Should accused terrorists and war criminals be shielded by canadian law?

[FraserB]

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110120/CGY_Sosa_court_110120/20110120/?hub=CalgaryHome

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110120/edm_lawyer_110120/20110120/?hub=CalgaryHome

These two will be fighting their extradition to the US where they would have to answer for heinous crimes and terrorism related charges. Unfortunately Canada will not extradite if there is a chance that they will face a death penalty.

Is it time that Canadian law is examined and changed so that the people who commit these acts will beheld accountable for their actions? If they are not extradited it sends a very clear message to people looking to hide or commit acts abroad; that if you come to Canada and sneak through the lax screening, we will help you escape accountability.

[hampstor]

If there is significant evidence showing guilt of committing crimes in another country, in many cases I think we should extradite and then let them serve the time in those countries.

It bothers me that people can serve time here in Canada for crimes commited abroad. If another country wants to spend the money to imprison a criminal, then let them do it.

There are cases I have reservations about extraditions tho. Especially cases where a death penalty is guaranteed, or where a law would be questionable by Canadian standards.

There is no one catch-all solution for this - that's why we have extradition hearings.

Edit: I wanted to note, Canada already has some obligations on how to handle convicted war criminals. Neither of these guys are actually convicted yet and I believe the hearings will analyze the evidence for these crimes. My gut feeling is they will probably be extradited. If they face the dealth penalty, they'll probably cut some deal w/ the US where they change the sentence to life in prison instead.

[Feruk]

I don't understand why he faces extradition to the USA? If he's actually a war criminal, he should be sent and tried before the UN, not the USA.

[ZenOps]

Tough call.

Canada is and was a haven for many British sympathetics, that would be considered terrorist by German standards back in WWII. Does that mean if Germany asks, we extradite suspected British sympathetics to them?

Are Canadas ties strong enough with the US to automatically throw people to them on suspicion charges? Personally I would say no, proof would be needed first. Either that or find them guilty on Canadian soil if it was of concern enough to be pursued here.

Don't forget the US had a Civil war. I'm sure that many from the North got extradited to the South on accusation and vice versa. Amazingly enough, one side in that battle was also British (and slavery) sympathetic that would be considered terrorist back in those days.

That PapaDoc and BabyDoc are back, and Tunisia finally got rid of their president - just goes to show that extradition/expulsion is not only for the populace but the government as well...

It gets even cloudier nowadays, as there are many that are corporate sympathetic, pledging no allegiance to any country (usually just dollars) does that make them terrorist or non-patriotic or simply realists?

Every country is foreign to Google. Google pays taxes to noone.

PS: Would I extradite Rob Anders to the US on the crime of being an absolute dick? No, we should try him as a dickwad in this country or go to an impartial international body like the UN.

[max_boost]

I know it's war and some fucked shit is going to happen but really makes you wonder how they can do all that and then carry on a normal life for so long. You read these comments from their friends like "no way, he's such a nice guy blah blah blah". So nice he will throw people down a well and pop a grenade down there. :eek: :nut: :dunno:

[Xtrema]

If we don't extradite base on death penalty, everyone will start operating in Canada.

[Toma]

I wouldn't count on any suspected "terrorist" getting a fair trial in the US.

Terrorism should be dealt with in an international court, and with due process.

You should not be allowed to drag such a proceeding on over 10 years of a persons life either in an attempt to justify a previous war or attack by the west or whomever.

Fair, speedy trials, not extraditons to countries like the US with proven kidnapping and stall tactics.

An international WORLD court to which ALL world citizens are accountable to needs to be set up and recognized.

Under given law... yeah, show some serious proof to the Canadian government and courts, and let them decide if the case is warranted, then extradite.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Tough call.

Canada is and was a haven for many British sympathetics, that would be considered terrorist by German standards back in WWII. Does that mean if Germany asks, we extradite suspected British sympathetics to them?

Are Canadas ties strong enough with the US to automatically throw people to them on suspicion charges? Personally I would say no, proof would be needed first. Either that or find them guilty on Canadian soil if it was of concern enough to be pursued here.

Don't forget the US had a Civil war. I'm sure that many from the North got extradited to the South on accusation and vice versa. Amazingly enough, one side in that battle was also British (and slavery) sympathetic that would be considered terrorist back in those days.

That PapaDoc and BabyDoc are back, and Tunisia finally got rid of their president - just goes to show that extradition/expulsion is not only for the populace but the government as well...

It gets even cloudier nowadays, as there are many that are corporate sympathetic, pledging no allegiance to any country (usually just dollars) does that make them terrorist or non-patriotic or simply realists?

Every country is foreign to Google. Google pays taxes to noone.

PS: Would I extradite Rob Anders to the US on the crime of being an absolute dick? No, we should try him as a dickwad in this country or go to an impartial international body like the UN.

This is one of your best pieces yet. I mean, you just go off on nazis and Anders and somehow believe that extradition treaties between countries at war with one another exist. Brilliant.

[ipeefreely]

Originally posted by NuclearPizzaMan


This is one of your best pieces yet. I mean, you just go off on nazis and Anders and somehow believe that extradition treaties between countries at war with one another exist. Brilliant.

I agree! :nut: :nut:

[ZenOps]

When they are at war, its not called an extradition.

Its called what it is - usually a war criminal swap. Like spies for spies or generals for generals. And occasionally, money for spies or money for generals.

Fighter pilots who get shot down in enemy territory are often swapped. There is no question they are a war prisoner, and nearly no question that they are war criminal to the country that shot them down (you don't fly a fighter or a bomber where you aren't supposed to)

You ask Rob Anders to his face if he would consider himself a terrorist to some countries (including many middle east, orient, and probably France) If he is sure that there are no cameras, you might be surprised at what he says.

"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

Richard Nixon wore his label by the Chinese as a terrorist with great pride.

[kaput]

.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by NuclearPizzaMan


This is one of your best pieces yet. I mean, you just go off on nazis and Anders and somehow believe that extradition treaties between countries at war with one another exist. Brilliant.

My favorite part is thinking that a citizen of a country that declared war on Germany would need to be a British sympathetic to be considered an enemy of Germany.

Or that Google doesn't have a headquarters or pay taxes.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally posted by ZenOps
When they are at war, its not called an extradition.

Its called what it is - usually a war criminal swap. Like spies for spies or generals for generals. And occasionally, money for spies or money for generals.

Fighter pilots who get shot down in enemy territory are often swapped. There is no question they are a war prisoner, and nearly no question that they are war criminal to the country that shot them down (you don't fly a fighter or a bomber where you aren't supposed to)

You ask Rob Anders to his face if he would consider himself a terrorist to some countries (including many middle east, orient, and probably France) If he is sure that there are no cameras, you might be surprised at what he says.

"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

Richard Nixon wore his label by the Chinese as a terrorist with great pride.

You have no grasp of history.

You don't know what the word "war criminal" even means.

Your Anders fetish is disturbing.

You have failed at every level.