CDN Hostage James Loney Rescued by SAS in Iraq

[Cliff]

The answer is neither. Anyone who wants to go to a place like Iraq does so with no guarantees of personal safety. If their faith in God permits them to operate there, so be it. They don't need "us" to help them if they get in a bad spot.  If it is in our interests to provide help, well, then we back it up with soldiers like in Afghanistan. Otherwise, I say wash our hands of individuals who choose to risk their life and limb on non-government sanctioned missions. There should be no grey area.

The only reason not to wash our hands of these individuals is because there are citizenship issues involved. It it isn't the first time the military had to rescue citizens that had no business in a particular region. But it goes with International protocol. These particular hostages don't represent my views as a Christian = yet I would not feed them to the lions...so to speak. 

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The only reason not to wash our hands of these individuals is because there are citizenship issues involved. It it isn't the first time the military had to rescue citizens that had no business in a particular region. But it goes with International protocol. These particular hostages don't represent my views as a Christian = yet I would not feed them to the lions...so to speak. 

Your viewpoint is certainly legitimate, and I believe represents the status quo.  I just don't happen to agree with it; avalanche victims who were skiing of the trail, etc., are a similar occurence.  There has been talk of charging persons in those circumstances for the cost of a rescue helicopter etc. - don't know much about it personally but sounds a lot like GO's suggestion.

Hey, everyone travelling abroad gets a passport, so you make part of that process the signing of a waiver, right? Simple to implement.

There are some obvious pitfalls, I will concede.

 

[Cliff]

There has been talk of charging persons in those circumstances for the cost of a rescue helicopter etc. - don't know much about it personally but sounds a lot like GO's suggestion.

Sounds like a winner to me. Since the activists created the situation they should pay.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Well, it didn't take too long for this half wit to scramble back to his ungrateful roots:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/04062006/2/national-ex-iraq-hostage-james-loney-joins-protest-march-muslim.html

Ex-Iraq hostage James Loney joins protest march for Muslim security detainees Sun Jun 04, 11:06 AM EST
By Colin Perkel
TORONTO (CP) - A Christian activist who garnered international headlines as a hostage in Iraq is joining a protest march against Canada's system of detaining suspected foreign terrorists indefinitely without charge or trial.
James Loney, who spent four months in captivity in Iraq, planned to catch up with the "freedom caravan" in Belleville, Ont., on Tuesday.
In an interview, Loney told The Canadian Press that he feels both an obligation to, and kinship with, the Muslim men currently detained as threats to national security.
He said he was especially grateful that three of the detainees wrote an open letter in early December, just days after he was kidnapped, urging his captors to free their hostages.
"That was a gesture of solidarity that moved me very deeply," said Loney. "So, I feel personally obliged to speak out for them."
Loney was one of four members of Christian Peacemaker Teams snatched off the streets of Baghdad in late November, one of whom was later shot dead.
Three of the activists, who sought to highlight the plight of thousands of Iraqis detained without charge by American and British forces in Iraq, were rescued at the end of March by coalition forces.
Loney said he felt there were "parallels" between his situation as a hostage and the suspected terrorists, who have languished in detention for between four and six years.
"I didn't know when I was going to be freed (or) know really why I was being held," said Loney.
"It was an unjust deprival of my liberty in the same way that someone who's in jail in Canada . . . without charge." The protest march began Saturday in Toronto and will end June 10 in Ottawa, where a week-long vigil will take place.
The vigil will coincide with Supreme Court of Canada hearings on the constitutionality of the national security certificates and indefinite detention.
Five Muslims are currently designated as threats to national security.
Three of the men - Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah and Hassan Almrei - are being held without charge.
A fourth, Adil Charkaoui, has been released under severe bail conditions, while the fifth, Mohamed Harkat, was granted bail under house arrest but remains in jail while the government appeals that ruling.
Protest co-ordinator Matthew Behrens, of the Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada, said it's important to draw attention to the injustice of the security certificate regime.
"We have an issue of national importance which is being discussed at the Supreme Court," said Behrens.
"We feel that it's really crucial to spend a lot of time on the road going from community to community sharing the story of what's been going on with secret trials."
Loney said he would also take part in the protest planned for Wednesday outside the new Kingston immigration holding facility in Millhaven, Ont., where the detainees are on hunger strikes.
"They're being held without charge, without access to the evidence against them (and) being held indefinitely, without the possibility of appeal," Loney said.
"It's just unconscionable."

Okay, seriously.  How do we go about arranging a bag job on this guy and get him back to the cranium optional jagoff country that he loves so much? 
And no one wants to hear Stockholm Syndrome trotted out.  :

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Okay, seriously.  How do we go about arranging a bag job on this guy and get him back to the cranium optional jagoff country that he loves so much? 
And no one wants to hear Stockholm Syndrome trotted out.  :

You honestly don't see the parallels between his situation and that of the detainees? Or at the least understand why he might see them?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Not in the friggin' slightest.....

 

[J.J]

1-The terrorist are detained for a lawful security certificate, argue if you want, but it is issued by a court of law

2-"Loony" went to Iraq and was kidnapped, he was not committing any criminal acts, he is just a "do-good-er" that lives in the same fantasy world you seem to also reside in Michael  :

 

[Michael Dorosh]

1-The terrorist are detained for a lawful security certificate, argue if you want, but it is issued by a court of law

2-"Loony" went to Iraq and was kidnapped, he was not committing any criminal acts, he is just a "do-good-er" that lives in the same fantasy world you seem to also reside in Michael  :

Why the personal attack? That's usually evidence of a bankruptcy of logic.

The detainees are being held "indefinitely" without hope, apparently, of a legal trial, the same as the "loony" in question had been.  I would suggest that is a very big similarity.

Whether or not the detainees in US hands commited criminal acts is not yet known; but given the lack of due process, that may be a permanent condition.

 

[Infanteer]

Michael makes a good point.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The detainees are being held "indefinitely" without hope, apparently, of a legal trial, the same as the "loony" in question had been.  I would suggest that is a very big similarity.

..and I call bullshit of the highest order. How dare you compare our way of treating ANY prisoner in our justice system to what kidnap victims go through.

Michael,
I know you like to play the "game" but this is going way too friggin' far........your post is vile and disgusting.

EDIT: Infanteer,...what part?

 

[J.J]

+1 Bruce

You took the words out of my mouth

 

[Cloud Cover]

The detainees are being held "indefinitely" without hope, apparently, of a legal trial, the same as the "loony" in question had been.  I would suggest that is a very big similarity.

The detainees held under a security certificate have the certifcate reviewed regulary by the court issuing the order, or an appellate court on appeal, or on motion before the court by lawyers for the accused. As far as I know, the detainees are treated well, better than most prisoners in the system, and they have access to all the lawyers they could possibly need.  The alternative is a plane flight to Bulgaria for rendition- as far as I'm concerned they can take their pick.

Anyway, the Supreme Court is set to rule on the Charter validity of the security certificate system in a few weeks. All bets are that they will rule the process invalid, and then the civil lawsuits will begin. Another present to lawyers courtesy of the Chretien era. They are not going to decline the opportunity to make a few bucks on this one.  

Cheers,  

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The detainees held under a security certificate have the certifcate reviewed regulary by the court issuing the order, or an appellate court on appeal, or on motion before the court by lawyers for the accused. As far as I know, the detainees are treated well, better than most prisoners in the system, and they have access to all the lawyers they could possibly need.  The alternative is a plane flight to Bulgaria for rendition- as far as I'm concerned they can take their pick.

Anyway, the Supreme Court is set to rule on the Charter validity of the security certificate system in a few weeks. All bets are that they will rule the process invalid, and then the civil lawsuits will begin. Another present to lawyers courtesy of the Chretien era. They are not going to decline the opportunity to make a few bucks on this one. 

Cheers, 

Thanks for the informed post, whiskey, that was a refreshing change of pace. 

I'm struck by Prime Minister Harper's words on TV tonight - when he spoke at the swearing in ceremony, he said (paraphrasing) "they hate us because of who we are and how we live - freedom, democracy and the rule of law."

If we define ourselves by rule of law, I think it behooves us to live by it. I may have waded in unthinkingly here - I was thinking of the US detainees in Cuba rather than Canadian prisoners. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Blue Max]

Are not soldiers of two sides of a given conflict that are captured held indefinitely until hostiles cease?  I believe there have been historical instances where the captured soldiers have been paroled back to their sides even before hostilities have fully ended, but this was based on the said soldier signing with honour his intent to not participate any further in said conflict. Obviously in the post WW1 conflict's this is less likely to be allowed by the powers to be on all sides (Total War).

Considering you have signed up for Jihad would you expect any less if captured, ie indefinite prison, or would you prefer a rusty blade sawing your head off, within  one year of capture.  Mr Looney is as his name implies Loony, with no connection to reality, IMHO.

 

[warrickdll]

The detainees are being held "indefinitely" without hope, apparently, of a legal trial, the same as the "loony" in question had been.  I would suggest that is a very big similarity.

There is no similarity. Canada does not want these people in Canada and would gladly send them home - they do not wish to go home. This is exactly opposite to the situation you are trying to draw a parallel to.

The courts will not allow Canada to return them due to the punishments they would receive for their terrorist links. At the same time, the courts say that even the 2 that were granted bail (I believe one is back in pending appeal) are indeed security risks. In no way should this impasse be resolved be allowing terrorist (or their sympathizers) to be allowed safe haven in Canada.

Bringing them to trial in Canada would be my preference, but this has several downsides.
- It may expose sources we are not ready to lose
- Not all foreign obtained evidence may be allowed into a trial
- I can not see them being imprisoned for life even if they were convicted

 

[Michael Dorosh]

There is no similarity...

You misread me; I was discussing the situation in Cuba with American "detainees", not Canadian prisoners. In fact, when I see the word "detainees" I automatically think of the situation there, where their detainees - dubbed "illegal combatants" - have been kept for years. I'm not familiar with the Canadian "detainees" but was associating them more with prisoners of war.

 

[warrickdll]

You misread me; I was discussing the situation in Cuba with American "detainees", not Canadian prisoners. In fact, when I see the word "detainees" I automatically think of the situation there, where their detainees - dubbed "illegal combatants" - have been kept for years. I'm not familiar with the Canadian "detainees" but was associating them more with prisoners of war.

Loney said he felt there were "parallels" between his situation as a hostage and the suspected terrorists, who have languished in detention for between four and six years.
"I didn't know when I was going to be freed (or) know really why I was being held," said Loney.
"It was an unjust deprival of my liberty in the same way that someone who's in jail in Canada . . . without charge."

The article also mentioned detainees held by the US and the UK (which was one item of Loney's agitation in Iraq) - but my comments were only on the Canadian Security Certificates (which seems to be Loney's focus in the article).

Perhaps the ambiguity could explain the tone in the previous half-dozen-or-so posts (I offer no guarantees ).

 

[Kirkhill]

If we define ourselves by rule of law, I think it behooves us to live by it.

And die by it too I suppose.....when the wrong person gets back into circulation.

My problem with the entire debate over Guantanamo and the  Illegal Combatant/PW issue is that everybody seems to keep forgetting that Prisoners of War require a War and a War can only be declared between two states.  PWs are held, essentially as guests, until the cessation of hostilities.  Their detention has nothing to do with whether or not they have done anything illegal.  PWs are supposed to be treated as honourable opponents according to the Geneva rules. They are just being kept out of circulation until the War ends.

When somebody rises up against their own government then they are committing an illegal act.  Then it becomes courts and jails.....unless of course they end up on the winning side which ultimately means the complete abrogation of the rule of law.

The problem with the Guantanamo types is that there was no War between States because the Taliban weren't recognized as a government, and the fighters weren't recognized as an army.  Who do you negotiate with to arrange repatriation?  And when does this occur?  And if the answer is the Afghan government what do you do when it considers them criminals?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I can only pray that this is another circumstance where the SCC decides that yes, the Charter is being breached but it is worth it.  It could be an "if you are doing x, y, z, then you forfeit your rights", which they have done in the past.  The legal system has been so devoid of common sense for so long, it is time for us to get a "nod" for a change.  Keep it simple.  Don't get hung up on defining conflict or combatants, lawful military status and other such word games.  Bad person wants to hurt us.  Bad person gets taken out of circulation.  Period. 
However, I would fully support the bag being shipped off to his country of origin after he has been suitably pumped for information, and let the chips fall where they may.  :bullet:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...and of course, once again it all falls back to that group of appointed hackmen/women [ no no, the other group ] of the supreme court potentially CHANGING the laws brought in by our elected politicians.......while democracy weeps.