babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the best of babble   » the big speech

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: the big speech
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 21 September 2001 02:36 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Guess it's my turn to rant:

Just watched GWB's big address to the nation...it was pretty sickening watching him getting a standing ovation for every sentence. It was as if there were signs behind him flashing "STAND AND CLAP". I swear, if the man farted he would have gotten applause. The only positive moment for me was when it looked like Hilary CLinton kind of rolled her eyes- you could just picture her thinking "God, this guy is even stupider than Bill". Even worse than the speech was watching all of the ass-kissing "responses" to his speech..he kept getting described as having "steely determination", as having appropriately answered America's questions, as showing strong leadership. Can't remember who but someone even described him as "Churchillian". WHAT-ever. Looked to me like the man was simply getting his rocks off being the center of attention; must be wonderful for him to feel like the saviour of the world. Where was the sadness for the people who died? Sure, they had the token widow who he had everyone clap for. Kind of rang hollow for me when I saw the almost gleeful look in his eyes (oh, I guess that's supposed to be steeliness) as he talked about bringing justice to the terrorists and all who harbour them, "immediately". After all, this is his big "opportunity" (remember he said that in his previous address) to push what he's been pushing all along - more militarization, fewer freedoms. I wanted to be there booing, but I suppose about 50 secret service guys would have started beating me with wiffle bats or gagging me with the American flag or something. Where was that guy with the pie who got Jean Chretien when we needed him?

And during his touching litany of the support of other coutries for the US (the anthem playing in Britain, etc) did he thank Canada for letting the US land their possibly terrorist-carrying planes here? No. In fact, he named Great Britain as the States' most important ally. Ouch!! Although I have to say that at this point, I'm glad he isn't thanking us up and down - probably makes us less of a target. Sure George, don't mention us at all. We don't mind. Keep us as dissociated from yourself as possible. Or maybe he isn't listing Canada because Chretien is more reluctant to help out the States than he's letting on? Maybe. I hope so (keep writing to the PM, people: pm@pm.gc.ca)

Ok, that's my rant for now. There are a lot of other things about that speech that are just wrong but I'll post them later.


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 21 September 2001 02:45 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FYI here is the actual speech: long but I thought it worth posting here:

B>President George W. Bush's address:/B>


Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress, and fellow Americans:

In the normal course of events, presidents come to this chamber to report on the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people.

We have seen it in the courage of passengers who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground. Passengers like an exceptional man named Todd Beamer. And would you please help me welcome his wife Lisa Beamer here tonight?

We have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers working past exhaustion.

We've seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers in English, Hebrew and Arabic.

We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own.

My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of union, and it is strong.

Tonight, we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.

I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time.

All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol singing "God Bless America."

And you did more than sing. You acted, by delivering $40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military. Speaker Hastert, Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Daschle and Senator Lott, I thank you for your friendship, for your leadership and for your service to our country.

And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support.

America will never forget the sounds of our national anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.

We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo.

We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America.

Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own. Dozens of Pakistanis, more than 130 Israelis, more than 250 citizens of India, men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan, and hundreds of British citizens.

America has no truer friend than Great Britain.

Once again, we are joined together in a great cause.


I'm so honored the British prime minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity with America.

Thank you for coming, friend.

On Sept. 11, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war, but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning.

Americans have known surprise attacks, but never before on thousands of civilians.

All of this was brought upon us in a single day, and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.

Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking, "Who attacked our country?"

The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al- Qaida. They are some of the murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.

Al-Qaida is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money. Its goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam

The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children.

This group and its leader, a person named Osama bin Laden, are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries.

They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.

The leadership of al-Qaida has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan we see al-Qaida's vision for the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized, many are starving and many have fled.

Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.

The United States respects the people of Afghanistan - after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid - but we condemn the Taliban regime.

It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists.

By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban.

Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of al-Qaida who hide in your land.

Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.

Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.

The Taliban must act and act immediately.

They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.

The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.

The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.

Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

Americans are asking, "Why do they hate us?"

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.

We're not deceived by their pretenses to piety.

We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.


Americans are asking, "How will we fight and win this war?"

We will direct every resource at our command - every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war - to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans.

Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security.

These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight, I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me, the Office of Homeland Security.

And tonight, I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend, Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge.

He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism and respond to any attacks that may come.

These measures are essential. The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it and destroy it where it grows.

Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents, to intelligence operatives, to the reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers.

And tonight a few miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I have called the armed forces to alert, and there is a reason.

The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud.

This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom.

This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

We ask every nation to join us.

We will ask and we will need the help of police forces, intelligence services and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded with sympathy and with support - nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world.

Perhaps the NATO charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all. The civilized world is rallying to America's side.

They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror unanswered cannot only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments.

And you know what? We're not going to allow it.

Americans are asking, "What is expected of us?"

I ask you to live your lives and hug your children.

I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.

I ask you to uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here.

We're in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith.

I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your cooperation, and I ask you to give it. I ask for your patience with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security and for your patience in what will be a long struggle.

I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity; they did not touch its source.

America is successful because of the hard work and creativity and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before Sept. 11, and they are our strengths today.

And finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniform and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow and will help strengthen us for the journey ahead.

Tonight I thank my fellow Americans for what you have already done and for what you will do.

And ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I thank you, their representatives, for what you have already done and for what we will do together.

Tonight we face new and sudden national challenges.

We will come together to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on domestic flights and take new measures to prevent hijacking.

We will come together to promote stability and keep our airlines flying with direct assistance during this emergency.

We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home.

We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act and to find them before they strike.

We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy and put our people back to work.

Tonight, we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all New Yorkers, Gov. George Pataki and Mayor Rudolf Giuliani.

As a symbol of America's resolve, my administration will work with Congress and these two leaders to show the world that we will rebuild New York City.

After all that has just passed, all the lives taken and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them, it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear.


Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them.

As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror. This will be an age of liberty here and across the world.

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger, we have found our mission and our moment.

Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us.

Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good.

Even grief recedes with time and grace.

But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day and to whom it happened. We will remember the moment the news came, where we were and what we were doing.

Some will remember an image of a fire or story or rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.

And I will carry this. It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others.

It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. It is my reminder of lives that ended and a task that does not end.

I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.

Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice, assured of the rightness of our cause and confident of the victories to come.

In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may he watch over the United States of America.

Thank you.


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 21 September 2001 03:07 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was that long?
All i heard, switching over there in commercials, was people clapping in unison. Reminded me of the rhythmic clapping for Russian celebs behind the old iron curtain. We had no idea what they were talking about, either; we only knew it wasn't true and we had to applaud it.
N

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 September 2001 03:50 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
America is successful because of the hard work and creativity and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before Sept. 11, and they are our strengths today.

I thought this was really interesting - as Bush unintentionally stated what is an open secret - that the "paper economy" of the stock market has nothing to do with the "real economy" of workers and business-owners.

The stock market was shut down for a week, yet people did not stop buying goods or services just because pieces of paper could not be traded.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 21 September 2001 03:51 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*laughs* (at nonesuch)

Yup I sat through the whole forty minutes - what a sad waste. I probably could have gotten the same effect by clapping at random events in the house. Wow, there's a light switch (*clap clap clap*). Oh look, the cat just used the litterbox (*clap clap clap*).
Oh golly, the President just decided to start WWIII (*clap clap clap*).

[ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: machiavellian ]


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 21 September 2001 04:05 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And how about this as a very ironic statement about American isolationism and ideology?

quote:
These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.

We're not deceived by their pretenses to piety.

We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.


That last part may describe America in a little while, if it doesn't already.

And this scary part:

quote:
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

Provide AID???? So if Canada gives some humanitarian aid to refugees or civilians in Afghanistan...


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 21 September 2001 04:23 AM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought it was a very good speech. He was doing what a leader of a country is supposed to say and do. It was also nice to see that political ideology was put aside.

Well, the US was giving lots of relief aid to Afghanistan. Did anyone ever see the reprint of Gordon Sinclair's column from 1963? It was interesting. And I agree with it. The US is a compassionate nation that will readily send workers to afflicted nations if some major crisis transpired. Where was the rest of the world when an earthquake (or was it flood?) that caused a huge outpouring of relief from North America. Where were the other countries? And look after World War II, if the US didn't give a shit about the world, they wouldn't have given billions of dollars under the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe nor would they have given aid to Japan to rebuild their cities.

You know, if a major disaster struck and crippled Canada, the US would be the first to help.

I have another question to posters in this thread, I think you criticized Bush for his politics and not his intentions. I bet you anything that if it was Bill Clinton or Al Gore, you'd all be standing on your chairs hooting and hollering to every syllable.

And I would also like to know where were the anti-war demonstrators when Clinton and NATO were bombing Yugoslavia? *cupping my hand to my ear to hear a response to that statement which I doubt there would be* Yep. I figured it was all based on who the man or woman of the political spectrum was on.

As for Hillary Clinton, I think she's just sore cos she wasn't consulted in any way, shape or form. Oh well, she was co-president of the United States for 8 years. By the way, former Clinton advisor George Stephanopolous (or some other paper monkey who was an aide to Clinton) or was it an article about Gore? Anyways, the article said that sources in the White House said that Hillary was sitting in meetings with Bill where the items was of interest to the President. Anyways, this is a different topic altogether about Hillary. Her bio, if there is one, or another being published should be titled "It takes a village idiot."


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 21 September 2001 04:54 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm a little tired to respond to this properly right now (heading to bed) but personally, my problems with the current events in the US are not based solely on the fact that it's Bush in power. I didn't say I was a big Clinton-booster (either Hilary or Bill) either...the history of US atrocities in other countries extends back through the Clinton administration and beyond. As far as I'm concerned there isn't much of a political "spectrum" in the states - 2 major parties, woohoo. Would Al Gore or Bill Clinton have acted like Bush is now? Well if they had I would have been just as upset. I'm Canadian, I don't have any American party affiliations (although Ralph Nader has my sympathies). But it's kind of a moot point. Bush is running the show, and he's got carte blanche to declare war whenever he wants, even though that power is supposed to belong to congress, I believe. So he is the clear and present danger. He's the one declaring war. Hence he's the one I disagree with. If you think America is a loving benevolent country maybe you should read some of the news articles on this site, or the other threads, or the articles at http://www.michaelmoore.com

While you do that, I'm going to bed.

[ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: machiavellian ]


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
prince
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1341

posted 21 September 2001 07:14 AM      Profile for prince     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I found President Bush's speech to be inspiring. I hung on every word and every standing ovation. It brought tears to my eyes to see this man evolve to become one of the worlds greatest leaders. His speech will go down in history as one of the most inspiring and passionate addresses to a nation and to the world. I felt an inner calm afterwards and I slept better last night than I have since Sept 11.
From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 21 September 2001 08:07 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
* unnatural gleam in eye while givig speech

* smiled like he was watching someone fry

* never once mentioned Canada and all we've done

* thought there was an applause sign flashing every two minutes

* set up that poor woman like she was the lastest window display at Simpsons

* never once looked compassionate, empathic or concerned


= one very scary man in charge of the worlds largest and most heavily armed forces.


Bringing partisan ship into it is just silly. The man likes to kill people that doesn't nessarily speak to his politics just to the fact he's a psycopath.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 September 2001 08:33 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Grope and Flail this morning talks about the low-key rhetoric of the speech, by which they seem to mean that certain discrete hot-button terms were not used. But the controlling pattern throughout was us and them, nothing more, and I fail to see any subtlety at all in the old threat that if you're not with us, you're agin us ...

Strangest sight of all: to see how politicized the U.S. Supreme Court is. The classical structures of democracy cannot survive that.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 10:25 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The stock market was shut down for a week, yet people did not stop buying goods or services just because pieces of paper could not be traded.

Not only do I agree with that statement DrC but it even goes one step further. For every stock that was sold, there had to be a buyer on the other end. That alone amazed me
regarding the Airline and tourist industries.
Obviously someone still has faith in them.

The stockmarket falling will only psychologically effect the buying of goods and services. Sales at my stores have fallen 30-60% I wish I could get bailed out like the airline industries. It also means that if it continues a few people will probably be laid off.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 September 2001 10:43 AM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A few comments . . .

- GWB has set the course, I don't think that Afganistan can/ will meet his demands, the die is cast.
- I don't care that didn't mention Canada, I don't feel the need for a pat on the back, we did what we have done so far (memorial service, blood donations, volunterrism, etc.) because it was/ is the right thing to do.
- I wish he wouldn't mention any ally until he ennunciates all of his plans. Blair has obviously said the UK will do anything he suggests.
- GWB is going ot have a hell of time keeping Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia on side despite his comments that this is not a religious war.

- Prince: I don't think that one speech makes anyone a great leader, but I'm really (sincerly) glad you slept better last night. I slept much worse.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 21 September 2001 11:06 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Can't remember who but someone even described him as "Churchillian".

Dubya was drunk off his ass?!?!


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 21 September 2001 11:21 AM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It wa a damned good speech and so what if he didn't mention Canada?

He said strong words that his country needed to hear and it was a remarkable feat given the dubya iss not exactly quick on his feet.

He was, in a word, Presidential.

Well done Big George! ):0


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 September 2001 11:29 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's probably good that he DIDN'T mention Canada. Hopefully that means we won't be next...

Or maybe he saw Wednesday's Town Hall meeting on CBC...

(Wow, you should see the reaction letters to THAT show - heaven forbid we should have one media outlet among all the major networks in Canada and the US present an alternate point of view for a couple of hours. Can't have that. It's amazing how some people are all for freedom of the press as long as the press is expressing their point of view - and the vast majority of the press IS doing so.)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 11:34 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A Washington Post/ABC News poll taken after Bush's speech showed that 91 percent of Americans support the way he has responded to the terrorist attacks. Eight in ten Americans watched Bush's speech last night.

Not too many presidential speaches receive that type of support. Especially such a strongly worded one. (or maybe thats exactly why it did)


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 September 2001 11:37 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A display of lively critical intelligence. Not.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 21 September 2001 11:48 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And come on, who here thinks Dubya actually wrote it? Don't be naive. This isn't like Churchill or Lincoln. They've got legions of writers to do all that thinking stuff for him.

Still, must be nice to have all of this unshakeable confidence in his leadership. Personally, I had a dream that Leonardo DiCaprio was leading a posse armed with baseball bats that was chasing me down for being anti-American.

And if CBC is getting angry letters, I am doubly depressed. That town hall had buoyed my spirits for a little while.


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 21 September 2001 12:02 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am getting really worried. Suspension of all Dubya criticism in the US scares me, American checks-and-balance political system speaking for the first time in unison scares me, everyone's buying of the black and white picture of the world scares me.
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 September 2001 12:06 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Globe link didn't work, but there is a good article about Rhetoric on the fromt section of their page. It's called, "Operation Careful Rhetoric"

I think his speech was no better than average (probably worse than that for some folks). Can you really claim he told anyone anything they didn't already know? He stood up and said, "we're going to fight," but I think we knew that. He cited his allies who made the most overt statements of help. He pressured those nations he wants as his allies, but who are tenuous in their support because of their internal situations. And he made the typical statements of "conditions" for avoiding conflict which the respondent can't meet.

I think it's pretty commonplace except for this: he is trying to craft his rhetoric to make this into a traditional war - he is casting Afganistan as the nation of offense instead of just accusing individuals. So what is the underlying motivation?

[ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: NDB ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 September 2001 12:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now, Trespasser. We have seen this before. It's an early reaction, and we've seen it before. It will begin to elaborate, articulate. But insofar as we've seen it before, such "unison" is what makes some of us feel justified in making certain kinds of generalizations about American popular culture. We're here to describe this carefully, and to keep testifying.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 12:11 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again you dismiss the possibility of Bush being right being the cause of unison support.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 September 2001 12:25 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo - I feel it is impossible for a public observer, like you or I, to determine if GWB is "right" or not. The stream of information that is being released to members of the public is minimal and circumstantial. Geez, CBC-Radio spent a couple of minutes the other day, reading off all of the information they'd reported that was subsequently proved false. How does one analyze, let alone judge, something with such information? Badly, I say.

I feel the cause of the current "unison" (and by the way there are dissenters even in the US) is fear, a sense of vulnerability mixed with patriotic nationalism (as injected by the pols and media). I don't feel there has been occasion for a rational assessment of right/ wrong. I feel like we're just venting right now, and I think it's a bad emotional cloud underwhich to act.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 12:39 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I feel it is impossible for a public observer, like you or I, to determine if GWB is "right" or not.

Your right, just don't dismiss the possibility.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 21 September 2001 12:43 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
NDB, by all means, I refer to the "unison" in mainstream media, mainstream polls and pollsters, Congress and administration (and probably the judiciary branch too, Skdadl mentioned this). All that doesn't leave much room for a critical and informed public opinion to form. Elisabeth Noelle Neumann was right, public opinion is not formed throught free, open and informed deliberation that includes every single citizen; it's rather formed through the spiral of silence and speaking. How many people in the US (or how many would anywhere under those circumstances) look for workingforchange.org, counterpunch.org or villagevoice.com when they want to get information? This imaginary consensus is gaining strength with time and critical voices are being lost. The fight over mainstream has already been lost. Can we do something from the fringes, or from the outside, or through international organizations?

[ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: Trespasser ]


From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 September 2001 01:03 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Trespasser, you've got a number of good questions, none of which I have the answer to . . . but i'll give my thoughts anyway (seems to be a pattern.

"Elisabeth Noelle Neumann was right"
- Never read her, but your summary is interesting. I have been really upset in the last week when opinions have been shouted down. Labelling people "traitor," or "un-patriotic" can be really effective at shutting people up, but it isn't healthy.

"How many people in the US look for workingforchange.org, counterpunch.org or villagevoice.com when they want to get information?"
- Probably not many, or enough. But, for the record, I don't think it is any healthier to limit oneself to those outlets. I think it's really important to read what's in the mainstream, get another perspective, and then discuss both with people and point out the differences and inaacuracies.

"This imaginary consensus is gaining strength with time"
- I actually disagree. I feel surrounded by an increasing number of critical thinkers, but this may be a result of choices I'm making.

"The fight over mainstream has already been lost."
- Disagree, again, I think it is very much alive, but the stuggle is getting harder.

"Can we do something from the fringes, or from the outside, or through international organizations?"
- Yup, share your experiences and new resources with others, and help engender more critical thinkers. I've been reading a book and I agree with the author's fundamental premise, which is, it's very dangerous to limit ones exposure only to opinions we agree with. Boards like this are important because I think a lot of people stay silent in groups if they think everyone else in the group thinks the same way. Here, even on a "progressive" "left-wing" board, one can see that there is a range of opinion about every topic. I think it pushes people to work harder to defend their point of view and engenders moderation to solutions that are acceptable to a wider audience.

Those responses may have been off topic so I apologize. Generally, I think that when more information about the attacks and the proposed reactions is disseminated, that the "consensus" will begin to fracture and break down. More dissenters will emerge as they feel more secure.

[ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: NDB ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 21 September 2001 01:15 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 21 September 2001 01:23 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Trespasser.

Back to Georgy Porgy's speech for a second. I'm concerned. He's basically laid out an ultimatum for the planet - with or against, right? What are the terms of compliance? Do we have to accomodate any request, or can we name our own terms of participation? Will the US be asking every nation to participate or not? Depending on the mix of answers to these and other questions we've just entered a bizarre time in international relations. Do we now have a monolithic global state dictated from Washington?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 21 September 2001 01:53 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK let me explain why it is a problem that Dubya didn't mention us. He named numerous countries he felt were supportive he then said that any country who wasn't supportive was for the terrorists. This on top of the fact that they are already making noise about Canada being to lax in their immigration and policing policies seems to me that not mentioning Canada was a deliberate slight and veiled warning.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576

posted 21 September 2001 02:14 PM      Profile for Heather   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe the reason why Canada wasn't mentioned is because America already feels that it's part of their country. Let's say its "Northern" part.

Take a look around- In the North, we have the DEW Lines, created by Americans during the cold war.

Many American businesses propping up all over the place- the most recent one that I know of is BC HYDRO, was bought by a Texas based company.

And although Canada hasn't made a firm commitment to support the war that America is calling, we will unfortunately be supporting them silently by opening our borders and sharing a perimeter border. I would be very suprised if this doesn't happen. Chretien is sly- he says one thing but does another.

Just because there is a majority in both countries wanting war, it does not mean that what the majority wants is right or moral.

And we call ourselves a civilized society...I find people who use that word and cry for war sickening.

I have neighbours both Canadian & Muslims. While the Muslims try to remain peaceful some of my ignorant neighbours are posting American flags up and yelling out "Nuke Em".

I feel any talking head that wants war should register themselves and go in the front lines. People can talk big about war but take a look, it's the ones who aren't going to fight who support it.

I feel sorry for those young naieve American & Taliban soldiers. They are pawns of our power & money hungry corporate & political leaders.


From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 21 September 2001 02:17 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bush didn't write it????

I know he didn't write it. Any intelligent person knows that these people have speech writers.

As for not mentioning Canada, I was surprised. But then again, Chretien is still flip flopping on the issue like a fish out of water.

I sincerely hope that Chretien will get off his ass and look at ways to improve internal security to prevent terrorists of exploiting our lax immigration system.

I would like to add that I'm not saying every immigrant is a terrorist. That would be extremely shallow of me to say or think that.


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 September 2001 02:29 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Our immigration system is actually not lax at all. Don't forget, terrorists have infiltrated every country, including the USA. No matter how tight your security is, you're not going to be able to stop it without declaring martial law and closing your borders completely. I for one don't want to see that happen.

As someone who has had a lot of personal experience dealing with the red tape and bureaucracy of immigration (probably a lot more than just about anyone posting here for reasons I won't go into detail about), I can tell you for sure that immigration is NOT lax, and they go out of their way to monitor anyone who they think might be a threat. But they aren't mind-readers. How are you supposed to know someone is part of a terrorist cell when they are for all intents and purposes an upstanding citizen, no criminal record, and a productive member of society? Just like there's no way of telling who the Clifford Olsens of the world will be before they commit their crimes, we just won't be able to tell with immigrants.

The many refugees who are harassed and not believed by callous immigration officers not only in Canada but in satellite offices in other countries know exactly how tough Canada is with their immigration policies. Making them more restrictive won't stop terrorists from infiltrating our country. They know how to get around the system. It's the inexperienced genuine refugees and immigrants who will be filtered out by making immigration officials more stringent and biased against people from third world and non-white countries than they already are.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
graemesharsel
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1079

posted 21 September 2001 02:30 PM      Profile for graemesharsel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
After watching GWB's speech I was left very frightened. The message that essentially the U.S. is going to war and that the American people overwhelmingly support him is terrifying to me. What really bothered me about the speech itself however, was how choreographed it seemed. The standing ovations appeared to be staged, Bush was clearly reading from a triple teleprompter, and I thought that his eyes had that gleam that can only be produced through special eye-drops. I actually saw a very similar presidential speech a few years ago when I first watched Independence Day starring Will Smith. Not only was the speech pure propaganda for the simple and blood-crazed mind of the common American, it also looked like it was directed by Steven Spielberg. I hope I never have to see a Canadian prime minister make a speech like that.
From: Hamilton | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 September 2001 02:46 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I hope I never have to see a Canadian prime minister make a speech like that.

I don't think you have to worry. Here's part of the same speech spoken by Chretien, courtesy of The Chretienizer:

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Presidends Pro Tempore, members of Congress, an' fellow Americans:

In da normal course of evends, Presidends come to dis c'amber to report on da sdaide of da Union. Tonight, no such report is neededs. It 'as alreadee been delivereds by da American pooples.

Huwee gots seen it in da courage of passengers, who rusheds tierrorids to save oders on da grounds -- passengers like an hexcepshonal man nameds Todds Beamer. Ands woulds you please help me to huweelcome 'is wife, Lisa Beamer, here tonight. (Applause.)

Huwee gots seen da sdaide of ours Union in da endurance of rescuers, workings pas' hex'austion. Huwee gots seen da unfurlings of flags, da lightings of candles, da givings of bloods, da sayings of prayers -- in English, Hebrew, an' Arabic. Huwee gots seen da decency of dah lovings an' givings pooples who gots made da grief of strangers dair own.

My fellow citizens, for da las' nine days, da endires worlds 'as seen for itself da sdaide of ours Union -- an' it is strong. (Applause.)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beachcomber
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 678

posted 21 September 2001 03:23 PM      Profile for beachcomber   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
okay .. i can understand being critical of Bush, and leery of the actions the US is about to take in the Middle East ...

but

Can we all stop for a moment and remember that Bush's speech .. his actions and attitudes .. are the result of terrorism causing the deaths of over 6,000 people, some of whom are Canadian, Japanese, British, etc, as well as American. A lot of people were killed on September 11th. They were killed by a bunch of fanatical zealots who held no value for any human life, not even their own.

If we temper our responses to Bush's speech with that knowledge, surely we can see why the US .. and Bush are so determined to seek justice. All we can do is hope that the coming actions are tempered with reason .. and it is looking like this will be the case. If Bush wanted "revenge" then Afghanistan would have already been blown off the map by now. He's showed remarkable restraint in the face of such an atrocity.

And don't get me wrong .. I don't like the guy. But he's handling himself well. And he's handling the US response to this very well.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
prince
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1341

posted 21 September 2001 03:33 PM      Profile for prince     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Chretien will be in Washington on Monday for talks with president Bush. source: White House Press Secretary on CNN.
From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 21 September 2001 03:38 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Digression:

Don't get me started on immigration. I don't know much about the refugee claimants department, but as far as the category Independent is concerned, the problem with Canadian immigration is not that it's lax - the problem is that it is greedy. "Net worth" of the applicant is what's looked at first, and the talk about welcoming "best and the brightest" appears to be a fairy tale. Canada probably has the highest Right of Landing Fee among Western democracies (it's about $980), and it is required of all immigration applicants to have at least $10,000 on their bank accounts as a "proof of financial self-sufficency". Add to that a $500 processing fee, and costs of medical examination (which includes X-rays and HIV test, among other things) and costs of the trip to a Canadian embassy in the US and/or to the US border after that.

I can easily see how, once the financial potency requriements are satisfied, everything else about the applicant becomes less important. Even their criminal records.

Me, I'll be in the limbo and on the working visa till the Doomsday, 'cuz only in my wildest dreams will I be able to afford the landed immigrant status.


From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 05:35 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Our immigration system is actually not lax at all

Michelle, what do you think about the supreme court ruling that says Canada cannot deport terrorists to countries where they face harsh penalties or death. Basically they have to remain here, and without facing any charges they would have to be set free.

Our immigration laws are incredibly lax. Everytime I return to Canada across the tunnel or bridge. The only question I was asked previous to Tuesdays was:

"Did you buy or receive any goods"

Basically if I have no GST to offer anybody then I should just hurry through.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 September 2001 06:33 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, from the licence plate on the car they can determine who you are. Don't get too confident there.

quote:
Many American businesses propping up all over the place- the most recent one that I know of is BC HYDRO, was bought by a Texas based company.

If I were in my usual fire-and-brimstone mood I would call the person that wrote this an uninformed retarded momoface.

But since I am in my nice mood, I will merely confine myself to saying that the company was Westcoast Energy.

BC Hydro remains a government-owned monopoly in BC.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 21 September 2001 06:57 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd say it was a surprisingly good speech - for Dubya, anyway. He managed not to mangle what had been written for him. I don't know why he had to keep bringing up some lady named Tera, though.

He said about what I expected him to say for the most part. I was pleasantly surprised with how he was very careful to set the terrorists aside from the religion of Islam and from American Muslims. Unfortunately, he probably canceled some of the effect of that by coming all over Christian later in the speech.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 September 2001 07:11 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Michelle, what do you think about the supreme court ruling that says Canada cannot deport terrorists to countries where they face harsh penalties or death. Basically they have to remain here, and without facing any charges they would have to be set free.

I don't know about terrorism, because I haven't seen those cases. But I do know about criminal cases because I have seen those. I have been closely involved with several cases where a refugee with landed immigrant status gets in trouble with the law (sometimes with offences as petty as mischief), and immigration tries to deport them to a country where they will be tortured or killed.

I've heard all the arguments before about how people should be grateful for our shelter and should respect our laws and all of that. However, the fact remains that some refugees get into trouble with the law when they are here, just like some Canadian-born people get into trouble with the law. Those Federal Court rulings about refugees not being able to be deported to death or torture are there because immigration has tried to deport people to their deaths AFTER serving their sentences.

Now, I think most people will agree that no one deserves to die or be tortured for committing non-violent or non-capital offenses. And it should be noted that there have been cases where people who HAVE committed violent offenses have actually LOST federal and supreme court cases, and been forcibly returned to hostile countries where they were under threat of torture or death. So those Federal Court rulings are there for a REASON, and as far as I'm concerned, a damn good reason. I have a couple of friends who would be dead right now if those precedents WEREN'T there. Even with those precedents, we're managing to deport those who have committed violent crimes, or those who are repeat offenders.

[ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 21 September 2001 07:21 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Michelle, what do you think about the supreme court ruling that says Canada cannot deport terrorists to countries where they face harsh penalties or death. Basically they have to remain here, and without facing any charges they would have to be set free.

That's not what it said. The Court said that under normal circumstances Canada couldn't extradict a suspect (it said nothing about "terrorists") who could expect to face the death penalty, unless the government got assurances that the death penalty would not be applied in that case.

In the particular case under consideration (two young men accused of murder), Canada sought and the US gave those assurances.

The Court, so far as I know, didn't define "normal circumstances," but that would seem to leave an out for the government to extradict suspects under extraordinary circumstances.

If one of the Trade Centre plotters were found in Canada, he'd be extradicted to the US with the stroke of a pen, Supreme Court or no Supreme Court.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 21 September 2001 07:55 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Bush:
Tonight, we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.

Americans are asking, "Why do they hate us?"

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.


Remember the Dalton Camp article about how the CNN being the best place to go for commercials and that the news was just a few second annoyance between commercials? We are becoming painfully aware of what news the American citizens have been missing out on watching all that news. Cretien could not give a speach like this - we know too much to take it at face value.

quote:
to push what he's been pushing all along - more militarization, fewer freedoms. I wanted to be there booing,

We know this, and we know with what happened with the FLQ crisis that taking away freedoms did not find the killers - normal police work did. If we give up freedoms - we are really entering a new world.

quote:
As for Hillary Clinton, I think she's just sore cos she wasn't consulted in any way, shape or form.

She was just pissed off that Bush stole her line - the one described in the next quote.

quote:
Back to Georgy Porgy's speech for a second. I'm concerned. He's basically laid out an ultimatum for the planet - with or against, right? What are the terms of compliance? Do we have to accomodate any request, or can we name our own terms of participation? Will the US be asking every nation to participate or not? Depending on the mix of answers to these and other questions we've just entered a bizarre time in international relations. Do we now have a monolithic global state dictated from Washington?

Are Bush`s guidelines just for Afganistan or for all countries including his.

quote:
Our immigration system is actually not lax at all. Don't forget, terrorists have infiltrated every country, including the USA.

Like I said including the US of A and not just THEM.

quote:
I am getting really worried. Suspension of all Dubya criticism in the US scares me, American checks-and-balance political system speaking for the first time in unison scares me, everyone's buying of the black and white picture of the world scares me.

I`m sure the speach would not have been as powerful if a Canadian could give a play by play translation (too bad airfarse and 22minutes are not around when we need them).

quote:
A Washington Post/ABC News poll taken after Bush's speech showed that 91 percent of Americans support the way he has responded to the terrorist attacks. Eight in ten Americans watched Bush's speech last night.

If you think this is bad - try BC a few years with no opposition.

quote:
I probably could have gotten the same effect by clapping at random events in the house. Wow, there's a light switch (*clap clap clap*). Oh look, the cat just used the litterbox (*clap clap clap*).
Oh golly, the President just decided to start WWIII (*clap clap clap*).

I think bird droppings would be a better metaphor - since all countries get a bit antzy with their leaders after rimming sessions with American presidients - I wished some one would have thought of a way for the Afganistan to save a bit of face and meet demands. Bush put them in a situation where they could not comply and save face.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576

posted 21 September 2001 09:41 PM      Profile for Heather   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
_____________________________________________

If I were in my usual fire-and-brimstone mood I would call the person that wrote this an uninformed retarded momoface.
_____________________________________________

My mistake- You are absolutely right. From now on, I will check my facts before I make statements. I concede the debating point, however, my initial assertion remains valid.

As soon as we privatize important components of our infrastructure and allow them to be sold to the highest bidder, we become hostage to foreign corporate interests and lose the autonomy necessary to exercise self-determination as a sovereign nation.


From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
prince
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1341

posted 21 September 2001 09:52 PM      Profile for prince     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As soon as we privatize important components of our infrastructure and allow them to be sold to the highest bidder, we become hostage to foreign corporate interests and lose the autonomy necessary to exercise self-determination as a sovereign nation.

Really? I suppose a better idea would be to nationalize all businesses?


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 21 September 2001 09:57 PM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I haven't checked my facts either (YET) but didn't the States just buy, like, CP Rail? And one of our diamond mines? I too think that the point about selling off our companies is valid (unless you have more evidence to the contrary, DrC). Why would the States need to conquer us if they already own us?
From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 21 September 2001 10:04 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As far as speeches go I thought it was really dry. I think it was more designed to instill fear, as this is a far greater motivator, in the populations of the countries who the Bush admin wants to use in order to further US Military and US based multinational sponserd imperialism.
This guy wouldn’t even be president if it weren’t for dear ol’ dad and besides only 20% of the population voted for him, those that turned out to vote that is. The US war effort was instrumental in the defeat of the Nazi’s in WW2 and how quickly forgotten the basic principals of democracy. The right to be critical and object. When governments can’t withstand objection and criticism they will resort to desperate measures such as starting deadly games involving hyperbole and rhetoric then by restricting the very freedoms the citizens used to enjoy.
This not be negative for the US has done amazing feats in the areas of arts, sciences, liberal democracy. Their road has not been an easy one. I am depressed to see what is happening to the American people. Going into a war, or what ever it is, is not a glorious eventin fact it is exactly the opposite, an act of desperation. I heard a WTC survivor say that if an innocent person has to die in retribution than the deaths at the WTC would be for not. At a time like this we must truley pray that God Bless America.

[ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: Pimji ]


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 21 September 2001 11:40 PM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0138/ridgeway4.php

www.counterpunch.org/sperry3.html


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576

posted 21 September 2001 11:48 PM      Profile for Heather   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
_____________________________________________

Really? I suppose a better idea would be to nationalize all businesses?
_____________________________________________

For Canada to stay independant (obviously from the States) it needs its own foundation.

Once we start selling our foundation, (Infrastructures that are essential- such as gas, water, power, transportaion & schools- things that society needs to run)we are no longer a sovereign nation.

It's important not to confuse this with "all" businesses.


From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 22 September 2001 12:42 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I too think that the point about selling off our companies is valid (unless you have more evidence to the contrary, DrC).

I wasn't complaining about the problems that crop up when we put our assets on the auction block - I was just complaining about the lack of fact checking.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 22 September 2001 01:04 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okey-dokey.
From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 22 September 2001 01:10 AM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To head in a slightly different direction on this thread -

How about this new "Office of Homeland Security" that Bush has created? Sounds like a personal gestapo to me. Why doesn't this scare Americans more? Seems to me that civil liberties have to be defended to be maintained, whether they're written down somewhere or not..is the word "Security" in this title just giving people a false sense of..well..security? Or is this just a BS position to make it look like something is being accomplished?


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 22 September 2001 02:39 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo attempted to sustain his claim that Canada's immigration system is too weak by asking Michelle: "What do you think about the Supreme Court ruling that says Canada cannot deport terrorists to countries where they face harsh penalties or death?"

No such Supreme Court ruling exists; it is entirely imaginary. The only case which might be referred to, United States v. Burns, decided in February, 2001, deals with CITIZENS OF CANADA. Therefore it has nothing to do with immigration in any shape or form.
It is an EXTRADITION case. It says that Canadian citizens cannot be extradited to face the death penalty (and says nothing at all about any other harsh penalties), but can be extradited to face life in prison without parole, for example. Finally, in saying that the Minister of Justice of Canada must seek assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed before allowing extradition, the case also says that there may be exceptional cases in which such assurances would not be required.

Those who are interested in verifying the above summary should go to :http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc- scc/en/index.html

and write the words "death penalty" or "Burns" in the search engine.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 September 2001 12:55 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How about this new "Office of Homeland Security" that Bush has created? Sounds like a personal gestapo to me. Why doesn't this scare Americans more?

Actually Britian has a similar office and they seem pretty free. [URL=http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk ]Department of Home Office[/URL]

DrC you figure a licence plate check is adequate? In almost every other border they actually ask questions aside from the tax revenue implications of your travels. Pretty simple stuff. What if my car was stolen over there? What difficulty wouldd the 200 people the FBI are searching for face if they tried to enter Canada.

I am not condemning our customs. I am happy that last year they were given guns and arrest powers. It used to be much worse. Before they wouldn't even stop drivers suspected of being drunk from entering our country. Its gotten better and theres still room for improvment.

The Supreme court ruling still endangers us. It would logically follow that if a suspected criminal faced death (and I still believe it included harsh punishment). We would not be able to deport him. If we can't deport him we cannot imprison him without a trial. next logical step would mean we would have to set him free.

[ September 22, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 22 September 2001 01:21 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Supreme Court ruling had to do with the death penalty only. There has been no case on "other harsh penalties", so discussion of this is not a discussion of "a Supreme Court ruling", but rather speculation.

If we are speculating, (and not complaining about a "Supreme Court ruling" or "Canada's soft immigration system") then I can say that I believe a few penalties, such as being disembowelled or other severe forms of torture are such that Canada ought not extradite its citizens to face that. Perhaps a Canadian court would agree, but I do not know. I am aware of no state which has tried to extradite a Canadian citizen to face such a penalty however.

People ARE extradited to face life imprisonment without parole; so I think the law does allow quite harsh retribution, in appropriate cases.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 22 September 2001 01:24 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A second point: Canada does not send its citizens to face the death penalty, except in extraordinary cases. So, a foreign state which wants to try a person for say, murder, must give assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed. Experience in Europe (which generally has the same policy) is that
the foreign state will always prefer to try the accused and give life imprisonment, than to say, "death or nothing".

Markbo's comments are not realistic in this respect.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 22 September 2001 01:46 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, the UK Home Office is a huge, old, umbrella government department of hoariest tradition and respectability: it combines our Customs and Immigration with many other responsibilities that in Canada fall to other levels of government, like policing.

The U.S. already has standard federal departments and agencies for all those things. The "Office of Homeland Security" is a new rough beast, and a puzzle -- one would have thought, given the FBI, that it was a little redundant.

But then one remembers, for instance, the proliferation of such offices and committees in, eg, the 1950s ... HUAAC comes to mind (House Un-American Activities Committee), Senator McCarthy's hearings, etc. In times such as these, everyone's gotta have one, it seems.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 22 September 2001 06:29 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
re: The big speech. GWB is not a particularly good orator, which I don't hold against him. He usually compensates by giving short speeches, which I think is great. Content aside, I think he gave one of his best. He connected with the mood of his intended audience, and it had a pep rally quality to it, as well as being reassuring.

In terms of content, I can't see where he committed himself to much which would cause anyone to lose sleep. He spoke in general terms of what would be American policy over decades. He committed to fighting terrorism through financial means, freezing bank accounts, and threats of economic sanctions on host nations. In terms of military responses, he largly spoke of closely focussed special ops strikes against terrorists. Whether or not he does, or even can restrict himself to this remains to be seen, but at least that's what he said in the speech. I know some will disagree, but under the circumstances, that's a reasonable response.

In terms of criticism, I feel he missed an opportunity to reach out to the moderate Muslim world, and failed to speak adequatly to the backlash against Muslims and percieved Muslims in North America.

I admit this "Office of Homeland Security" is a real concern. Where the hell did that come from? All of the various law enforcement and security agencies already answer to their own cabinet officers, so whats this going to do? I'm very surprised the media didn't raise a lot more question around this in the post-speech analysies, or even the next day in the press.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jared
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 803

posted 22 September 2001 06:41 PM      Profile for Jared     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did anybody else notice how baffled Tony Blair looked by all the standing ovations? Welcome to America, Mr Prime Minister.

And who was actually going to go on the record saying something like "well, it was an okay speech, but I've seen better." They'd surely be denounced as un-American. Bush is getting a free ride throughout this ordeal - remember, his approval rating spiked to 91% from the low fifties before he even said anything following the attacks.

Granted, I'm incredibly biased. To see this spoiled brat as the leader of the free world simply because the American people recognized the Bush "brand-name" is something I can't get over even in the wake of tragedy (not that he was actually elected). Though I don't agree with the vast majority of his views, someone like John McCain actually is a genuine war hero. Also, whenever Bush speaks I always expect the worst because David Frum, noted lickspittle of Conrad Black, is part of his speechwriting team.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
GulfAlien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1259

posted 22 September 2001 10:02 PM      Profile for GulfAlien   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with many of the posts here that mini-Bush's speech had a "pep rally" tone, that the repeated ovations were exceptional, that he has carte blanche, and that the salutations to the wife of a hijacked plane hero, Guilliano, etc seemed to have had a staged quality.

But, I agree mostly with the one post that cautioned us to remember that some organization managed to fly three passenger jets into buildings and kill 6000 people. This organization has perpetrated acts of lesser degree before and have stated their intention of perpetrating further acts, potentially of much greater impact.

The US, the responsible world, MUST take action. In my mind, the action taken and planned, as mini-Bush outlined in his speech, was proper and clearly stated regardless of who wrote it or spoke it.

[ September 22, 2001: Message edited by: GulfAlien ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 September 2001 10:28 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Markbo's comments are not realistic in this respect.

Then answer me this. If someone cannot be extradited due to the fear they may face the death penalty. What would normally happen to them. Could we imprison them without trial? I doubt it. Wouldn't we just have to let them go? .

If I'm so unrealistic, please answer this simple realistic hypothetical.

Remember: In a case right now China guaranteed they would not execute a person extradited but his case is that they cannot be believed. So again assurances by the country that the person won't be executed may not be sufficient


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 September 2001 11:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's right, Markbo, in a lot of cases, the country cannot be believed. Would you believe a country like Afghanistan (or even Iran or China) if they said they wouldn't execute someone? I sure as heck wouldn't.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 11:19 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, this comes down to the same arguments used for and against death penalty of any kind. I am against death penalty because of G.P. Moran (and many other examples). We are always susceptible to being wrong, having made a mistake (lets not be so arrogant Markbo about our infallablity)

A human being executed for crimes he did not commit is Murder! There is no other way to put it. If they can afford the jails for over a million inmates in the US (remember the infamous law: three strikes and you are out - meaning life sentence even if it was stealing a slice of pizza) they can afford to keep one more indefinitely (just in case it happens they were wrong and he was innocent).

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 September 2001 11:33 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So are you both saying that you are incapable of answering my hypothetical that can realistically arise out of that supreme court decision.

What happens to a suspected terrorist if we refuse to deport him to another country? Do you just imprison him forever without a trial? Or we just let him go buy some plane tickets wherever he wants?


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 22 September 2001 11:38 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lucky for us, if s/he's suspected in the WTC attack, we can try him or her for that, since some Canadians were killed.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 11:41 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If he is a suspected terrorist, then (if we have reasonable grounds to think so) he should be charged, arrested, tried in Canada and if found guilty, imprisoned for life.

I don't know about the supreme court ruling and its implications, I am a computer expert, not a legal one.

If the court ruling is wrong, then we should use our democratic processes to try to change it. We can also use whatever non-violent methods of pressure, persuation, etc. to bring the change about. Slow but has the best chance of succeeding in the long run.

As Churchill said "democracy is the stupidest form of government except for all the others we tried" (not exact wording).

Zatamon.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 September 2001 11:42 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lets count how many people are unable to answer a simple hypothetical. Isn't there any rabbler out there that would dare to make me eat my words. Prove me wrong. I know I can't outwit you all. Someone out there must have the answer to my question.

What happens to a suspected terrorist whom we cannot extradite or deport because he faces the death penalty?

Wouldn't logic dictate that if we did not have the means or cause to conduct the trial that we would eventually have to set him free?


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 September 2001 11:48 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Zataman. We cannot conduct a trial for a man suspected of commiting crimes in another country. Especially if all evidence and witnesses are in that other country.

Remember, maybe the suspected terrorist has not committed a crime, maybe he was just found with terrorist training tapes and pictures of himself hugging Bin Laden. WE cannot imprison someone indefinitely for that. If we can't deport him then we'll have to give him refugee status, maybe a little welfare.

Everybody realizes the danger here and they just want to continue sticking their heads in the sand. More concerned with Canada's work to ensure other countries do not impose the death penalty than protecting their own citizens.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 11:54 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, again, I am not a legal expert (which means I know absolutely nothing about intricacies of international law).

The logical solution seems to me trying him by an international court (isn't there one for war crimes?) and let them collect all the evidence against him.

If convicted, he can be imprisoned anywhere as far as I am concerned, as long as he is not subject to the death penalty. (Remember, we can always be wrong and it is difficult to apologize to a dead person).

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 22 September 2001 11:55 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess I'll jump this grenade...

The hypothetical you're suggesting (as I understand it) is essentially "what can Canada do with a foreign national if they are going to be extradited to face the death penalty?"

From my (now one-year-old) understanding of the Canada Immigration Act, it seems to me that the answer is limited to a couple of possibilities.

1. We could hold the suspect without trial indefinitely. This is totally legal in Canada, because the Charter rights to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to a trial only apply to Canadian citizens. Someone from, say, oh I don't know... Afghanistan, has no rights in Canada unless the government recognizes them.

--or--

2. We could deport the person to a country that could extradite them to the US -- like Israel. There are lots of others.

The thing to keep in mind is that Crown Prerogative governs the lives of aliens while in Canada. They enjoy rights only at the pleasure of the Crown. So, Mr. Terrorist would quickly be arrested and detained, I suspect.


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 September 2001 09:41 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you :Verbatim:

I would hope #1 is right. I just never could conceive that we could hold someone indefinitely without a trial. It amazes me that our charter of rights and freedoms could apply when protecting someone for death but not for imprisoning someone indefinitely without a trial.

As to you #2 point. Wouldn't deporting a person to a third country that then extradites them to the country with the death penalty defeat the purpose of the Supreme court ruling. Also I didn't think you could just deport people to countries they weren't from.

Again however, I hope your answers are right as they seem to be reasonable measures to protect us.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 September 2001 10:27 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Listen to this one:

quote:
Nabil al-Marabh was arrested on Wednesday night at a liquor store in Chicago and is being held on a request from the U.S. INS as well as a warrant issued in Boston after he was convicted of attacking his former roommate with a knife.

And how did Mr. al-Marabh come to be in Chicago working at the Seven Days Food and Liquor Store? He showed up looking for work, according to a report from the store's owner, and provided an Ontario driver's licence as identification. Less than three months ago, he was living in Toronto, where he appeared at an immigration board hearing (he was deported by Canada in 1995 but later returned). Despite his past record, despite his conviction for a violent attack in the U.S, despite evidence that he tried to cross into the U.S. using a falsified Canadian passport in June, and despite the view that he was a flight risk, Canadian officials released him after his uncle posted a bond


Another case proving we do have lax immigration and refugee laws and policies


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 September 2001 10:41 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, you left out the part where you scrupulously note that he also crossed into the U.S. repeatedly with impunity.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576

posted 23 September 2001 10:59 AM      Profile for Heather   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

But, I agree mostly with the one post that cautioned us to remember that some organization managed to fly three passenger jets into buildings and kill 6000 people. This organization has perpetrated acts of lesser degree before and have stated their intention of perpetrating further acts, potentially of much greater impact.

The US, the responsible world, MUST take action. In my mind, the action taken and planned, as mini-Bush outlined in his speech, was proper and clearly stated regardless of who wrote it or spoke it.


1- Not just "some" organization, but the United States Government, CIA, & FBI have also perpetrated acts of lesser degree- not just in the past but right now with what they plan to do in Afghanistan.

This is potentially a much greater impact than the events of Sept. 11 that took place in New York.

Many countries, superstars, individuals are rallying to raise money for the victims of the Twin Towers & the Pentagon. Don't get me wrong- this is a GOOD thing but will any of that money go also to the innocent victims of America's bombing of Afghanistan?

2- The actions taken & planned are clearly stated and America's solution of bombing Afghanistan is NOT proper or civilized.

Instead, the best suggestion I have seen so far is the "global appeal for no more violence" that many people across the world, including Americans have signed in support of the Rule of International Law where no individual group or government should have immunity.


From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 September 2001 11:18 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Markbo, you left out the part where you scrupulously note that he also crossed into the U.S. repeatedly with impunity.

He wouldn't have if we didn't release him on a bond knowing full well he was a danger to society.

You miss the point. You want to critisize the U.S. for not catching him, fine. We caught him and set him free. You can bet your sweet a** that would the U.S. have caught him using a fake passport, they would not have released him on a bond.

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 23 September 2001 01:01 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The US commonly releases people who have been arrested for possession of a false passport. As in Canada, the usual question there is what amount of bond is sufficient.


As for the more general query, I agree partially with Verbatim, though I do not agree that the Immigration Act could be used for indefinite detention without trial. I am glad, too, since people should be proven guilty before facing life in prisonment. Only those with a childish trust in military and police power could disagree. I am aware of someone being detained for seven years without trial, however, on a charge of murder in the Phillipines.

The main reason Markbo's scenario is unrealistic is what was said previously, namely that when faced with the reality that
a suspect will be turned over only on assurances that no death penalty will be imposed, governments simply offer the assurances. They conclude that life imprisonment is better than no penalty at all.

And, in the Chinese case suggested by Markbo:
the Supreme Court has said that assurances must be sought that the death penalty will not be imposed. The accused says "Do not beleive them." But it is utterly clear that
the Minister of Justice has absolute authority to allow extradition, once assurances have been obtained. It becomes a political question, and is not a legal question at all, to ask: "Do we rely on their word?"


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 September 2001 02:12 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
governments simply offer the assurances. They conclude that life imprisonment is better than no penalty at all.
The accused says "Do not beleive them." But it is utterly clear that
the Minister of Justice has absolute authority to allow extradition, once assurances have been obtained. It becomes a political question, and is not a legal question at all, to ask: "Do we rely on their word?"

So if we do not rely on their word, what can we do?

We'll see how unrealistic my hypothetical is when we see a decision on the Chinese guy.

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 23 September 2001 03:45 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, we will.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1435

posted 23 September 2001 05:14 PM      Profile for bandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The united states itself had falsified evidence so that canada would extradite Leonard peltier a few years ago, he was not facing death but he still hasn't much of a life since he is now a political prisoner wrongfuly convicted.Also it is not a question of the U.S being able to afford life in prison with so many people falling victim to the profitable american prison industry, because it costs more to put someone to death (with the appeals processes and whatnot) than to imprison them for life.
I do not see markbo's point at all. Of course if the death penalty will cause a terrorist not to be extradited than the charge will be lowered to life in prison. If we can't beleive them than it's there loss for they've hurt any chance of justice for the sake of cowboy eye for an eye "justice" that will only make another martyr in the eyes of desperate people(remember how that racist monster Timothy Mcveigh reacted when his family interupted his execution, americans let him get what he wanted, to be a hero to rednecks everywhere). Hopefuly we would boot out the terrorist because a killer of innocent people is considered "undesirable" here.

From: sudbury | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 September 2001 06:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, it IS true that under the Immigration Act, refugees who immigration has determined to be a "danger" or who are still having their cases reviewed, or for some reason or another not approved to be at large in Canada can and have been detained indefinitely. Since I got involved in several cases, I've known people who have been detained for over five years while their stuff is getting sorted out with immigration. Some at Metro Toronto West Detention Centre (it's near the airport, how handy) and others at Celebrity Inn (which has its own kind of notoriety). The Immigration Act is incredibly powerful and is very heavily administered. There are the occasional cases where people slip through the cracks, like the case Markbo mentioned (of course, they slip through the cracks in the US too, but nobody says THEIR immigration laws are "lax"). But for the most part, any refugee or landed immigrant in Canada who so much as a mischief conviction can usually count on Immigration coming at them with a deportation order.

And you know, just so you don't think I'm a big fluffball when it comes to these issues, I don't necessarily have a problem with deporting someone who commits a serious crime in Canada (by serious I mean violent) - but not if that means sending a refugee to his or her death or to torture.

quote:
What happens to a suspected terrorist whom we cannot extradite or deport because he faces the death penalty?

The same thing that happens to a "suspected" anything - in this country you're innocent until proven guilty. In this case, a person who has substantial ties to terrorist groups, and has participated in a conspiracy that either has been or is planning to be carried out - that person should be tried on grounds of conspiracy. If you can't prove it, then of course you can't punish them.

It's like that abuse checklist that I posted in another thread. There were 15 warning signs to look for in a potential physical abuser. Well, in my case, 14 out of the 15 fit. Does that mean we should go and arrest anyone who fits the profile before he abuses as a form of "prevention"? We charge him because he will PROBABLY be physically abusive in the future? Of course not. A person should always have the right of due process.

The case you mentioned, Markbo, where spies have recorded phone calls with a terrorist group, and the person has written plans and notes regarding a conspiracy - well, that might actually be enough to convict a person of conspiracy. But if you're asking whether we should give Immigration the right to deport someone based on this evidence, before they have been given due process before a court of law? No, I don't think so. Because Immigration has a lot of bureaucrats who set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner. Plus, they are politically motivated to deport people (and have been since the famous "Just Desserts" case in Toronto), so they will likely be rubber-stamping deportation orders (which they already do in many cases) without attention to whether they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is involved in the conspiracy.

Markbo, I hope I have answered your question. I didn't want to dodge it. In short, I think if people are involved in terrorist conspiracies, they need to be processed through our justice system, because if you give an intensely political organization like Immigration the power to deport people without appeal (a power they already have in certain cases, by the way), the power will be abused. And it has been already anyhow.

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 23 September 2001 08:24 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
NB: The Supreme Court has never said that a person cannot be deported to a country where he or she faces the death penalty, unless that death penalty qualifies as "persecution".

The Immigration Act allows deportation of anyone who committed serious crimes outside of Canada.

That is why it is important to keep the distinction in mind: Canadians cannot be EXTRADITED to face the death penalty. Immigrants can be DEPORTED if they committed serious crimes elsewhere, whether or not they might face the death penalty.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 September 2001 11:31 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Michelle, You've answered my questions fairly and I have learnt from you. I don't see why the question is so hard to answer as I have asked it on many occasions on many locations and have not got a good answer until now.

Some people still don't understand my question. They don't even want to admit it is a fair one. Saying things like: of course other countries will change their policies because little old Canada tells them too is a little naive.

But the answer to my question does raise more questions that I think rabblers may want answered. If Canadian immigration can hold a suspect indefinitely without trial, what fairness or justice is there in that?


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 September 2001 11:57 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Weren't you just complaining that our immigration laws were too "lax"? Now the shoe's on the other foot and you're complaining that our constitutional protections can be selectively withdrawn from noncitizens.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 12:00 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its a discussion forum, remember. I think the immigration policies are unclear. I am however more satisfied that I understand those who represent a danger will not be freed. Oh, except that one example that I gave where they knew the guy was a flight risk that liked fake passports who had previously attacked a roommate with a knife.

There's still no clear policy about who represents a danger, and so far it seems the only difference that makes is how high the bond goes.

As long as there is no clear policy there ill be mistakes made.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 24 September 2001 12:14 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe I'm missing something, Markbo, but I don't see where people can be detained indefinitely.

To explain: jeff house says he doesn't think the Immigration Act can be used to detain people indefinitely. Michelle has known people who've been detained for up to five years while their stuff is getting "sorted out with immigration" -- but unless I'm wrong, this suggests to me that some form of due process is taking place.

Now, obviously detention of that duration is inexcusable, and I have no intention of trying to excuse it. Here in BC, some Chinese immigrants who arrived on boats without papers were put in a disused jail for many months, over a year in some cases, while waiting for their refugee claims to be heard. Considering that people who arrive at the airport without papers are not so detained, that's an obvious injustice.

But it seems to me that it's less a matter of how the law's written, and more a matter of how it's enforced or administered. Michelle says the Immigration Act's heavily administered, and I defer to her experience. At the same time, when the "boat people" arrived it was widely reported here in BC that Immigration was underfunded and understaffed, which explained the long delays in "processing" people.

I believe that immigrants and refugees should have the right to speedy determinations, just as accused persons should have the right to speedy trials. Sadly, neither right is part of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 12:41 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Michelle says the Immigration Act's heavily administered, and I defer to her experience.

But you won't defer to specific case that proves sometimes its not? Are you playing favorites here or something.

quote:
Maybe I'm missing something, Markbo, but I don't see where people can be detained indefinitely.

I was just deferring to Michelles experience.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca