There's a story that the Roman Emperor Claudius would go down the roll of Roman Knights (one grade below Senators) and put a pencil mark beside the names that had disgraced the office by committing indiscretions. One Knight so "honored" begged Claudius to remove the mark beside his name, which the Emperor did. But he admonished the man, "However, I wish the erasure to be obvious." He meant that he did not want the Knight to be regarded the same as those who HADN'T committed indiscretions, even though the mark had been removed. I think the same applies in this case. The successful application of political pressure is NOT the same as being innocent.
Under the Liberals, the Canadian government was a puppet with several strings frayed and broken. Under the Conservatives, the Canadian puppet has had all its strings refurbished.
Of course, Canada has been severely infiltrated by Zionist elements. This removal of the two pariah states from the list of countries that torture was probably done by Zionist Fifth Columnist Moles in the Canadian government.
The People of Canada have no more control over their country than the people of the United States have over theirs.
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov't demands and censors the title):
America Deceived (book)
Michael P - I checked Amazon and the book is available at $219. It looks like a vanity enterprise to me. Why doesn't the guy do a blog? My blog's entry on Wikipedia was pulled because of zionist objections to it. It was no conspiracy, just an open call to pull it by reference to various Wikipedia rules.
Siusaidh - it will indeed be interesting but 10 or 20 years ago no one would have dared put Israel on the list in the first place so this is yet another crack in Israel's defensive propaganda wall.
The other alternative is that Canada decided to join the USraeli torturer States.
I will second the support for Castellio's description of Canada. As with other Democracies (and I believe that one could call Canada a crippled democracy) there are other checks and balances besides the government. In particular the judiciary is still independent. The government of Canada may very well like to join the US as a torturer state. It is not completely clear though, as the Conservative Party, while cut from the same mould as the Republicans, appears to be politically close to the Democratic Party.
The judiciary is currently treating the US as a torture state. For example Canada and the US had a law on preventing refugees from "country shopping". A judge has ruled that this law is now invalid, as the US is not a safe haven for refugees. It has not yet reached the Supreme Court, but our Supreme Court is at least partially independent.
I think that it is safe to say that Canada is torn between effectively joining the US and maintaining a slight distance with closer ties to Europe. But then this is the same issue that has been fought since Canada became a country.
The resumption of torture by the US seemed to me to be presaged by the President's declaration that un-uniformed fighters were not covered by the Geneva Convention. Abu Ghraib, while shocking, was not a surprise after that.
Such a distinction seems nonsensical to me. I think the definition of 'combatant' within the Geneva Convention reflects a bias in favor of nations with formal armed forces because it's construction came during a period of time in which colonialization was considered not only acceptable but desirable.
How interesting that Israel and the US were added to the list! Israel is big brother to the USA in such covert matters.
I think the definition of 'combatant' within the Geneva Convention reflects a bias in favor of nations with formal armed forces
International law provides very serious limits on the ability to conduct a war. While I agree with your statement in a very abstract way - true enforcement of international law would radically limit what you seem to be getting at.
When Germany engaged in gas attacks in WWI - international law effectively became moot. At its heart both Israel and the US are in violation of international law. To discuss, for example, Palestine without discussing the original issue of colonization and border expansion with ethnic cleansing - ie. That Israel fundamentally is involved in violating international law is to render any other discussion of international law in the region effectively meaningless.
The purpose of the portion of international law that you are referring to is not referenced by your post. The purpose as far as I can see is to effectively claim that civilians are sacred. It is this claim that runs through much of international law. It affects both sides as it must in order to maintain the right of civilians not to be targeted and killed to the limit possible in the middle of a war zone. If you assume that civilians are sacred, international law makes huge amounts of sense. Again, the original violation - colonization and border expansion with ethnic cleansing can not be ignored without rendering the rest of international law a joke.
Your comments led me to realize my reaction was to the machinations of President Bush's administration, rather than to the content of the Conventions. My recollection of Bush's statement was that the terrorists in Afghanistan were not part of a regular military force and any fighter who didn't wear a uniform was considered an unlawful combatant and as such was not covered by the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners.
My leap from there to questions of bias in the Geneva Conventions was not well considered.
If I understand correctly, all soldiers are required to wear a uniform or other easily identifiable symbol. This is to protect civilians from being accidentally targeted. There is an exception when attempting to repel an invasion - such as the US invasion of Iraq. Iraqi soldiers in civilian clothes who fired on US invading troops during the first hours of the invasion were not necessarily engaging in war crimes. That exception probably lasts until it is reasonable that all soldiers would have had the chance to clearly identify themselves as soldiers. Failure to wear a uniform or other identifying symbol does not invalidate your protection from the Geneva Conventions. All prisoners are part of the Geneva Conventions. Some prisoners may be war criminals, but they are still covered by the Geneva Conventions. Bush's statement, like so many of his other statements is a lie.
An enemy non-combatant is a euphemism for a victim of torture.
Unfortunately, the ability of the US to manipulate the Geneva Conventions for its own propaganda purposes, with tacit, or even explicit support from countries like Canada produces a strong bias.
That the powerful nations can manipulate international law brings us back to the discussion between Ernie and Joe()several weeks ago regarding universal human rights and the UN, etc.
Thanks again, edwin, for the information you've provided.
Commenting by HaloScan
