Senate Member
Posts: 5,600 
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
June 11th, 2006, 11:22 AM
We don't need layer after layer after layer of law. Each layer constricts us just a little more, each layer takes another bite of our liberty, and only very rarely does a new layer actually threaten "evil-doers" with anything more than already existed.
As you say, there is no need to charge the 17 with terror offenses. Conspiracy to commit murder, treason, sedition, and possession of weapons should cover it quite nicely IMHO.
Quoting
On this I'm with you 100%.
In terms of terrorism, I am among those who think that terrorism-related provisions should be removed from the Criminal Code of Canada. I don't think that such provisions are, in particular, needed. For example, the seventeen persons arrested in the Province of Ontario should not, in my opinion, be facing separate charges for terrorism; rather, I think that they should be charged with, among other things, treason. Our framework of laws provides charges by which we can prosecute those who commit acts of terrorism — we don't need a terrorism charge.
We don't need layer after layer after layer of law. Each layer constricts us just a little more, each layer takes another bite of our liberty, and only very rarely does a new layer actually threaten "evil-doers" with anything more than already existed.
As you say, there is no need to charge the 17 with terror offenses. Conspiracy to commit murder, treason, sedition, and possession of weapons should cover it quite nicely IMHO.
jimmoyer
Posts: 5,040
Location: Winchester Virginia
Location: Winchester Virginia
June 11th, 2006, 11:31 AM
I'd agree with that sentiment FiveParadox and Colpy
were it not for the arcane loopholes in sedition case
history. Over time a body of case law has raised hurdles
for the prosecution.
Thus adding another layer of law closing some of those
loopholes of court case law gives the prosecution a better chance at getting more time in jail for those perpertrators.
I'd agree with that sentiment FiveParadox and Colpy
were it not for the arcane loopholes in sedition case
history. Over time a body of case law has raised hurdles
for the prosecution.
Thus adding another layer of law closing some of those
loopholes of court case law gives the prosecution a better chance at getting more time in jail for those perpertrators.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,273
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
June 11th, 2006, 12:02 PM
[quote="EastSideScotian"]
Terrorist plain and simple are people who use terror as a weapon, people who blow things/themselves up to attack the civilian masses as a way to fight their enemies. As for training, there has been all kinds of help there, hell event he usa helped train a few. There is drug lords who fund terrorist who train more terrorist there are war lord, and even government.... As for the Global threat of terrorism, if you don’t see it as a threat to human life and humanities somewhat peaceful existence...Terrorist are cowards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to draw a distinction between plainclothed and uniformed terrorism. Is terrorism any more of a problem now than it was before 9/11. When did you begin to think about terrorism?
Does the war on terrorism make it easier to persecute lawfull dissent? Does the war on terrorism trump democracy? Who benefits from the war on terrorism? Who benefits from terrorism in general?
[/i]
[quote="EastSideScotian"]
Quoting
Whithout answers to these questions we do not even know who the terrorists are.
Have you been hiding under a rock since....I donno the Air India bombing? Quoting
And my questions to you are. What is terrorism? Who are the serious terrorists? Who trains terrorists? Who supports death squads? Can the poor really afford effective terrorism? Is terrorism an effective method? Do you know anything about the history of terrorism in the last hundred years? What is the global threat of terrorism?
Ok.....
Iam not a lefty or a righty ...Iam in the middle ground....Now as for the War.....and the Use of troops in Afghanistan, I am for it, as a means of fighting terrorism, I see it as basicly the onyl way it can be fought.
Now..its seems to me that most Left wingers are on the whole Pull the troops out bus.
My Question to the....Left, is:
What are your Ideas on how we would Fight terrorism, without the use of force, and military power? I mean since it seems you dont want to use the troops to do it in Afghanistan, How should we go about fighting the global threat.....
This isnt a ploy of anytype, because there is definatly some other ways to go about it....I want to sue this thread to compare the ideas and see which we all think would possibly work to Give North America Mainly Canada security and peace of mind, in the war on terror, with out the use of troops.
Also the right can say there ideas too with out the use of troops, but use of troops seems to be a mainly right wing supported idea
Iam not a lefty or a righty ...Iam in the middle ground....Now as for the War.....and the Use of troops in Afghanistan, I am for it, as a means of fighting terrorism, I see it as basicly the onyl way it can be fought.
Now..its seems to me that most Left wingers are on the whole Pull the troops out bus.
My Question to the....Left, is:
What are your Ideas on how we would Fight terrorism, without the use of force, and military power? I mean since it seems you dont want to use the troops to do it in Afghanistan, How should we go about fighting the global threat.....
This isnt a ploy of anytype, because there is definatly some other ways to go about it....I want to sue this thread to compare the ideas and see which we all think would possibly work to Give North America Mainly Canada security and peace of mind, in the war on terror, with out the use of troops.
Also the right can say there ideas too with out the use of troops, but use of troops seems to be a mainly right wing supported idea
Whithout answers to these questions we do not even know who the terrorists are.
Terrorist plain and simple are people who use terror as a weapon, people who blow things/themselves up to attack the civilian masses as a way to fight their enemies. As for training, there has been all kinds of help there, hell event he usa helped train a few. There is drug lords who fund terrorist who train more terrorist there are war lord, and even government.... As for the Global threat of terrorism, if you don’t see it as a threat to human life and humanities somewhat peaceful existence...Terrorist are cowards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to draw a distinction between plainclothed and uniformed terrorism. Is terrorism any more of a problem now than it was before 9/11. When did you begin to think about terrorism?
Does the war on terrorism make it easier to persecute lawfull dissent? Does the war on terrorism trump democracy? Who benefits from the war on terrorism? Who benefits from terrorism in general?
[/i]
Stuck in Ontario...bah
Posts: 706
Location: Petawawa Ontario
Location: Petawawa Ontario
June 12th, 2006, 12:16 PM
I had thought about terrorism a few years before 2001, 9/11. Ill admit, I have thought about it alot more, why? Well its simple I was in English class in grade 10, and my English teacher who was from Boston, came intot he class room first period crying.....Which was pretty odd. Once someone asked what happend (non of us aware of anything yet) He said my sister may be dead. Then he said that a plane had hit the world trade centre where she worked. We put the class radio on and listend in as another plane hit the second tower. After that class I had Biolgy, my teacher interestingly enough was german and sat us down and scrapped the lesson plan for the day, and right away started to talk about terrorism and Osma Bin Laden, American Culture and oil sanctions, And this was before we were even told the suspects on the news, so it was pretty interesting how accurate mr.muller was.
I started to really think about the effect Terroism has on people, inocent people when it was Confrimed my English Teachers Sister had been killed in the attacks, she had 2 childern and a husband in the FBI. Not only was my English teacher crushed, I cna only imagne her Husban and 2 childern. Thats when it really hit home for me I think.
Your other questions are pretty well they dont have much to do with much....Ill awnser the who Benifits fromt he war on terror.
No one really, who benifits from war? Not me, not you, not the soldiers not the taliban. But Ill tell you what the war does it says hey, we arent gonna take this **** and we are willing to stop it.
I had thought about terrorism a few years before 2001, 9/11. Ill admit, I have thought about it alot more, why? Well its simple I was in English class in grade 10, and my English teacher who was from Boston, came intot he class room first period crying.....Which was pretty odd. Once someone asked what happend (non of us aware of anything yet) He said my sister may be dead. Then he said that a plane had hit the world trade centre where she worked. We put the class radio on and listend in as another plane hit the second tower. After that class I had Biolgy, my teacher interestingly enough was german and sat us down and scrapped the lesson plan for the day, and right away started to talk about terrorism and Osma Bin Laden, American Culture and oil sanctions, And this was before we were even told the suspects on the news, so it was pretty interesting how accurate mr.muller was.
I started to really think about the effect Terroism has on people, inocent people when it was Confrimed my English Teachers Sister had been killed in the attacks, she had 2 childern and a husband in the FBI. Not only was my English teacher crushed, I cna only imagne her Husban and 2 childern. Thats when it really hit home for me I think.
Your other questions are pretty well they dont have much to do with much....Ill awnser the who Benifits fromt he war on terror.
No one really, who benifits from war? Not me, not you, not the soldiers not the taliban. But Ill tell you what the war does it says hey, we arent gonna take this **** and we are willing to stop it.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,847
Location: Victoria, BC
Location: Victoria, BC
June 12th, 2006, 03:40 PM
Interesting topic, this. There's no pat answer to the issue of terrorism. I'm with darkbeaver on this one ... who are "they"??
It's human nature for one culture/tribe to pit itself against another (ok, whole new thread for philosophy in that statement!) but terrorism has been going on since the first caveman clubbed his neighbour to claim his cavewoman and intimidated the other neighbour into going along. There's always been an us/them mentality. These days, it's just more well publicized. I was glued to the TV on 9/11 ... like everyone else ... and was equally as horrified.
What about all that has come before 9/11? Using the true definition of terrorist (terrorism is primarily a form of violence undertaken {by individuals, groups, or states} against civilians for political or ideological purposes according to Wikipedia), it's standard fare for humans. I can't even begin to list the terrorists throughout history. Google it if you want that info. Start with Ireland.
The terrorist flavour of the month at this time are Osama and Saddam. *shrug* Nothing new with the concept, but what is new is the coverage. You can't turn on a TV, open a magazine, pull up a website without finding some reference to it.
Today's wired world makes terrorism more visible. It offers a double edged sword for politicians ... on one hand their sneaky little games (like supplying Saddam with money and arms years ago) are exposed but on the other hand it offers up grist for the political mill. Nice little platform to hang a political hat on. Scare the masses into the poll booths by promising to keep them safe.
There were no WMD, so anyone who has followed this at all knows it's about oil. Karlin is right ... free ourselves from that addiction and we'll solve this one issue. But it won't solve terrorism. As long as there are folks running around the planet feeling they have some devine pipeline to religious wisdom, there will be terrorists. It's how we are wired. We all want to be right and dammit, if we have to blow up a plane to get attention, we'll do it in the name of {insert diety here}.
I agree, Five, that sane people would sit down and sort this out. Unfortunately we are not discussing sane people here. We're talking about zealots ... of two different stripes. I consider "our" side just as guilty. We may not be blowing up planes, but we're still involved in the fighting. Just because we can justify our violence publicly doesn't make it any more acceptable in my eyes.
But back to the question ... I consider myself primarily a lefty. I don't believe in war, I don't even buy poppies. It's my own personal preference. But I do believe in individual autonomy. A kind of responsible anarchy. Arm the population, teach them to look after themselves, kick individual asses as needed and stop the political money grab. That's all war really is ... nobody wins.
As for terrorists? Well, if Canada has to play that game, I agree with Five. Use the legislation in place instead of throwing a big drama scene and creating laws to cover what already has been considered. More political posturing to show the good folks of Canada that we are not out of that loop.
I am very cynical about all politics. There is so much spin, untruth and self serving b.s. that I don't believe any of them. Follow the money and you'll find the truth, imo. In this particular case, the money leads to oil.
Interesting topic, this. There's no pat answer to the issue of terrorism. I'm with darkbeaver on this one ... who are "they"??
It's human nature for one culture/tribe to pit itself against another (ok, whole new thread for philosophy in that statement!) but terrorism has been going on since the first caveman clubbed his neighbour to claim his cavewoman and intimidated the other neighbour into going along. There's always been an us/them mentality. These days, it's just more well publicized. I was glued to the TV on 9/11 ... like everyone else ... and was equally as horrified.
What about all that has come before 9/11? Using the true definition of terrorist (terrorism is primarily a form of violence undertaken {by individuals, groups, or states} against civilians for political or ideological purposes according to Wikipedia), it's standard fare for humans. I can't even begin to list the terrorists throughout history. Google it if you want that info. Start with Ireland.
The terrorist flavour of the month at this time are Osama and Saddam. *shrug* Nothing new with the concept, but what is new is the coverage. You can't turn on a TV, open a magazine, pull up a website without finding some reference to it.
Today's wired world makes terrorism more visible. It offers a double edged sword for politicians ... on one hand their sneaky little games (like supplying Saddam with money and arms years ago) are exposed but on the other hand it offers up grist for the political mill. Nice little platform to hang a political hat on. Scare the masses into the poll booths by promising to keep them safe.
There were no WMD, so anyone who has followed this at all knows it's about oil. Karlin is right ... free ourselves from that addiction and we'll solve this one issue. But it won't solve terrorism. As long as there are folks running around the planet feeling they have some devine pipeline to religious wisdom, there will be terrorists. It's how we are wired. We all want to be right and dammit, if we have to blow up a plane to get attention, we'll do it in the name of {insert diety here}.
I agree, Five, that sane people would sit down and sort this out. Unfortunately we are not discussing sane people here. We're talking about zealots ... of two different stripes. I consider "our" side just as guilty. We may not be blowing up planes, but we're still involved in the fighting. Just because we can justify our violence publicly doesn't make it any more acceptable in my eyes.
But back to the question ... I consider myself primarily a lefty. I don't believe in war, I don't even buy poppies. It's my own personal preference. But I do believe in individual autonomy. A kind of responsible anarchy. Arm the population, teach them to look after themselves, kick individual asses as needed and stop the political money grab. That's all war really is ... nobody wins.
As for terrorists? Well, if Canada has to play that game, I agree with Five. Use the legislation in place instead of throwing a big drama scene and creating laws to cover what already has been considered. More political posturing to show the good folks of Canada that we are not out of that loop.
I am very cynical about all politics. There is so much spin, untruth and self serving b.s. that I don't believe any of them. Follow the money and you'll find the truth, imo. In this particular case, the money leads to oil.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,847
Location: Victoria, BC
Location: Victoria, BC
June 12th, 2006, 03:44 PM
Ya ... what Missile said. I agree with that. Of course that would mean lining up most of the politicians in front of a firing squad as well. The other side see US (us as in you and I, not as in U.S. of A.) as the terrorists, ya know.
Ya ... what Missile said. I agree with that. Of course that would mean lining up most of the politicians in front of a firing squad as well. The other side see US (us as in you and I, not as in U.S. of A.) as the terrorists, ya know.
House Member
Posts: 4,484
Location: Saint John N.B.
Location: Saint John N.B.
June 12th, 2006, 03:48 PM
These countries would have nothing if it wasn't for the oil revenues, and they're attacking the hands that feed them! I suggest the terorist leaders have some political ambitions in their native lands & are using terror to overthrow the govts' All this means is: more reason to kill them all.
These countries would have nothing if it wasn't for the oil revenues, and they're attacking the hands that feed them! I suggest the terorist leaders have some political ambitions in their native lands & are using terror to overthrow the govts' All this means is: more reason to kill them all.
Member
Posts: 197
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
June 14th, 2006, 12:18 PM
Quoting
Hope that the U.S. goes bankrupt. It would help stop them from terrorizing.
Ok.....
My Question to the....Left, is:
What are your Ideas on how we would Fight terrorism, without the use of force, and military power? I mean since it seems you dont want to use the troops to do it in Afghanistan, How should we go about fighting the global threat.....
My Question to the....Left, is:
What are your Ideas on how we would Fight terrorism, without the use of force, and military power? I mean since it seems you dont want to use the troops to do it in Afghanistan, How should we go about fighting the global threat.....
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,786
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
June 14th, 2006, 03:20 PM
as a so called "Leafty" whatever you wish to call it, I think the americans have helped the cause of terrorism greatly by invading the nations and giving these terrorists more cred then they ever had in the past.
However when it comes to the Islamic republic and the Taliban I believe Canada is doing an alright job there. I do prefer a UN mission to take the current place of NATO. As NATO is a political alliance based on American interests and does not have the legitimacy of the United Nations.
For Iraq I feel invading that nation was the worst thing the Americans could have done and are pretty screwed up now. I would hope Canada stays out of this mess, but at the same time I believe the Americans can not just up and leave after putting this nation into such chaos. However I do again believe the United nations sould have a strong roll in the rebuilding of Iraq.
as a so called "Leafty" whatever you wish to call it, I think the americans have helped the cause of terrorism greatly by invading the nations and giving these terrorists more cred then they ever had in the past.
However when it comes to the Islamic republic and the Taliban I believe Canada is doing an alright job there. I do prefer a UN mission to take the current place of NATO. As NATO is a political alliance based on American interests and does not have the legitimacy of the United Nations.
For Iraq I feel invading that nation was the worst thing the Americans could have done and are pretty screwed up now. I would hope Canada stays out of this mess, but at the same time I believe the Americans can not just up and leave after putting this nation into such chaos. However I do again believe the United nations sould have a strong roll in the rebuilding of Iraq.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,348
June 21st, 2006, 05:51 PM
Modern day terrorism is an all out war on poor peoples/terrorist by Neo-cons-fundamentalist-christiano-fascist and their so called evolved peoples.
Quoting
Modern day terrorism is an all out war on Western Democracy by Islamo-fascists and their so called passive moderates.
Modern day terrorism is an all out war on poor peoples/terrorist by Neo-cons-fundamentalist-christiano-fascist and their so called evolved peoples.
Genius
Posts: 985
Location: CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
Location: CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
June 21st, 2006, 08:58 PM
Quoting
I agree with you.
...
And my questions to you are. What is terrorism? Who are the serious terrorists? Who trains terrorists? Who supports death squads? Can the poor really afford effective terrorism? Is terrorism an effective method? Do you know anything about the history of terrorism in the last hundred years? What is the global threat of terrorism?
Whithout answers to these questions we do not even know who the terrorists are.
And my questions to you are. What is terrorism? Who are the serious terrorists? Who trains terrorists? Who supports death squads? Can the poor really afford effective terrorism? Is terrorism an effective method? Do you know anything about the history of terrorism in the last hundred years? What is the global threat of terrorism?
Whithout answers to these questions we do not even know who the terrorists are.
Genius
Posts: 985
Location: CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
Location: CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
June 21st, 2006, 09:13 PM
Terrorism-the use of violence such as bombing, shooting or kidnapping to obtain political demands. according to dictionary.
It's up to the country to deal with them. It's like a criminalists. Every country has it's own strategy to fight them. And the terrorists are not only anti-americans and anti-westerner, they are against anyone who is against them.
Quoting
Yes, you are right. But do we have to overthrow the governement to fight terrorism.
There is no talking to terrorists, or talking with them. Killing all of them is the only way to stop them.
Terrorism-the use of violence such as bombing, shooting or kidnapping to obtain political demands. according to dictionary.
It's up to the country to deal with them. It's like a criminalists. Every country has it's own strategy to fight them. And the terrorists are not only anti-americans and anti-westerner, they are against anyone who is against them.
