this is a bit off topic from what everyone is saying, yet I really don't have the time to read every post and incorperate it in my post, sorry. *ducks*
Just today in history class, I found out a little sindbit about a law passed in the US, just after 911. It's called the Liberty Law. The basic gist of the law is, if you are suspected as a terriorest you can get arrested or killed without question.
It's not spoken of much, yet I think it's a true low of arrogency in the US Democracy.
Tess, I think you're talking about the Patriot Act.
The law itself -so far as I know- doesn't give the right to kill suspected terrorists. Local authorities still are required to take you through the legal system. Only CIA/Military can just drop ya for being a "terrorist". What the Patriot Act does do is give an overbroad definition of terrorism and erode a great deal of privacy of citizens.*
However there has been much discussion and questioning as to how suspects are treated in America's War on Terrorism. The current administration's position is that these people are not covered by the constitution and that they're not covered by the Geneva Convention. This has opened the way to instances of suspected torture *, of being indefinitely held without actually being charged with anything.* , and of just plain old harrassment of citizens *.
Suspected torture. This from the same paper that reported this "enhanced" story. Nothing like making sure your facts are straight before you print the paper. But as long as the paper $ell$......