Terror suspects abused, lawyers say

[jolinar of malkshor]

If these guys think they are being tortured, maybe we should send them to Iran or Syria (land of the terrorist) and see how they like the detention treatment there.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/509854.html

[peter12]

If these guys are Al-Queda copy cats, well it is standard Al-Queda practice to make claims to the media that they are being tortured by the state. These guys are full of ****.

[fredr123]

If a lawyer says it, it's gotta be true. Lawyers are the salt of the earth!

[Azure]

I wonder how long its going to be until these people recieve sympathy.

[jolinar of malkshor]

These guys are complaining that they are in solitary confinement and are in cramped cells. Maybe we should just put them in the general prison population and see how long they will last.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Azure

I wonder how long its going to be until these people recieve sympathy.

Too soon. "But these guys didn't actually do anything! Innocent until proven guilty! Canada does not treat people like the United States does!" blah blah blah

Canada's anti-terrorism laws are in their relative infancy. Any use of them from here on in will be carefully scrutinized and heavily criticized. There are arguments before the SCC about doing away with security certificates in general. The government is in an unenviable position.

Part of the problem is that the accuseds can talk as much as they want and make up all sorts of inflammatory accusations that will no doubt catch the eye of the media. The government, as we've seen before (right JofM?) won't/can't say anything to refute those claims and fails behind big time in the publication battle.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Part of the problem is that the accuseds can talk as much as they want and make up all sorts of inflammatory accusations that will no doubt catch the eye of the media. The government, as we've seen before (right JofM?) won't/can't say anything to refute those claims and fails behind big time in the publication battle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there was a publication ban impossed on both sides.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there was a publication ban impossed on both sides.

That doesn't prevent the lawyer from grabbing media spot light about his clients. As long as he is not discussing the actual facts of the case.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Innocent until proven guilty!

Oh yeah, I'm really tired of that claptrap.

Canada could learn a thing or two about justice from some other countries in the world. Syria and Iran, to name a couple of them. Then we'd be better off.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

That doesn't prevent the lawyer from grabbing media spot light about his clients. As long as he is not discussing the actual facts of the case.

If you read the article you'll see that both the government and the detainee's laywer gave comments.

Wouldn't it just be easier if we did without defense lawyers and just held secret trials for everyone? Probably save billions...

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there was a publication ban impossed on both sides.

You could be right. I haven't been on top of the specifics in this case, mostly because until things come out in court, I was afraid the level of FUD would reach new highs.

There is some merit to the claims that the conditions these guys are facing are less than ideal. It is well recognized that accused (presumably innocent) persons held in remand awaiting court proceedings are subject to a situation worse than convicted criminals. I invite anyone interested to read a case called R. v. Groves from earlier this year in Alberta. It deals with the sentencing of a bank robber and how much credit should be given for pre-trial custody in remand. Judge Fradsham does a good job of outlining the conditions that a lot of the inmates in remand face.

At the same time, to call the crappy conditions "torture" is, in my opinion, nothing less than a blatant attempt to inflame the public. Torturing captive terrorists (see Guantanomo Bay) is a hot-button topic these days and allegations such as these are just a play on those sentiments.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Oh yeah, I'm really tired of that claptrap.

Canada could learn a thing or two about justice from some other countries in the world. Syria and Iran, to name a couple of them. Then we'd be better off.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic at my sarcasm or just sarcastic in general. In either case, make no mistake about it I do not condone the type of "justice" system (if it can even be called that) in place in countries like Syria and Iran. I am a huge supporter of the ideal that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

You could be right. I haven't been on top of the specifics in this case, mostly because until things come out in court, I was afraid the level of FUD would reach new highs.

There is some merit to the claims that the conditions these guys are facing are less than ideal. It is well recognized that accused (presumably innocent) persons held in remand awaiting court proceedings are subject to a situation worse than convicted criminals. I invite anyone interested to read a case called R. v. Groves from earlier this year in Alberta. It deals with the sentencing of a bank robber and how much credit should be given for pre-trial custody in remand. Judge Fradsham does a good job of outlining the conditions that a lot of the inmates in remand face.

At the same time, to call the crappy conditions "torture" is, in my opinion, nothing less than a blatant attempt to inflame the public. Torturing captive terrorists (see Guantanomo Bay) is a hot-button topic these days and allegations such as these are just a play on those sentiments.

Your right, however, they are being treated no differently than any other person who has been charged with a crime and being remanded until the outcome of the case.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic at my sarcasm or just sarcastic in general. In either case, make no mistake about it I do not condone the type of "justice" system (if it can even be called that) in place in countries like Syria and Iran. I am a huge supporter of the ideal that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Ha ha. Whoops.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic at my sarcasm or just sarcastic in general. In either case, make no mistake about it I do not condone the type of "justice" system (if it can even be called that) in place in countries like Syria and Iran. I am a huge supporter of the ideal that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Didn't you also say this?

Too soon. "But these guys didn't actually do anything! Innocent until proven guilty! Canada does not treat people like the United States does!" blah blah blah

I think Rouge got the idea that you believed that "Innocent until proven guilty" was some catch-phrase that lefties use to 5th column our glorious society. Your two statements appear somewhat contradictory, maybe its just a misinterpretation.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Didn't you also say this?


I think Rouge got the idea that you believed that "Innocent until proven guilty" was some catch-phrase that lefties use to 5th column our glorious society. Your two statements appear somewhat contradictory, maybe its just a misinterpretation.

The original question was "How long until these people receive sympathy?" I went off on a sarcastic rant trying to be funny. I was trying to pre-emptively jab at the people who would quickly condemn these accused before any actual evidence was brought forward. At the same time I wanted stir the pot a little.

To be clear, I am a big supporter of our justice system and the ideals it seeks to uphold. I have always prided myself on trying to remain open-minded during incidents like this and waiting to hear evidence before making my decisions.

Nonetheless, I read a few of the articles where the lawyers made their torture claims. Based on my experiences with remand and the prison systems in general, I remain skeptical as to whether their torture claims are true.

In the future I will attempt to be more clear in my posts and avoid entendre, double-entendre and the rarely performed in competition triple-entendre. Or use

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by fredr123

In the future I will attempt to be more clear in my posts and avoid entendre, double-entendre and the rarely performed in competition triple-entendre. Or use

Please, don't dumb it down on my account. I'm sure everyone else is keeping up.

[Sharpen 'Em]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Your right, however, they are being treated no differently than any other person who has been charged with a crime and being remanded until the outcome of the case.

How do you know that? Do you just not believe their lawyers because they are lawyers or because of what crimes they have been charged with?
I'm not trying to say they are all innocent but maybe some of them are. Maybe some are guilty. Maybe all are guilty.

To suggest sending people to Syria for detention before going to court is bizarre. Do you know anything about what happened to Maher Arar?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Please, don't dumb it down on my account. I'm sure everyone else is keeping up.

Crap. Still being sarcastic. No worries.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Sharpen 'Em

How do you know that? Do you just not believe their lawyers because they are lawyers or because of what crimes they have been charged with?

JofM hates lawyers, isn't that right? Admit it: you are one big lawyer hater!