EricMM 0 Report post Posted May 1, 2004 Where, pray, did you get the notion that the U.S. soldiers are being encouraged to treat their prisoners in that fashion??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kaertos 0 Report post Posted May 3, 2004 There is a difference. There are laws that govern how POW's are supposed to be treated and we are supposed to follow those laws. If that is an accurate description of how prisoners were treated, then it is wrong. A soldier can disobey an immoral order, he better just be ready to back it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaMarka 0 Report post Posted May 3, 2004 Unless you consider banishment to Montreal cruel AND unusual. -=Mike ...Hmm, Constitutionally, could we choose ONE of the two? The Death Penalty is fairly cruel. I mean, you're killing them. Jail could also be considered cruel. Definately not unusual, though. Unusual happens when you get a kooky judge. Like this case where a woman convicted of killing a guy in a head-on collision had to carry around a picture of the guy. Or this guy, who was sentenced to lose 20 pounds a month so he could donate a kidney to his mom. Fairly unusual, but not cruel. Exiling someone to Montreal would be unusual. Not so much cruel, unless they really hate the French or something. Thus, constitutionally acceptable? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted May 3, 2004 I believe the wording is cruel and unusual, so it can be either, but not both. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elite 0 Report post Posted May 4, 2004 As I understand it, the way the refugee statutes are set up in Canada, everyone requesting asylum must be given some kind of formal review, regardless of whether their case is seemingly valid or baseless. That way everybody gets a fair kick at the can, so to speak. It's just procedure, and I doubt it will result in those two soldiers being allowed to stay here. You have to take into account that Prime Minister Martin is only an interim PM, and therefore he is trying desperately to not rock the boat in this pre-election period. Also, with the Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties combining into one, the Liberals face some stiff competition (the Alliance Party was strong out West and the Conservatives had a sizable following in the East) whenever Martin gets enough balls to actually call an election. In the meantime, Martin is walking this fine line between trying to hold onto Chretien faithful and striking out on his own. Because ultimately, the buck stops with him, doing something as controversial as granting asylum to two weak-kneed morons won't help his cause in the least. And that is what leads me to believe your deserters will be returning home at some point or another. Mind you, with the lackadaisical approach the Canadian government takes to most things, it could be awhile. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dubq 0 Report post Posted May 4, 2004 Two American soldiers have deserted their fellow troops and fled to your country. The two dickholes have websites up. I'd give the links, but the two wastes of DNA don't even deserve that level of respect. Your gov't seems to be considering giving them asylum. Now, according to law, you can only deny extradition if you believe the person in question will be executed (since the war is not officially declared, it's not even a possibility) or persecuted (they will be punished, justly, for doing what they did --- it won't be extreme) by their home country. So, let's say the anti-America bent in Canada hits its apex and they are given refugee status. I want to see ANYBODY defend their actions. -=Mike ...and I have to defend my government why? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
