Previous  1  2  3  Next

I think some members of Premier Divine's (Saskatchewan provincial government) cabinet ended up in jail for a while. Maybe someone can verify that for sure. (But I get your drift)


Mike
Winnipeg

   

<a href="http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1700-11696/politics_economy/political_scandals/clip7">http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1700-11696/politics_economy/political_scandals/clip7</a><br />
<br />
<p>---<br>RickW<br />
<br />
"The purpose of economic competition is to eliminate competition"...." - John Kenneth Galbraith

   

Some of them did go to prison, Mike, but not nearly enough of them. The ones who committed what amounts to petty theft (I think one guy bought a saddle with his ill-gotten gains) got punished and the ones who bankrupted the province walked away free.

It does give me the opportunity to use the phrase, "Told ya so," a lot when I go back to visit though, so at least there's a bright side.

Mulroney had an MP or two who was doing weekends in prison and sitting in the House during the week too, if I remember correctly.

   

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

ttp://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/K ... 26503.html

Bill Kaufmann

CALGARY SUN - June 12, 2006 By Bill Kaufmann

Plot thickens -- U.S.-style rhetoric ramped up despite evidence to contrary

It's happening here now, it's come to this in Canada.

No, it's not just that Canadian authorities have made a large number of arrests in a plot allegedly involving keystone terrorists plotting to attack targets with improvised explosives.

What's fresh is a mindset replete with its own set of platitudes weirdly reminiscent of a mentality in the U.S. that appears to mercifully be running its credibility cycle south of the border. It's kind of like Canadians picking up on the novelty of Elvis in the midst of the British invasion.

In the wake of the mass arrest, we have our prime minister serving up rhetoric that could have been conjured by Baghdad Bob or any White House talking head.

"...we are a target because of who we are and how we live, our society, our diversity and our values. Values such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law; the values that make Canada great; values that Canadians cherish," says Harper.

There you have it -- Canadians are in danger of being blown up because some among us detest to their bloodthirsty core our freedom to pick our mouthwash and Aunt Gertie's ability to vote at an advanced poll.

Maybe they hate us for our tax-free lotteries, too, though a 2004 Pentagon report states: "Muslims do not hate us for our freedom, but rather they hate our policies."

I know it's considered bad form to know what motivates enemies in the new Leave it to Beaver Canada, but noting the musings of Osama bin Laden might just come in handy.

The Evil One himself openly cites the West's meddling and military aggression in Mideast countries and its backing of Israeli oppression of Palestinians as the source of the enmity, echoing conclusions from the left-wing radical Pentagon.

Our PM wouldn't like a 25-year study of suicide bombers conducted by University of Chicago political science professor Robert Pape, who found nearly all such acts committed are in response to foreign military occupation, of which our country is now a practitioner.

"Islamic fundamentalism is not the primary driver," he says.

Harper speaks of the rule of law, but Canada has indefinitely detained terror suspects without any due process.

As for freedom, maybe there's still too much of that enjoyed by the press for our PM's liking.

Last week, long-suppressed documents unearthed under FOIP revealed RCMP fears that Canada's Afghan deployment would heighten the terrorist danger here.

Which brings us to another set of platitudes well-schooled in the tradition of Bushian absurdity.

Our military officers in Afghanistan view the arrests as evidence our presence in that country is keeping Canada safe from terrorists, though these suspects are "homegrown" and said to have been motivated by our Afghan deployment.

The mother of a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar offered me this tidbit of logic worthy of the pretzel-challenged.

"If we don't fight the Taliban and terrorists over there, we'll have to fight them here," she says, visions dancing in her head of barge-borne baddies in sandals armed with AK-47s disembarking at Halifax harbour.

But as legendary British Mideast correspondent Robert Fisk said during a Calgary stop last week, the biggest shortcoming among journalists is their failure to ask "why" as in "why do they hate us?" Crime investigators aren't so negligent.

It's time to acknowledge that, through our presence in Afghanistan, we're seen as being firmly aligned with a U.S. whose troops apparently execute children and have burned Iraqis alive with the indiscriminate use of white phosphorous.

"If you want to see their terrorism, you don't have to go to Haditha," a Baghdadi named Jabur told ABC News of his U.S. liberators. "Just go out on the street. If you drive too close to them you can get killed."

We demand Muslims speak out more strongly against the extremists in their midst, but I've heard little insistence Canada's silent governments condemn U.S. atrocities.

What's more, a trend begun by the last Liberal regime, punishing Palestinian victims of Israeli occupation, has been embraced with gusto by our current rulers.

Not only does Ottawa tacitly endorse Israel's grab of Palestinian land with their wall, it cuts off aid to a people already besieged by Israel and short of medicine and food.

Punishing a beleaguered population for their democratic choice doesn't go unnoticed.

We should abandon such foreign policy more for the sake of justice than for our own safety.

In the meantime, it's to be hoped our security apparatus is up to the task, and our extremists remain keystone plotters.

============

   

"Which means it can be whatever the police and the law want it to be, whenever they want it to be that."

No, the definition of something changes under the law, when it is used in a manner other than it's intended use.

A car, a screwdriver, a rock; become a weapon when they are used as a weapon. A fertilizer is an explosive when it's not spread on growing things, but (as the good Reverend put it) it's mixed with something to make it an oxidizing agent.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

   

Thanks for the info RPW and Rev Blair.


Mike

   

"The British "punks" used HIGH explosives"...<br />
<br />
No they didn't. Though originally thought to be commercial explosives, it was later revealed that this stuff was homemade explosives. Volatile stuff that can blow up while being made (volatility similar to nitro). Similar to what they use in Palestine for their Kassam rockets. And it has a limited shelf life, which is why the second wave of attacks failed... the material had degraded.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4705419.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4705419.stm</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4684869.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4684869.stm</a><br />
<br />
Pictures of the homemade bombs used in the latter attacks that are thought to be similar to those used in the first attack<br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4722775.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4722775.stm</a><br />
<br />
So, per John's and Bino's point... a bunch of kids living in Mississauga who don't own a farm and who procure 3 tons of fertilizer are going to do what with it? Biggest grow op in the city? Of course fertilizer is not illegal. But then again owning utility knives isn't illegal either. And it wasn't illegal to have them on a plane prior to 9/11 because the blade length was under 4". In fact, the 19 hijackers had not done anything "illegal" until they started slashing people's throats with them. The intent of these people is what is illegal. Having dissenting ideas are fine. Talking about violent overthrow is fine. Procuring the materials necessary to carry out an attack, and having plans for said attack is illegal. <br />
<br />
Of course, you seem to want to see proof of said intent with the resulting innocent deaths before you can call a skunk a smelly rodent.

   

It looks like yet another attempt to justify another undemining of civil liberties ,by maunfacturing public consent for the surrender of our civil liberties. Peddling fear and paranoia has enabled the Bush regime to demolish civil liberties in the US ,and his little puppy dog Harper is a monkey see monkey do type of guy when it comes to letting the US dictate our policies..
Goering, at the Nuremberg trials, said " Its easy to get the public to support a war. All you have to do is convince them that we are under attack, then denounce as unpatriotic, anyone who disaggrees."
Harper appears to be poised to take his advice directly from the third riech.No surprise there.
Brent

---
Brent

   

Those poor, poor Americans without any civil liberties at all! I think that is s why BusHitler was voted in for a second term. Because they are such masochists. American’s were all “Hey! We’re totally oppressed by the neo-fascist BusHitler regime! This Rules! 4 more years of manufacturing public consent for the surrender of our civil liberties! 4 more years of manufacturing public consent for the surrender of our civil liberties!”

Oh, wait. That’s not right. They are among the freest people on the planet.

But hey, hyperbole is delicious, so who am I to deny you’re your right to make an ass of yourself with comments like “Third [sic] riech”? That’s beyond lame, but that’s your prerogative. Spelling it correctly might give you a touch more credibility, and lead folks to believe you actually understand what you are implying (America=Nazi Germany), but again, your prerogative.

Why, I wonder Brent, would so many people around the globe give their left nut for a chance to live in America?

They must be huge fans of the BusHitler Third “riech”.

Get some perspective. Please.

   

There has been nothing so far to indicate that these guys knew how to make a bomb out of fertilizer though, Michael. There was no mention of them buying diesel fuel and the Radio Shack props the cops presented as detonators (examples only, we've no actual evidence) are the kind of thing that many people, including me, have a junk drawer full of.

Throw in that it was the cops that sold them the fertilizer, and the way CSIS and the RCMP have screwed up similar cases in the past, and I have some serious doubts about how serious the "intent" was.

Given what we've been told about these guys, one doubts they could figure out how to set off a pre-made bomb with a detanator already in place. For them to make one from scratch seems a little far-fetched at this point.

   

The cops intercepted the sale of the fertilizer. Nothing has been presented that shows or even indicates that the cops were the ones who suggested the sale to these guys, or that they did anything different than what they would do in any normal sting operation where the transaction needs to be completed before any charges could be laid... if they had backed out of the transaction at any time previous to the purchase, they would probably be still under surveillance instead of in jail.

   

So you are now blaming Harper for our anti-terrorism laws? That the conservatives may extend the provisions in an upcoming vote is to be expected, but that law was the product of a Liberal politician. Additionally, the security certificates that many seem so appalled by were a product of the 1970's (Trudeau). They were not created after 9/11. They have been used more than 20 times since inception... 5 times since 9/11. All against NON-citizens. Which is what they were created for. To detain someone who is not a Canadian and who is deemed a security risk until they can be deported or they choose to leave. Someone we don't want in the country.

   

I refer you to the appropriate sections of the CC under which these folks have been charged. It's nothing to do with terrorism in this specific case but with the sections as noted. Other sections of the CC make provision for "terrorist" wit ha definition clearly spelled out.
-------------------------------------------

Using explosives
81. (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) does anything with intent to cause an explosion of an explosive substance that is likely to cause serious bodily harm or death to persons or is likely to cause serious damage to property;

(b) with intent to do bodily harm to any person

(i) causes an explosive substance to explode,

(ii) sends or delivers to a person or causes a person to take or receive an explosive substance or any other dangerous substance or thing, or

(iii) places or throws anywhere or at or on a person a corrosive fluid, explosive substance or any other dangerous substance or thing;

(c) with intent to destroy or damage property without lawful excuse, places or throws an explosive substance anywhere; or

(d) makes or has in his possession or has under his care or control any explosive substance with intent thereby

(i) to endanger life or to cause serious damage to property, or

(ii) to enable another person to endanger life or to cause serious damage to property.

-----------------------

Ohter charges relate to other sections of the CC and have nada ot do with politics or political shit. Get your head in gear.

   

"So how did Canada’s security forces catch wind of the purchase of all this fertilizer in Toronto? Simple, they sold it to the alleged terrorists themselves. I’m no legal expert so I don’t know if this sting constitutes entrapment; but, from all the evidence released so far, it appears these terrorist dudes were absolutely toothless until the security crew sold them this ‘weapon’. Essentially, up to that point they appear to have been no more than a bunch of misguided bigmouth jerks. Does that mean they were criminals, or did our security forces help them to become criminals?"

Really now. Even I can read newspaper reports. Perhaps you read or scan differently or read the alternative press where speculation and world takeopver plots abound more than I but this stuff was not sold to the accused by the RCMP or any of the "authorities". They did not sell the stuff to the accused. The accused, on their own volition arranged to buy the stuff from an un-named source using public library internet connections to search it out (among other efforts), all on their own initiative entirely. They paid a deposit to their supplier, rented space to receive and process the stuff in Newmarket, Ontario and accepted delivery of what they thought was fertilizer. Creditable witnesses in adjacent units in the industrial units saw them and witnessed their processing efforts through open overhead doors of the unit. Plus same witnesses saw the eventual police raids.
All this was in the papers. All you need do is read and comprehend. As for the rest of your stuff, well if this flippant assertion is not accurate and it isn't, why would I think the rest of it is worth reading ?

   

"Agreed. If possession of Nitrates is a crime, then every farmer with a manure pile behind the barn is also a 'terrorist'. Everyone who is in possession of castor beans, or castor oil also has Ricin.

Guilt can only be determined on actions, not intentions. And on intentions, these guys were pretty weak."

---------------------------

Possession of nitrates is not an offence. Possession of soybeans isn't either. How foolish !! I am astounded at the thiness of your thought processs. And since when is guilt only assiciated with action - not intent ? WOW !! Ever heard of first degree murder when the guilty one does not pull the trigger but hires the assassin ? Consult with Colin Thatcher if you don't believe me. Conversly if criminal intent cannot be shown in an accused's actions this is grounds for defence of charges. Has it ocurred to you why these accused purchased so much AN ? To grow flowers ? Please !! I suggest you read the Criminal Code for yourself prior to inventing and actually writing out this childish stuff. It specifically states offences there and the circumstances under which accused may be found guilty and intent is a large part of it. Like why did I buy the Glock ? to show my wife's new boyfriend the cool curves and interesting grain of it's stock ? But yer honor, it went off accidently while I was showing it to him. WOW ! Glad yer not on the bench. Or on a jury for that matter.
The real misfortune here is the final outcome in the courts in these cases will not meet your standard of childishness and you, therefore, run a serious hazard of never coming to grips with plain factual undenyable reality.

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next