Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:02 pm    Post subject: This isn't good... Reply with quote

I had no idea that this was going on: Amnesty International and BCCLA seek injunction against Taliban prisoner transfers

Apparently, their argument is that we cannot transfer prisoners to the Afghanistan government because we cannot guarantee the prisoner's safety. General Duschamps, CoS for the combat mission in Afstan, has sworn an affadavit stating that:

Quote:
"The insurgents could attack us with impunity knowing that if they fail to win an engagement they would simply have to surrender and wait for release to resume operations,"


Quote:
"If Canadian Forces were no longer able to transfer detainees, ... this would put the civilian population at great risk as the insurgents would re-assert themselves fully,"


The judge shouldn't have agreed to hear the case in the first place, but here's hoping he has a sudden inspiration of common sense.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solution: take no prisoners.

-Mac
mltoryblue





Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 109
Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We should throw a bunch of these amnesty international people on the front lines for a couple of days. Let them see what our armed forces have to deal with and see if their position changes.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where are they seeking an injunction? Is it here in Canada, in an Afghan court, or in the world court? If it is the world court, they have no jurisdiction since we have not signed over our sovereignty to them. Yet.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the article is clearly states with a fed judge in fed court.
:P
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do Canadian courts have jurisdiction over military operations? If the court can take command authority away from Parliament and the generals, then we don;t have much of an army. That means that the members of the supreme court are the joint commanders in chief, and not the governor general.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its pretty clear to me that the judge doesn't have jurisdiction, and I'm suprised the government didn't file for a stay of judgement based on that alone. I suspect this will end up in the Supreme Court either way.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amnesty International can kiss my ass! They love to attack the U.S. and the West, far more than the actual human rights abusing nations. Go figure. Just another anti-western left wing group.
urbanmonk





Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 307
Reputation: 16.8Reputation: 16.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Solution: take no prisoners.

Tisk tisk...at times like this we all need to ask ourselves WWJD? Jack always knows best!
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

urbanmonk wrote:
Quote:
Solution: take no prisoners.

Tisk tisk...at times like this we all need to ask ourselves WWJD? Jack always knows best!

Hey, it's an elegant solution, isn't it?

-Mac
yedowicz





Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 17
Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4
Location: OTTAWA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that the jurisdiction is clearly Afghan. If a Canadian court makes any kind of ruling on this subject that would justifyably be regarded as an insult by the Afghans. After all most of the atrocities are committed on Afghan civilians. Canadians are there to help the Afghan government not to take away their sovereignty. Didn't the Russians try this?
I think also our officers in the field should be able to make local decisions in consultation with the Afghans. That is why we make them officers.

Lem Yedowicz
<a href="http://www.authorsden.com/lemyedowicz" rel="tag">lemyedowicz</a>
Kriger





Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 16
Reputation: 3.4Reputation: 3.4Reputation: 3.4
votes: 1

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mltoryblue wrote:
We should throw a bunch of these amnesty international people on the front lines for a couple of days.


Amnesty International workers have often taken great personal risks to document various abuses and atrocities.

Quote:
Let them see what our armed forces have to deal with and see if their position changes.


I've actually found Amnesty quite consistent. They are critical of torture regardless of the agent responsible. Governments and rebel groups all have their reasons/rationalizations for using torture. It's Amnesty's job to highlight these acts, and our jobs as citizens to decide whether such acts are ever justified.

SFrank wrote:
]Amnesty International can kiss my ass! They love to attack the U.S. and the West, far more than the actual human rights abusing nations.


The abuses documented at Abu Ghraib and other installations are actual human rights abuses.

Quote:
Go figure. Just another anti-western left wing group.


Have you actually read any documents from Amnesty International, or are you just talking out of your ass?

I suggest you head down to the library or search the Net and check out the many Amnesty references and articles on human rights abuses in left-wing nations like Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Federal Court comes in with a suprising ruling:

Quote:
After establishing that yes, the Court does have the right and obligation to hear the case, the justice applies the existing law to the question: in this instance a case known as R. v. Hape. In that case, the Mounties did a search for evidence in the Turks & Caicos Islands that would have been illegal in Canada, mainly because the justice system in the T&C didnít have a protocol for search warrants. This leads to a following conclusion:

Justice LeBel further noted that the choice of legal system is within the authority of each state, in the exercise of its territorial sovereignty. As states are sovereign and equal at international law, it follows that one state cannot exercise its jurisdiction in a way that interferes with the exclusive territorial rights of other states.

Justice LeBel wrote:
Were Charter standards to be applied in another stateís territory without its consent, there would by that very fact always be interference with the other stateís sovereignty. . . . As a consequence, the majority of the Supreme Court was of the view that Canadian law, including the Charter, could only be enforced in another state with the consent of the other state. (page 32)


Which means that Canada (in the form of the Canadian Forces) can only detain Afghans with the consent of the government of Afghanistan. Has that government given consent? According to the Federal Court, no:

Justice LeBel wrote:
In light of the foregoing, it is clear that while Afghanistan has consented to its citizens being detained by the Canadian Forces for the purposes described by the Afghan Compact, it cannot be said that Afghanistan has consented to the application or enforcement of Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to constrain the actions of the Canadian Forces in relation to detainees held by the Canadian Forces on Afghan soil.

Furthermore, the Government of Afghanistan has not consented to having Canadian Charter rights conferred on non-Canadians, within its territorial limits.

As a result, based upon the Supreme Court of Canadaís ruling in Hape, it would thus appear that the Charter does not apply to the conduct of the Canadian Forces in issue in this case.


While I don't agree that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, I'm pleased with the rest of the ruling.

H/T: Phantom Observer
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


This isn't good...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB