No wonder Law School is so expensive...
...there's that operation to remove any last vestige of a conscience...
The Iranian-Canadian accused of a terrorist-bomb conspiracy plans to fight to get “every scrap” of secret evidence amassed against him – a strategy that could delay his trial for years, and possibly even scuttle the case.Ol' Bill Shakespeare had it right... "the first thing we do, is hang all the lawyers."
This will include details about informants, covert wiretaps, and foreign spy sources used in the probe.
The Crown last year dropped a case against a man whom the government considered a dangerous terrorist after CSIS complained a judge’s order for greater disclosure might compromise its informants and blow the lid off some foreign partnerships.Whaddaya wanna bet... one of these jihadis actually sets off a bomb and turns a hundred urban socialists into multi-coloured rice-pudding, say... in front of Osgoode Law School... all these militant legal truth-seekers have a miraculous change of heart.
**********
THE COMPASSIONATE, INTELLECTUAL LEFT REPLIES:
"forwarded to CSIS so they can keep tabs on a political radical with violent online fantasies"Oh no... Liberal Supporter's siccing secret agents on me.
Whatever will I do?
34 comments:
Likely the most misquoted Shakespere line of all time. Read it again.. the whole line... in context to the scene.
What Ol Bill was saying was: When you have an illigitimate take over of power, you must first kill all the lawyers.
The reason being that once they are gone, your illigitimacy is no longer going to be brought up or used against you.
So - "Ol Bill" was actually for law and order and those who are vigilent against bad government
*
"nonny says... misquoted Shakespere(sic) line"
sure, bad government... like the folks whom pissed away 2 billion taxpayer dollars on the public relations stunt known as the "farmer bob rifle registry".
or, in this particular case... the lawyers who will pervert the system to get known terrorists off the hook.
*
They guy who yells the most about 'lawyers keeping criminals out of jail' tends to be the the first to run to a lawyer when he is accused of something.
If you want to live in a country where there is no right of legal defence and the government's accusation is as good as evidence. Then be my guest. Saudi might be the place for you.
*
"another anonymous troll shrieks... They guy who yells the most about 'lawyers keeping criminals out of jail' tends to be the the first to run to a lawyer when he is accused of something."
henceforth to be known as "liberal supporters law".
you're a regular socrates, ain't ya?
*
"Whaddaya wanna bet... one of these jihadis actually sets off a bomb and turns a hundred urban socialists into multi-coloured rice-pudding, say... in front of Osgoode Law School... all these militant legal truth-seekers have a miraculous change of heart."
^forwarded to CSIS so they can keep tabs on a political radical with violent online fantasies
*
oh, libby... you've outdone yourself..
i must have really hurt your feelings for you to devote this much time and energy to your never-ending trollery.
why don't you just tell me what i did to you... and ask for an apology... and we'll see where that goes.
all this "neos a fat, bald wanker" stuff is just so childish & boring.
i mean... i'm obviously way more important to you... than you are to me. and now, you're gonna report me to csis? oh gawd... you're so precious.
c'mon, baby... get it off your chest... you'll feel better.
*
*
oh, libby... you do all the work for me.
*
"Liberal supporters law"?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Its actually the "Law" that everyone gets a fair trial. There may be overwhelming evidence and if there is great - it makes the eventual conviction unquestionnable. The day the government decides to waive evidentiary requirements in order to get a conviction is the day we kiss rights and freedoms goodbye.
And if history teaches us anything, it is more likely to be a socialist government that will trample individual freedoms.
So, if you are so 'conservative' then you should be applauding a system that grants rights to the accused and not wishing otherwise.
I would consider myself more an extreme libertarian. Which is hard to do in a place like Canada!
*
"chris says... you should be applauding a system that grants rights to the accused"
does that include the right to use a quirk in the system to allow a possible terrorist to go free?
there are plenty of checks & balances in the system without all these deliberate delays & technical trickery.
this is war, my friend. let me know if you are still such a purist... after the bombs start to go off.
*
By your comment"
"does that include the right to use a quirk in the system to allow a possible terrorist to go free?"
#1: You are assuming that the howlings of criminal defence counsel are gold. They are far from that. They can make any crazy request they want - they still have to prove their ability to get such documentation.
#2: The right to a fair trial, including the requirement for the government to prove its case, is hardly a "quirk". The accused has a right to full disclosure of the evidence that the government will use to prove its case. Hopefully the government is not relying solely on top secret information. However, even if it is, there is a procedure that can be used to provide the evidence without the 'ways and means' it was acquired. It involves a motion in front of another judge. I think its in the new act specific to terrorism.
"there are plenty of checks & balances in the system without all these deliberate delays & technical trickery."
Again, you are assuming they are going to get all they want. That remains to be seen. I would also assume that the government learned a number of lessons from its previous 'loss'. At least, I hope so.
"this is war, my friend. let me know if you are still such a purist... after the bombs start to go off."
If you convict someone without a fair trial - then its a show trial and there will always be doubt as to the rightness of the conviction. This is especially true in war. Now is the time to show how our system is superior to those of our enemies by properly applying it to everyone. Unlike them, our government is not above the law. It is important to show the world that simple fact.
You are right - this is war. Western culture won the cold war; not by destruction and killing but by showing those in the east, for 40+ years, that our way of life (individual freedoms and accountable government) is superior. That is how we'll win this one too. It will take some time to do that.
*
"chris says... if you convict someone without a fair trial"
you're joking, right?
this is canada... where robert willie pickton got a multi-year, multi-million dollar trial... AFTER they found a bucket with a human head in his pantry.
nice to have sky-high ideals... but c'mon... this isn't stalin's russia in any way, shape or form.
you get that... right?
*
Neo, didn't they find the keys to the handcuffs on a half dead hooker in Picton's pocket at the hospital, after the hooker cut his throat almost all the way through trying to get away from him?
If evidence against a guy includes witnesses, then those witnesses have to be produced for cross-examination. But if there's a good chance of the accused's buddies killing said witness (and their family, maybe the whole town) then maybe telling the accused -everything- before the trial might be somewhat counter productive.
Unless you're a Liberal, and the accused is a Muslim caught with bomb plans and half a ton of C4 in the basement. Then there are no lengths to acquit that should not be gone to.
As a point in history - there would have been no Stalinist russia without Czarist russia. There were no individual rights to begin with so of course the excesses of that regime we bound to happen.
Your better comparison would have been germany in the 1930s where gradual 'exceptions' to laws were commonplace. No big changes all at once... just gradual exceptions and amendments to laws. Much like you are proposing here.
I think the problem is that you are not getting it. I suppose you never will. Were you in attendance at Picton's trial or any trial, for that matter?
I question your "conservative" credentials. You have the same beliefs as left wingers who believe in the supremacy of government over the people in the name of "what is correct."
Hopefully you are never accused of a crime. And if you are, I hope that you have full access to every defence possible before a decision is rendered.
'One-off' non-applications of the law start with the best of intentions and always end with terrible consequences.
*
"chris says... just gradual exceptions and amendments to laws. Much like you are proposing here."
oops... you let it slip.
you almost had a cogent argument going there... but then you had to slyly infer that i'm a nazi.
godwin's law, chris.
you are right about one thing, though... chances are i'm never gonna be arrested for making explosive anti-personnel devices.
because i respect life... never mind any man-made law.
unlike, say... the guys you are going out of your way to defend here.
*
I had to look that one up. Very interesting. I don't believe I called you anything at all - rather I offered a comparison with the stalinist regime for your consideration.
What can I say - you have me dead to rights. I am a strong believer in the limitation of government power, in eternal vigilence on how that power is used and that no matter what, before a government can take away an individual's freedom, that individual is entitled to every protection possible.
You, on the other hand, would be happy to convict anyone based on a 1 page media story, a few sound bites and a healthy misunderstanding of criminal law and procedure as well as the common law in general.
*
"chris spews... You, on the other hand, would be happy to convict anyone based on a 1 page media story"
of course, chris... because you say so.
it's a shame... you actually started out pretty strong here... lucid, concise... but after the nazi comparison, you just fell apart.
ah well... you do what you can, huh?
*
"If I say so"??
Neo, look at your blog entry and your comments.
The only thing remotely consistent you have put forward is that the accused terrorists should not have due process.
You consistently refuse to engage in an exchange of ideas or accept the fact that you are far from an expert in criminal law.
Isn't that what a blog is about?
If you take an opposing view as a personal attack, so be it. Its your blog and you can pontificate on subjects where you have a lot of opinion about but very little understanding.
I wish you well in doing so.
*
"chris says... you have a lot of opinion about but very little understanding"
of course, chris... again... because you say so. around here, we call that the... "you're a big poopyhead" gambit. it's especially impressive to anyone under 7 years old.
and you're just not gonna climb down on the nazi thing, are you?
well... thanks for playing.
*
Please show me where I called you a nazi or anything else for that matter.
*
"chris says... Please show me where I called you a nazi"
done... chris@12:08...
"Your better comparison would have been germany in the 1930s where gradual 'exceptions' to laws were commonplace. No big changes all at once... just gradual exceptions and amendments to laws. Much like you are proposing here."
*
"Your better comparison would have been germany in the 1930s where gradual 'exceptions' to laws were commonplace. No big changes all at once... just gradual exceptions and amendments to laws. Much like you are proposing here."
...and where is it that I call you a nazi?
*
oh, chris... you're gonna go all clay ruby on me?
okay... i'll play...
"A better comparison would have been Toronto in the 1980s where mental patients were slowly pushed out of institutions. No big changes all at once... just gradual exceptions and amendments that let mentally ill people out to rave in public. Much like you are doing here."
see... it's so easy it isn't even sporting.
*
Chris says: "I question your "conservative" credentials. You have the same beliefs as left wingers who believe in the supremacy of government over the people in the name of "what is correct."
What, we need credentials now to be a conservative? There's a fucking Conservative Registry?
But seriously Chris, you don't think there might be a happy medium somewhere between "totalitarian murder regime" and "letting known terrorists off on technicality"? Or how about a happy medium between "Secret evidence show trials" and "Revealing our entire secret intelligence network because some guy's lawyer asked for it at discovery"?
I just think it would be nice if a guy caught making pipe-bombs could be convicted at a cost of less than twenty million of my taxpayer dollars and ten years of appeals is all. Is that too much to ask?
Neo, you get the strangest trolls here. Nice straw man ya got there, Chris. Argument from extremity much?
*
"phantom says... you get the strangest trolls here."
sadly... that is too true.
even more unfortunately, though... ol' chris doesn't even make the top ten list.
*
"What, we need credentials now to be a conservative? There's a fucking Conservative Registry?"
No - my point was that very socialist regimes will limit an accused's right to a fair trial. Neo brands himself as a conservative and seems to say that in certain circumstances, there should be limits to a fair trial.
"But seriously Chris, you don't think there might be a happy medium somewhere between "totalitarian murder regime" and "letting known terrorists off on technicality"? Or how about a happy medium between "Secret evidence show trials" and "Revealing our entire secret intelligence network because some guy's lawyer asked for it at discovery"
I am not sure how to answer that one. Again, anyone who is accused of a crime is protected by the constitution, the charter and over 100 years of criminal law. I think we are all in agreement on that.
As for revealing 'ways and means', the Anti-Terrorism Act makes certain amendments to the Criminal Code that protect how the evidence was found. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/antiter/
I don't know the exact procedure but there is a determination by another judge as to the admissibility of the evidence but in any case, the 'ways and means' are not revealed to anyone but the judge.
"I just think it would be nice if a guy caught making pipe-bombs could be convicted at a cost of less than twenty million of my taxpayer dollars and ten years of appeals is all. Is that too much to ask?"
Absolutely not. (As an aside - I thought they were caught with electronic components for IEDs but not the 'explosives'?)
"Neo, you get the strangest trolls here. Nice straw man ya got there, Chris. Argument from extremity much?"
So is anyone with an opinion that is not 100% in line with yours a 'troll'? What is a staw man in this context, I do not know what you are talking about.
Anyhow - back to the accusation that I called you a nazi
I think you rewrote my example as another way to illustrate the point I was making. I take that point.
But in the context of our conversation you wrote:
"nice to have sky-high ideals... but c'mon... this isn't stalin's russia in any way, shape or form."
I believe you made that comparison because of my previous comment about when the government removes the right to a fair trial, its just a show trial. I think you were suggesting that a small change to the law does not make the system totalitarian.... like stalin's russia.
I agreed but then considered the example. Stalin's russia did not make changes to the law. They simply did not recognize any accused's rights at all.
So then I suggested a better example - that of germany in the 1930s where there were individual rights but gradually, through exceptions and changes, those rights were eroded.
Which is why I started with "your better comparison"
So no, I don't agree that I called you a nazi or any other name.
*
"chris says... I don't agree that I called you a nazi"
i certainly can't do anything about what you choose to agree, or not agree with.
but, chris... everybody is entitled to their own opinion, right?
except, of course... when you choose to supply an opinion for me...
"The only thing remotely consistent you have put forward is that the accused terrorists should not have due process."
other chris-rejected nazi allusions aside... that would be your straw man.
if only i could be as idealogically pure as, well... chris, huh?
*
I respond your statements; instead of countering you simply change the subject.
What does 'ideological purity' have anything to do with this conversation? As well, how did the gun registry or the picton trial have anything to do with your posting?
Let me guess... you'll change the subject and state another blogging/debate term for that question.
*
"chris says... instead of countering you simply change the subject."
sure chris... because you say so.
i keep forgetting that i'm supposed to dance to whatever tune you choose to call.
say... you don't happen to have the "rules of blogging etiquette" posted over at your website, do you?
what is that url again?
oops... hang on a sec... i've got another concurrent bro-mance i have to attend to.
back momentarily.
*
"i keep forgetting that i'm supposed to dance to whatever tune you choose to call."
Another change in subject!
Here is an irrelevant link to a cool car! http://www.seriouswheels.com/abc/Cadillac-Sixteen-Concept.htm
*
oh, dearie me, chris... you forgot to give us that url.
*
Post a Comment