[rearguard]

<blockquote><br /> When did any Jew get a trial before getting in the 'showers'?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> What kind of trials do people arrested under security certificates get when the evidence against them is quite possibly made up because the defense cannot see it? You can call it a "trial" but it is not a fair trial, which is just as good as tossing the accused in a gas shower had such a thing ever actually happened.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Ah, fine propaganda! Do you have a link to me saying that? Do you really want to play that game?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Do I really need to pull out your posts where you've been defending secret trials under the security certificate system?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> No, he's at a maximum security facility, in solitary. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I read he's in gitmo, either way there's no charges or trial in progress that I'm aware of.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> And more propaganda? Care to quote me? Why all the ad-hominem attacks?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Your defense of secret trials. These are not ad hominem attacks. If you agree with secret trials, then you've tossed out one of the most basic concepts of justice.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Good question. When we know why they were destroyed, we'll be closer to answering it.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> This is much more than just a good question! Without the answer everything we're being told about 9/11 may very well be false, and everything that is based on the questionable 9/11 excuse has to be held in doubt. You don't send off people to kill and die for a cause that is in such a high state of doubt. The only reason for covering 9/11 up with lies, is to make sure that our perception of the attacks is in line with the official version because it somehow serves the purpose of those who are making use out of it.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Well, except the plane was enroute to Tokyo airport, so it was the Japanese government . . .<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> The bombs could have been planted by anyone. All we have is the word of profesional liars.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> So, they aren't helping people? Be careful how you answer that . . . all I have to do is show one instance, and then it is not a lie.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Sure you can show me a soldier helping an old lady cross the street right after they bombed her village into a heap of smoldering coals. I'll give you that one.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Well, except for the US embassy bombings . . the USS Cole, and killing of Canadians on 9/11 . . . no proof at all.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> All we know for certain is that someone set off a few bombs and killed a lot of people for no apparent reason other than to assist the USG with convenient excuses to further its military empire.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Well, no. the UN has no troops. NATO was attacked, therefore NATO responded. And we've been through before . . .<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> OK then I'll rephrase: There are no troops working under UN command in Afghanistan, other than perhaps some observers.<br /> <br /> Perhaps a NATO member country was attacked, but there's no actual evidence to speak of showing who did the job, and there's that nagging question about how the towers and bldg 7 came down, and all the other evidence such as the cover up that implicates elements within the USG. If a member of NATO attacks itself as a means to get the excuse it needs to attack another country, then did NATO get attacked, and should NATO attack itself?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> The Taliban were the government, police force, and militia in Afghanistan. They were and are anything but civillians in the eyes of the Geneva conventions. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> The Taliban is a catch-all phrase used by propaganda to describe anyone in Afghanistan who opposes the invasion force. During the Soviet invasion, several groups fought against the Soviets and even against each other, those groups were all called the "Muhajadeen". The same kind of catch-all labeling of "the enemy" is going on in Afghanistan today.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Using the conventions when it suits you is not a winning strategy.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> The geneva conventions do little for those who have no ability to prosecute. For example, the USG and Israel Gov have violated the conventions on numerous occasions, but the UN lacks the ability to do anything about it. When I mention the conventions, I do so to point out the hypocrisy of these meaningless laws. The act of war is by itself a crime, and criminals will do whatever they think they can get away with.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Yes, I read most of it. Nothing changed. Same old theories, based on supposition.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Let's take the destruction of physical evidence at the WTC center as only one example, there's no supposition to it, the evidence was quickly destroyed and the destruction of evidence at a crime scene is a serious crime, yet there's been no criminal investigation into the matter. <br /> <br /> If my house burned down killing everyone in my family but me, and I removed and destroyed key pieces of evidence at the scene just before an investigation could start, and on top of that include an attempt to cash in on a large life insurance policy I recently took out, I'd definitely be criminally investigated to no end and I'd serve jail time at thevery least for the destruction of evidence. I sure as hell won't be able to cash in.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> See your last sentence? "why our government is using that lie to dupe the public and send off our boys to their deaths in Afghanistan?"<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> If our government is lying about why soldiers are to be sent off to war, then you're OK with that?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Canadians died on 9/11. Brits, Germans and Americans too. That is not a lie. Our NATO agreements state that if one NATO country is attacked, then all will respond. That is not a lie. UN resolutions allow a country that is attacked by terrorists to enter a country harbouring the terrorists and remove them. That is not a lie.<br /> <br /> The official reason for war in Afghanistan is not a lie.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Yes it is a lie. The official story points the finger at the former Afghan government without any proof at all, and second the evidence points the finger at the USG itself. Even if the official story is true, which it clearly is not, the USA was not attacked by a country at war, the official version claims it was attacked by a few people who live in caves. The Taliban government even offered to turn in Bin Laden but the offer was rejected outright.<br /> <br /> So why is NATO not attacking the USA for its crime against NATO member citizens (which is not an attack against NATO member countries)? <br /> <br /> To point out the hypocrisy in your views, why has NATO not attacked Israel for its crimes against NATO member citizens? Have you forgotten the recent Israeli attacks against Canadian, UK, and US (etc) civilians?<br /> <br /> <blockquote>There has never been any official explanation of why we saw what we saw with WTC 7.<br /> how that was carried out.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> There's more than no official theory, there's not even an official investigation other than a forever delayed NIST circus. In addition, the bulk of the evidence was destroyed even before the non-criminal NIST never-to-be-completed investigation started.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Of course. I believe that too. Give me some tail numbers, some other piliot in the area who saw a plane equipped with missles - something! Anything!<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Unfortunately we don't have such a thing, but we do have WTC 7. Eye witnesses and video saw WTC 7 go down demolition style, same with the twin towers, and despite the cover up, some physical evidence got left behind.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Until they are explained, how do we know?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> The flashes can be readily explained and have been, but if you think there's something there of significance, you are welcome to research it and present your findings. <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> If you've ever seen high strength steel fail due to stress, you'd see there is no difference between that and an explosion. Again, show me somebody who planted the explosives - a paper trail - anything that backs up that theory. Until then, heat stress is the most plausible.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Other than a few floors that may have been weakened due to the smoldering fires, the remainder of the structure was unaffected by fire and would have been at full strength. The "squibs" typical of demolition charges, can be seen several floors below the falling mass.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Ever seen that video of a football stadium that was being built, and the crane collapses because it is put in a wind that is 3 mph over ratings? There's a good example of high strength steel 'exploding' too. You'll hear 3 big 'explosions' before it collapses.<br /> <br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjib_I_ab84<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> The falling mass of the crane was stopped cold by the opposing resistance of the buildings roof.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote><br /> Conservation of momentum which is a hard law of physics would have resisted the falling mass. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Dude, don't start with me and physics! That was my field of Honours in University!<br /> </blockquote><br /> Well in that case I won't even attempt to argue with you. How about you debunk these papers and have your results published?<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/">Journal of 9/11 Studies</a><br /> <br /> Good luck because so far I've seen no valid rebuttals.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> And there is where the debunking of the pancake theory fails. Firstly, the momentum is conserved, because the mass of the concrete is still the same. However, the STEEL in the building is still in motion, and represents the greater mass in the system. Concrete is not a solid - it is a concrete. Look it up if that seems silly. It is a glue that holds other things together. When hit by an appropriate mass, it will turn to powder.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> You can clearly see a great deal of the falling mass missing the mark because it has been thrown away from the collapsing structure.<br /> <br /> But never mind me, what do I know, you can try and debunk these papers:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf">9/11 - Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition (PDF)</a><br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf">Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?(PDF)</a><br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Mmmm, no. We were talking about Holocaust revisionism, but somehow ended up on our favourite topic - Afghanistan.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Yeah I noticed. This all started when we began talking about the lies of war. The 9/11 lie served as a good example. You need lies to get people to fight each other when there's no good reason to. Same crap happened on all sides that got involved in WWII, and many of those lies persist to this day.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> When we find out what they are lying about, then we'll know why they are lying.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> The fact that they are lying about 9/11 means that everything based on it is in question. People are dying because of a question mark, and that is very wrong.<br /> <br />

[Diogenes]

listen up!<br /> short and sweet Suspension of <br /> <br /> habeas corpus <br /> <br /> "you may have the body" A legal term from the 14th century or earlier. Refers to a number of legal writs to bring a person before a court or judge, most commonly habeas corpus ad subjiciendum ("you may have the body to bring up"). Commonly used as the general term for a prisoner's legal right to have the charge against them specifically identified <br /> Man*o*man Mammon at his best!<br /> <br /> Encoded law creates coin slots!<br /> And Man, without coin ya can’t play the game!<br /> And where does coin come from?<br /> And where doth it circulate?<br /> I’ve heard the analogy of electric current as a metaphor for *currency*<br /> Make the connection and learn the shocking truth! <br /> <br /> <br /> Due to the Hegelian Dialectic Need I refresh memories? <br /> *Tearism* he said in his best down home Texas Twang *means we gotta suspend some rights! Ya hear?”<br /> Those Eye racks got WMD’s ! Hell Boy! We know! It was we who gave em to him”<br /> <br /> Now course we didn’t expect him to go to actually USING them.”<br /> <br /> BULLSHIT Poker with lives. <br /> Slick!<br /> And Larry Luggin Lunch-bucket Don’t know Jack Schit<br /> Any way <br /> It ain’t my trip<br /> <br /> Catherin Costen Whelen and Ed Deak put on the floor, “ What can be done?”<br /> <br /> KNOW THE LAW! Natural law<br /> Claim you rights <br /> Because until that is done, nothing of any significance will change in the direction Ed and Catherine’s question asks<br /> The ballot sure the hell ain’t accomplishing much!<br /> Didn’t I see Dr. Caleb speak of a banishment of parties?<br /> <br /> haud ignota loquor, "I speak not of unknown things"<br /> <br /> ignoratio elenchi "ignorance of the issue" The logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion: making an argument that, while possibly valid, doesn't prove or support the proposition it claims to. An ignoratio elenchi that is an intentional attempt to mislead or confuse the opposing party is known as a red herring. Elenchi is from the Greek elenchos.<br /> <br /> Charge/counter charge<br /> Parry/ thrust<br /> As an intellectual exercise it may gives us something to do, but does it get us anywhere.<br /> And in the end a monster Wank!<br /> Where as directed effort applied to the study of Da Rulz<br /> Bears fruit<br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= rearguard]<br /> What kind of trials do people arrested under security certificates get when the evidence against them is quite possibly made up because the defense cannot see it? You can call it a "trial" but it is not a fair trial, which is just as good as tossing the accused in a gas shower had such a thing ever actually happened.<br /> <br /> Do I really need to pull out your posts where you've been defending secret trials under the security certificate system?<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Yes. Explain to me how my belief that the Certificate system, being flawed, is the best system we have for deporting 'dangerous' people like hate mongers and spies; validates you calling me a 'Despot'.<br /> <br /> Explain to me how a Judge's decision to keep a Russian Spy's name confidential violates our rights in any way.<br /> <br /> You do realize, of course, the only outcome of a 'certificate' trial is 'deportation', not 'gas chambers'.<br /> <br /> When the ad hominems start - debate is over.

[Brent Swain]

Bush has passed a law which makes it possible for any non US citizen in the US to be tried in a military tribunal and executed without being told the evidence against him. <br /> An Israeli tourist once told me that as long as Israel's neighbours can keep them spending over 90% of their money on defence, they can cause Israel to collapse eventually without defeating them militarily. He said that getting along with their neighbours is the only viable ,long term sustainable solutioin to their conflicts.<br /> Brent<br /> We must never forget that nearly half of Israelis oppose their government's confrontational attitude toward it's neighbours. They deserve our support.

[rearguard]

<blockquote>Explain to me how my belief that the Certificate system, being flawed, is the best system we have for deporting 'dangerous' people like hate mongers and spies; validates you calling me a 'Despot'.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> That's easy to explain because with secret evidence we have no idea if the accused is guilty or not. The whole concept of a fair and open trial is abolished, and that's was despots subscribe to. The concept of deporting people who have commited no crimes but the government finds disagreeable for whatever reason is again something that despots subscribe to. For example, I'm certain the government would find me rather disagreeable and would be happy to deport me to hell knows where if they thought they could get away with it. The thought of jack boots at my door makes me nervous enough to want to speak out about it, hopefully before it gets to the point where we see disagreeable people being rounded up and locked up inside concentration camps - something the Canadian government has done not very long ago.<br /> <br /> <blockquote>Explain to me how a Judge's decision to keep a Russian Spy's name confidential violates our rights in any way.</blockquote><br /> <br /> How do you know the man in question was a Russian spy? By keeping his name and other evidence (in this case all the evidence) a secret we have no way of figuring out if the man is a spy or something else. The government is supposed to work for us, and that means the government must be left fully open to scrutiny. Despots prefer to remain hidden from view, and they prefer to declare their opposition as criminals rather than have to prove it. There's no appeal process either with a security certificate deportation ruling.<br /> <br /> <blockquote>You do realize, of course, the only outcome of a 'certificate' trial is 'deportation', not 'gas chambers'.</blockquote><br /> <br /> Deportation to where? You know about the torture flights that have passed through Canada. We have no idea what happens to these people after they leave Canada.<br /> <br /> <blockquote>When the ad hominems start - debate is over.</blockquote><br /> <br /> At no point have I ever resorted to ad hominem tactics. Have you forgotten what started this line of discussion? It was me pointing out that your logic has contradictions, and one of these contradictions is your agreement with secret trials which result in deportations, another is your agreement with certain lies that result in wars and loss of civil liberties. It would be most interesting to see your response had someone you agreed with been deported using secret evidence, or if a war was started using lies against a country you agreed with.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...">First they came...</a>

[Dr Caleb]

<blockquote><br /> <blockquote>Explain to me how my belief that the Certificate system, being flawed, is the best system we have for deporting 'dangerous' people like hate mongers and spies; validates you calling me a 'Despot'.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> That's easy to explain because with secret evidence we have no idea if the accused is guilty or not. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> We are not the judges. And it doesn't validate you calling me a Despot.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> The whole concept of a fair and open trial is abolished, and that's was despots subscribe to. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> So, when we protect the names of children charged with crimes, that is being a despot? Protecting this Russian's family back in Russia is being a Despot?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> The concept of deporting people who have commited no crimes but the government finds disagreeable for whatever reason is again something that despots subscribe to. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> So, you would allow people caught spying in Canada to stay?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> For example, I'm certain the government would find me rather disagreeable and would be happy to deport me to hell knows where if they thought they could get away with it. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Perhaps they would. But since you are a citizen of Canada, you cannot be held on a certificate. You have rights under the Constitution.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> The thought of jack boots at my door makes me nervous enough to want to speak out about it, hopefully before it gets to the point where we see disagreeable people being rounded up and locked up inside concentration camps - something the Canadian government has done not very long ago.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I agree, but when I hear hoofbeats, I don't expect to see Zebras. (although one guy an hours' drive away does raise Zebras . . .)<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote>Explain to me how a Judge's decision to keep a Russian Spy's name confidential violates our rights in any way.</blockquote><br /> <br /> How do you know the man in question was a Russian spy? <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I don't. But that evidence was never presented in court. He admitted to being a Russian citizen, and being in Canada on a false passport. He was deported, back to Russia.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> By keeping his name and other evidence (in this case all the evidence) a secret we have no way of figuring out if the man is a spy or something else. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Again, we are not the Judges in this case. And the only thing the Judge kept secret was the man's real name. Whether he's a spy or not - he's outta here!<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> The government is supposed to work for us, and that means the government must be left fully open to scrutiny. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I agree. But, it's the Justice system here that is not being fully open. And a government that is totally open to scrutiny is also a government that isn't fully protecting it's citizens. There has to be a balance.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Despots prefer to remain hidden from view, and they prefer to declare their opposition as criminals rather than have to prove it. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> So, why do we even know that this person, and others like him, have even been on trial?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> There's no appeal process either with a security certificate deportation ruling.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Nor should there be. If you are in a movie theater without a ticket, you are ejected. No appeal. If you are in my country on false pretenses, seeking to take advantage of my hospitality, you should be ejected from her swiftly and without remorse.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote>You do realize, of course, the only outcome of a 'certificate' trial is 'deportation', not 'gas chambers'.</blockquote><br /> <br /> Deportation to where? You know about the torture flights that have passed through Canada. We have no idea what happens to these people after they leave Canada.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> To their country of citizenship. If they had been put on a 'rendition flight', than I'm totally with you - the government should be forcibly removed from office.<br /> <br /> I'm sure there is a way to verify that this man was put on a plane back to mother Russia. But I'm also sure, if I showed you the ticket stub, you would believe it a forgery.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote>When the ad hominems start - debate is over.</blockquote><br /> <br /> At no point have I ever resorted to ad hominem tactics. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Let's see:<br /> <br /> "Oh right, I almost forgot, you've told me more than once that you don't agree with the concept of innocence until proven quilty."<br /> <br /> "Innocence always comes before quilt, unless you agree with despotism, which you do."<br /> <br /> Yep. Classsic 'attack the messenger', don't try to debate him when your opinions come into question. Nope, no ad hominem there.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Have you forgotten what started this line of discussion? It was me pointing out that your logic has contradictions, and one of these contradictions is your agreement with secret trials which result in deportations, another is your agreement with certain lies that result in wars and loss of civil liberties. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> My logic does not have contradictions. It contradicts with your 'all or nothing' approach. I can believe that men hijacked 4 planes with boxcutters, but still not believe a WTC 7 fell down due to 'heat stress'.<br /> <br /> Even after I show you things like UN resolutions that make the war in Afghanistan legal, you try to convince me it is illegal. Why should I continue to debate with you, when you have no interest in seeing my side of the debate?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> It would be most interesting to see your response had someone you agreed with been deported using secret evidence, or if a war was started using lies against a country you agreed with.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> That will be interesting. I'm sure in your view of the future, it is already happening, as we have always been at war. But nothing will change for me. If someone from, say, Iceland were to spy on Canada, I'd enjoy seeing him get the boot just as quickly as a Russian would.<br /> <br /> So, I still don't see where any Canadians rights have been violated by the Certificate system, and therefore see no reason to be called a 'Despot'.

[Diogenes]

<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> Hey Doc!<br /> You ARE getting bettter at this.<br /> <br /> True arguement is not always the truth and will lead there, eventualy.<br /> <br />

[rearguard]

<blockquote><br /> We are not the judges. And it doesn't validate you calling me a Despot.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Judges who hand down sentences based on evidence that cannot ever be challenged fit the definition of a despot, and those who agree with the approach do so only when it affects people who they disagree with.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> So, when we protect the names of children charged with crimes, that is being a despot? <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Your example has to do with the release of information to the public which is not at all what I've been talking about. <br /> <br /> I have been refering to the requirement that the accused be allowed to see all the evidence held against him, and to face his/her accusers so that a defense against the accusations can be made, there must also be an appeal process to deal with situations where a decision was improperly made. The security certificate process allows evidence to be held in secret, and allows the accusers to be kept secret as well. A defense cannot be raised against such a process and the accused may be found guilty before the trail even begins - an appeal is pointless under a system like this.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Protecting this Russian's family back in Russia is being a Despot?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> No, however the denial of a fair trial is. <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> So, you would allow people caught spying in Canada to stay?</blockquote><br /> <br /> I have no problem seeing non-citizens deported if they commit crimes and are found guilty of the offense through a fair trial.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Perhaps they would. But since you are a citizen of Canada, you cannot be held on a certificate. You have rights under the Constitution.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Prior to 1991, everyone on Canadian soil had rights under the Constitution, now they don't. At what point do we start speaking out against the creeping despotism? Do we wait until everyone has no right to a fair trial?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> I don't. But that evidence was never presented in court. He admitted to being a Russian citizen, and being in Canada on a false passport. He was deported, back to Russia.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Under the security certificate process, the accused may have no choice but to confess to whatever his captors tell him to say. The accused can be deported to anywhere esp when his identity is kept a secret. Being shipped of to a torture cell in any numer of countries is not impossible, and a person may be left to rot in a Canadian prison cell for many years, or even forever.<br /> <br /> In the case of the alleged Russian spy, the person in question may very well have been guilty, however that does not justify the use of the security certificate system, and the accused could have been brought before a normal court. The only valid reason for using the security certificate system is when there's not enough evidence against the accused for a normal conviction.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Again, we are not the Judges in this case. And the only thing the Judge kept secret was the man's real name. Whether he's a spy or not - he's outta here!<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> There was no trial and no evidence was presented because the man confessed while under the duress of a secret trial and the prospect of deportation to anywhere and/or spending years in a prison cell.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> I agree. But, it's the Justice system here that is not being fully open.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> The government runs the entire justice system, therefore the government is not being fully open with how they are convicting and sentencing certain individuals, and that should be of serious concern to anyone who opposes despotism.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> And a government that is totally open to scrutiny is also a government that isn't fully protecting it's citizens. There has to be a balance.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> In a truely free and open democracy, the government does not have citizens, instead the people have a government. A truely democratic government is not under any obligation to do anything other than what the people want it to do for them, therefore a government that claims it has citizens that it must protect is a government with despotic tendencies.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> So, why do we even know that this person, and others like him, have even been on trial?<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Show trials are for showing which is the reason why we know about them.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Nor should there be. If you are in a movie theater without a ticket, you are ejected. No appeal. <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> We're not talking about being kicked out of a movie theater, we're talking about people who are being placed inside prison cells and who are being deported based on secret evidence.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> If you are in my country on false pretenses, seeking to take advantage of my hospitality, you should be ejected from her swiftly and without remorse.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I agree, but first we need to see the accused found guilty of such offenses under the norms of law.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> If they had been put on a 'rendition flight', than I'm totally with you - the government should be forcibly removed from office.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> In the case of the alleged Russian spy, we have no idea who he was, so he could have been improperly deported. We also have no idea what fate awaited him once on Russian soil. Seems just like a rendition flight to me.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> "Oh right, I almost forgot, you've told me more than once that you don't agree with the concept of innocence until proven quilty."<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> You have said this before, and have done so again in your last response to me. I have taken the time to point this out in my responses above.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> "Innocence always comes before quilt, unless you agree with despotism, which you do."<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Have you not been defending the application of secret trials in the case of security certificates?<br /> <br /> Secret trials offer no opportunity of a defense, therefore under a secret trial you are always guilty unless first assumed innocent. <br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Yep. Classsic 'attack the messenger', don't try to debate him when your opinions come into question. Nope, no ad hominem there.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I fail to see how I'm attacking the messenger, or using ad hominem tactics. I'm pointing out the flawed logic applied by you as you defend certain things which I'm opposed to, such as the application of secret trials.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> My logic does not have contradictions. It contradicts with your 'all or nothing' approach. I can believe that men hijacked 4 planes with boxcutters, but still not believe a WTC 7 fell down due to 'heat stress'.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Fine, however I'll point out that you are selectively deciding which lies are truths to suit whatever agenda you may have.<br /> <br /> If a witness to a crime is caught lying under oath, the entire credibility of witness is put into doubt when there's no hard evidence to back up what the witness is saying. <br /> <br /> In the case with 9/11, the US government has been caught lying over more than just how the WTC buildings fell down, but has also destroyed critical evidence which could have answered that question, has failed to launch a criminal investigation into the matter and has actively resisted doing so, has started at least two wars using 9/11 as the excuse and in the case of Iraq lied about Saddam's WMD, has drastically reduced freedoms and civil liberties using 9/11 as the excuse, has failed to present convincing proof of who commited the 9/11 crimes, and has continued to lie to this day about 9/11 and the wars it has launched.<br /> <br /> Canada has sent troops into Afghanistan using the exact same set of lies that the US gov used.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Even after I show you things like UN resolutions that make the war in Afghanistan legal, you try to convince me it is illegal. Why should I continue to debate with you, when you have no interest in seeing my side of the debate?</blockquote><br /> <br /> I have more than once seen your side of the debate, however I don't agree with it which is my right. You have the right to claim that your evidence of legality is irrefutable, however that's obviously not the way I see it which is why I've made counter arguments.<br /> <br /> I may as well take the opportunity to point out that if this were a debate under a security certificate and you were the Judge, I could very well be banished from the debate without any justification at all. I don't think you'd would agree with doing something like that, but under such a system another Judge may think otherwise. Perhaps that's why I see a contradiction and you don't?<br /> <br /> If I can take the debate back to the topic about "Holocaust denial", I'll point out that if I were a German citizen, and if I questioned the official version of the Holocaust by stating that I did not think that (for example) gas chambers existed, then I could be arrested under a secutity certificate, found guilty of being "dangerous" under secret evidence, and deported to Germany to face the crime of questing what can only be described as government protected dogma.<br /> <br /> What I describe above relates back to what despots tend to do - it's wrong and should be opposed no matter if the people being prosecuted (or persecuted) are highly disliked, are wrong, or perhaps off balance.<br />