aphid

I look forward to replies to your questions. I will learn something. (I should elaborate. That is NOT sarcasm. I really do look forward to learning) If I might add, does it apply to agents of the US abroad? (military, government, intelligence services, contractors, etc) Are foreign bases considered part of the country? Again, I only can speak from what I see in the media and my limited education, but isn't Guantanamo legitimately US territory? To me it is just a question of law; international, military, civil or Constitutional and the order of precedence. Unless some are the same?

Fair enough. (I try to keep my posts short and concise, perhaps not elaborating sufficiently in the interest of bandwidth) There is representation by counsel in a military tribunal, and yes, there is a jury of military personnel in that court, and they adjudicate military law, which, while differing from civilian law, still must fall within the constraints of the Constitution. I think. But, again, what I don't understand is, why should a civilian be tried by a military court? Not just in your country, but in any first-world democracy. Seriously, I'm not here to start a fight. I just thought that most Americans (incidentally, I'm married to one for going-on 33 years), are raised fervently believing in the Constitution and a country of Law, and would support trial of this person in a civilian court. If you don't, no problem, I stand corrected.

Of course, it is your national prerogative to reduce or even stop your funding to the UN. You are equally within your rights to quit NATO. You are also within your rights to ignore international conventions of law, trade, and commerce. If you don't want to be part of the UN, elect a government that will stop-payment on your portion of funding, quit, and kick them off your soil. Speaking only for me, I'd be okay with that. The sun will rise tomorrow, and the world will continue on, with or without the participation of your country as a member-state. Sadly though, if that is to become the case, we will never again have the opportunity to listen to people like your president Kennedy who addressed the General Assembly with "Within the limits of our responsibility in such matters, my country intends to be a participant and not merely an observer, in the peaceful, expeditious movement of nations from the status of colonies to the partnership of equals."

They are not working for Sri Lanka. they work for Canada in support of a UN mandate. If you have the time, you might wish to read how Canadian civilian courts and our military deals with that type of issue. http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Canadian+soldier+sentenced+battlefield+mercy+killing/3623948/story.html or perhaps, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5grkOd6AeqBKmIemh5sBvVrHhCOcg?docId=CNG.fa9dcef090528602cc801ded244e1fad.251 or maybe just one more, this one just a bit more distant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia_Affair Can you please explain how somebody serving Sri Lanka and posted to New York causes you to disrespect the entire body of other countries. Shouldn't you direct your contempt to Sri Lanka if you feel that strongly?

I understand and sympathize with your anger. But terrorism by it's nature is civilian oriented. The terrorists are civilians, and usually the targets are civilians. For example, McVeigh, the UniBomber, Baader-Meinhof... in my recollection, none were tried by military tribunal. And it's just my personal opinion, but I trust a jury of my peers with representation by counsel more than a military tribunal.

Thanks. I'll be sure to mention that to the families of the deceased Canadian soldiers serving under the UN ISAF mandate in Afghanistan.

Isn't it a verdict delivered by a group of your (collectively - not specifically "your") peers? I thought that was a pillar of the US constitutional democracy, but I could be mistaken.

So, Sri Lanka appoints him to serve in their diplomatic mission, and this makes the United Nations responsible, how?

Dead-sticked my 210 twice now. Not much different than a Blanik, or, dare I say it, a parachute. John

You have some difficult choices tomorrow. I wish you clarity of mind and purpose as you cast your ballots. I am a foreigner, but if you don't mind, I'd like to offer my perspective on just one issue that you will be dealing with tomorrow. I don’t use it. I don’t grow it. I don’t sell it. I don’t profit by it. But, I urge ALL my American friends to VOTE YES on the specific propositions on their state ballots on Tuesday. The half-dozen people who truly know me already understand my opinion. Those who don’t might be surprised. Read on if you’d like to know why I support this. Don’t read any further if you don’t care. My province is heralded worldwide for the quality of the buzz of “BC Bud”. It is reported the illegal grow-ops that thrive here generate up to $7 billion (yes, that’s a “B” billion) annually in unreported income. These earnings are not reported or taxed. Many growers drive 6-figure automobiles, roar around the lakes in 6-figure boats, live in 7-figure homes, and yes, some even fly 7-figure aircraft. All without contributing one goddamned penny to the taxation-funded infrastructure of our society, although they happily avail themselves of every one of those services. And they sure as hell don’t voluntarily donate to noble causes because an income-tax receipt does them absolutely no good. Where there is prohibition, the absolute garbage of society moves in to profiteer. Biker and ethnic gangs rule the distribution of this product in my country. They battle for market domination, visiting violence on each other. I could give a runny shit about them as they kill each other. But their violence often impacts (relatively) innocent victims. “Darryl Plecas, criminology professor at the University of Fraser Valley and director of the Centre for Criminal Justice Research, predicts that decriminalizing pot in California will have a significant economic impact on the illegal trade of B.C. bud — and will weaken organized crime groups.” http://www.theprovince.com/news/industry+could+smoke+with+California+vote/3752470/story.html#ixzz140F82oWw And it’s not just Canada. Try this on for size... “Policy analysts from the RAND Corporation estimate the price of street marijuana could fall as much as eighty percent if California’s measure passes. The resulting plummet would force the cartels to reassess the viability of their international marijuana operations. The legalization of marijuana could... provide a significant reduction of power for the Mexican cartels.” http://www.gossipjackal.com/huh/2010/07/18/legalized-marijuana-a-legitimate-rival-to-mexican-cartels/ With all this unreported cash, how do you launder it? It’s quite simple really. Buy a legitimate service-oriented business that is based largely on cash sales. Here are some quick examples... you may never look at your neighbourhood quite the same way again: car wash, coin-op laundry, pay-day lenders, restaurant, pub or bar, and yes, even a drop-zone. Don’t believe me? Try googling “(BOP) Register # 95870-024” Prohibition also creates a criminal where none truly exists. Canada decriminalized modest possession decades ago. But, with the warmest (sarcasm fully intended) regards to Nancy Reagan and her “Just Say No” bullshit, hundreds of thousands of law-abiding tax-paying Canadians are not allowed to vacation in any US state or territory, denied at the Point of Entry by oh-so-intelligent Customs and Border Protection officers. Even though the misdemeanour charge may have been levied 25 years or more ago. (On the upside though, Canada does have a thriving charter air-carrier industry flying these Canadians non-stop to warm holidays south of the USA) Some might defend prohibition suggesting users could be encouraged to graduate to harder, addictive and ultimately more harmful illicit drugs. There will be addicts always. Tobacco, alcohol, gambling or internet porn, it matters not. If a goodly portion of a useless group from society would rather “check out”, just think of the employment opportunities left for the straight folks. Again, I could give a rat’s-ass if the meth-heads want to move to the islands, weave wicker baskets and contemplate faeries in the embers of their bonfires. Thank you for your patience if you've read this far. John

I look forward to a formal assessment of his mind. If he is a sociopath, I suppose he could be able to disguise his second life. No question, the more I see coming from his sentencing hearing, he truly is a disgusting f**k. John

So I've been told.

Just thinking out loud, not directed at anybody specifically... In a fundamental sense, I see two distinct issues that IMO create the problem along your southern border and the massive illegal-immigration and associated ills you suffer because of it. 1) Drug-traffickers: If, somehow, the appetite in North America (my country included) for illicit drugs could be reduced or magically eliminated, trafficking would cease. That is not to say the drug-consuming citizens are to blame, but I do think it contributes incredibly to the problem. My own province has an international reputation for growing BC Bud, and it really does sicken me to see the participation of organized crime groups and gangs of thugs profiting here. 2) Illegals: If we, in North America, reduced our appetite for cheap labour, for labour that we can hide from Worker's Compensation legislation, labour that doesn't cost us the employer contributions to Revenue Canada, (CDN examples, I don't know the applicable US rules), then there would be much fewer jobs available to them. I do believe most actually come to work and better their lives. Without the possibility of work, I think fewer would be inclined to enter the country. I don't have any answers, although there was a refreshing thread elsewhere here with some interesting thoughts proposing some alternative ideas. John

Could a similar opinion also apply to, say, UAV drone attacks or incursions inside Pakistan?

Hell Rich, I'm not even Amereekan and I got it. John

And the banner ads on the right are for skyride? Just have to admire their tenacity.

Thanks for the explanation. I have in-laws at Pt Townsend and I've seen F-18's in the air often enough I just assumed they were more common at Whidbey. John

When it comes to military stuff, I'm not informed. What does that mean? Thanks

Odd. Why scramble National Guard aircraft form Portland, when a perfectly good and active Naval Air Station is 3 minutes north at Whidby Island? Am I missing something?

You mean I'll have to jump out of just a Grand Caravan this weekend?? Damned straight you will. Thanks Jeff for the annual "loaner" :) John

If these are reposts, my apology. In light of the current apoplexy over Immigration issues, I thought these were amusing, and not so far removed. (I especially enjoyed Episode 6) John (Episode 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd-J5unBnS0&feature=related (Episode 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUwy9Xcc7Bo&NR=1 (Episode 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUvhMtX0IGI&feature=channel (Episode 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-zcjMWa7wE&feature=channel (Episode 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tnQ3d5zLdI&feature=channel (Episode 6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vax2UWP79dU&feature=channel (Episode 7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9POWiXWY2lU&feature=related BTW: it's satire.

My contribution for your evaluation John

Don't interject logic - you could be banned. I have been told by farmers I know (but I have no independent confirmation, so perhaps an AZ expert could), that in the State of Arizona, minimum wage legislation is waived for agricultural employees and also service staff (waiters/waitresses).

Only because this seems to have been directed to me... (my initial questions have already been addressed) I believe I just said (for whatever reason) a snowbird is asked to prove they are in the country legally. My questions were simply about the practical application of the law. The scenario included the presumption of no profiling by the officers. The scenario made no such accusations. For the record, from my experience most law enforcement officers are not corrupt. Before the thread drifted to the dark vs light debate, I think it was concluded that in the State of Arizona, Canadians should now be encouraged to carry their passports at all times in the event that they are legitimately requested by an officer to prove their status. I only hope that the AZ officers become familiar with the visa-exempt status of vacationing Canadians, and the 6 month allowance. John

Perhaps maybe Nancy "just say no" Reagan was wrong? I am not an advocate, but legalize it and just perhaps: 1) finance your national debt through refreshing new taxation, 2) reduced profits de-motivating organized crime involvement, 3) reduced burden on law enforcement and the judiciary, 4) reduced expensive penal custody. Just saying... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126806429