Okay. Now I'm pissed at the Canadian Gov't

[Bearguin]

Quote:
Canada would not hand Iraqi leader to U.S.
Orders from Ottawa in case of capture

http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=FFEACAB2-F9BE-4547-8D33-92D26A84FB41


This is just stupid. As a Canadian, I'm stunned by this report.

I have no idea what to say beyond this is friggin stupid.

This is time to blast our government.

Next email is to my MP (I'd better do it from home though).

[Segnosaur]

Here's a little bit more on Canada and the Iraq situation:

According to a new Compas poll, most Canadians support the U.S. in their war against Iraq:
http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=99677d92-f657-4665-b4bc-b934f4cfd0de

But, just in case you think all Liberals are idiots, there is one (Pratt, on the commons defence committee) who actually says the government made the wrong decision:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035780758416&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037

Now, I just wonder if Pratt will suffer more or less for his comments than Parish or Dhaliwal.

[Bearguin]

I'm sure Pratt will get punished.

We are talking about Chretian here.

[John Bryce]

The situation is, if any wanted Iraqi offical is captured and identified by the Canadian Navy in the region during the operations of the Canadian Navy's mission, that person will be held in Canadian Forces custody untill Ottawa determines what to do with the wanted Iraqi. The person will not be let go by the Canadian Navy, or handed over the the U.S. without Ottawa's approval.

If any high ranking Iraqi offical comes into the custody of the Canadian Forces, Ottawa would most likely have that person handed over to the U.S.. That fact is, the chances of any Iraqi being detained by the Canadian Forces is extreamely remote given where the Canadian Navy is currently operating. It really is a non-issue to me.

[reprise]

I'm not sure that Australia - either - could legally hand Saddam over to the US. We recognise the War Crimes Tribunal and the International Court of Justice, and in the absence of any evidence that Saddam has committed a specific crime against the US and is subject to extradition proceedings for that crime, I very much doubt that we can simply hand him over to the US without some legal basis for accepting that the US has jurisdiction over him.

[FFed]

I have never hated a politician more then I do Chretien. If he was drowning I would not throw him a life jacket. Why the hell do people keep voting for this government?

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by reprise
I'm not sure that Australia - either - could legally hand Saddam over to the US. We recognise the War Crimes Tribunal and the International Court of Justice, and in the absence of any evidence that Saddam has committed a specific crime against the US and is subject to extradition proceedings for that crime, I very much doubt that we can simply hand him over to the US without some legal basis for accepting that the US has jurisdiction over him.

That is a very good point. Australia is involved in the conflict, Canada is not, but both countries must decide what their policy is if wanted Iraqis are captured by either country.

Of course, Australia has a better chance than Canada at capturing any Iraqi fighters. How many Iraqi military members are going to be floating around out in the Arabian Sea?

[reprise]

Originally posted by John Bryce


That is a very good point. Australia is involved in the conflict, Canada is not, but both countries must decide what their policy is if wanted Iraqis are captured by either country.

Of course, Australia has a better chance than Canada at capturing any Iraqi fighters. How many Iraqi military members are going to be floating around out in the Arabian Sea?

Even though we are involved in this conflict, I'm pretty sure that both our national laws and the various treaties to which we are a signatory prevent us from simply handing Saddam over to the US Government just because they ask us nicely. We've been down this road before with Nazi war criminals.

I have a friend who's an expert in Constitutional and International Law. I might give him a phone call over the weekend and see what his learned opinion is on this issue.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by reprise
I'm not sure that Australia - either - could legally hand Saddam over to the US. We recognise the War Crimes Tribunal and the International Court of Justice, and in the absence of any evidence that Saddam has committed a specific crime against the US and is subject to extradition proceedings for that crime, I very much doubt that we can simply hand him over to the US without some legal basis for accepting that the US has jurisdiction over him.

Which is the point. The article spins the simple fact of a country working with others to set up an international court to process criminals such as Saddam, while the US thinks it is the only legal force on the planet.

It paints Chretian to be a criminal accomplice of Saddam, when there is no evidence whatsoever that Canada, if it did refuse to hand him over, and instead took him to the ICJ, is doing anything wrong.

Since when is the US the legal authority for the world?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Which is the point. The article spins the simple fact of a country working with others to set up an international court to process criminals such as Saddam, while the US thinks it is the only legal force on the planet.

It paints Chretian to be a criminal accomplice of Saddam, when there is no evidence whatsoever that Canada, if it did refuse to hand him over, and instead took him to the ICJ, is doing anything wrong.

Since when is the US the legal authority for the world?
Clearly, an independent, non-combatant country should be the ones to hold Saddam, etc. in custody, if found. This is an international matter; AFAIK neither Saddam or his government have committed crimes against the United States. Now, if representatives of a new Iraqi government wanted to imprison Saddam, etc., they might have the right to do so, but even then, the legal basis seems doubtful.

[John Bryce]

I no longer think it likely Canada would turn Saddam (or any other Iraqi) over to the U.S., nor do I think they should. As much as I disagree with my government, on so many other issues, I have to say I agree with their position in this case. Some very good points were raised here showing this is not a black or white issue.

[Bearguin]

So you are suggesting they would hold Saddam for an international tribunal.

I am comfortable with that, except.

What happens when the US finds out he's on a Canadian ship? Would they be happy with him being held to be turned over or would they attempt to board the ship and take him by force? And what instructions would the Canadian navy have in that case?

I just see this as another slap in the face by our govt to the US, but I may not be thinking rationaly about it.

I'll think some more.

[jimmygun]

It is my contention that Chretian is laying down his legacy before he is put out of power. Like so many other megolomaniacs he is determined to cause as much trouble as possible before he is ousted.

Saddam burned the oil fields of Kuwait, Chretian is burning the bridges between the US and Canada.

It took nearly two hundred years of friendship to build those bridges, it is taking him two years to burn them to the water.

As a Canadian and long time US supporter I am embarassed to the nth degree by Chretian. I supported Diefenbaker when he would not allow Canada to become a nuclear nation and I supported Trudeau for allowing war protesters to remain in Canada as political refugees. These were right decisions made in our own interest and according to our national guidelines. Chretian's pronouncements are merely decrees from a lame duck leader. There will be few teary eyes when he leaves.

To go even further, I am ashamed of his cabinet and party. They have consistantly knuckled under to his bullying and pressure. They are spineless dupes who's only concern is feeding from the trough of public money.

In his arrogance,before the Liberals took power, Brian Mulroney gave up the Prime Ministers chair to Kim Campbell, touting her as Canada's first female leader. The Conservative party was run out of town on a rail in the next election, losing all but two seats.

I can only hope that the Liberals share the same fate.

[Martin]

I'm not sure the UK would be able to hand Saddam over to the US either. IIRC, EU law forbids extradition in circumstances where the suspect may face the death penalty. I don't know if a guarantee from the US government that he would not be executed would suffice.

[Thanz]

I don't understand why Canada would hand Saddam over to the U.S. What authority does the U.S. have over Saddam at all? What crime against the U.S. has he committed? As far as I can tell, nothing. He may be an evil dictator, etc., but he didn't attack the U.S. - it was the other way around. Does the U.S. picking a fight with him somehow give them the right to his capture?

jimmygun - I don't understand your problem with Chretien on this issue. we stayed out of the war for good reasons. As you have pointed out, we don't have to say "how high" when the U.S. says "jump". Even the U.S. ambassador backed off of his earlier comments regarding disappointment. Chretien is not burning bridges at the rate you seem to think he is.

[claire]

Forget the unlikely issue of what to do with Saddam if a Canadian happens to catch him -- Would it be too much to ask, please, that the US not deport Canadians to Syria? Please, if you could at all help it ...

--
Tragedy of Arar - Halifax Herald

MAHER ARAR, a Canadian citizen, has disappeared.

On Oct. 10, 2002, the 32-year-old Montreal communications engineer was made to disappear by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Claiming he was a suspected terrorist, on grounds it still refuses to make public, the INS deported Mr. Arar from New York, where he had come on Sept. 26 to make a connecting flight home from Zurich. He was deported not to Canada, but to his native Syria.

His family has not heard from him since.

Mr. Arar is a Canadian citizen who left Syria at age 17 and who was travelling on a Canadian passport when arrested by the INS.

He has had no difficulty in the past working in the U.S. for a leading scientific software firm and is still listed on the firm's Web site publication as a contributor and technical reviewer.

His U.S. lawyer, who was not notified in time to be present at his deportation, says Mr. Arar was terrified the INS wanted to deport him to Syria, where he feared he would be punished for avoiding military service as a teenager.

She says he was disoriented, confused and sobbing when she interviewed him.

Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham has protested Mr. Arar's handling by U.S. authorities. He says anyone travelling on a Canadian passport has the right to be treated as a Canadian citizen.....

More of the article (http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2002/10/19/f137.raw.html)

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Here's a little bit more on Canada and the Iraq situation:

According to a new Compas poll, most Canadians support the U.S. in their war against Iraq:
http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=99677d92-f657-4665-b4bc-b934f4cfd0de

Here is another poll. I don't think much has changed since this poll was conducted.

Poll suggests Canadians support military, but won't sign up (http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2002/11/11/poll_rememb021111)

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
What happens when the US finds out he's on a Canadian ship? Would they be happy with him being held to be turned over or would they attempt to board the ship and take him by force? And what instructions would the Canadian navy have in that case?

If Saddam was caught out in the Arabian Sea by a Canadian warship, the first thing that would happen would be Saddam would be held in Canadian Forces custody on board the Canadian warship, and then the Canadian government would be notified of the situation by the Canadian Navy.

I am assuming the Canadian government would contact the U.S. government, and inform them that Saddam was in Canadian Forces custody. I doubt the U.S. government would be told where Saddam was being held.

If the U.S. did know that Saddam was being held on the HMCS..., the boarding of a Canadian warship by U.S. forces to remove Saddam is extreamely unlikely. This would be an act of war against Canada.

The U.S. most likely would ask Saddam be handed over to them, and give their reason why. Ultimately, it would be up to the Canadian government to decide what to do with Saddam.

The Canadian Navy would hold Saddam in Canadian Forces custody until the government of Canada told the Canadian Navy what to do with Saddam.

That is it in a nutshell.