SkyDekker

I completely agree

Whcih was the right decision to make. How could Canada punish him for something he has already stood trial for in the US? Nice rant. And when the first such conviction happens in that scenario I will be the first to stand there with you and disagree with it. In the mean time you may want to pick up a canadian paper: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061027.wamnesty27/BNStory/National/home They are very soft on them indeed very politically correct to

Which is understandable, though in this case they aren't the Queen's aeroplanes.

Or they might be fighting cause somebody invaded their country? But that is another discussion. I am fine with not covering them under the Geneva Convention. But then you should treat them as criminals and provide due process (and again no torturing either).

They do seem to be coming back, agian and again, so I am not convinced that is really working.

So there should be no laws or rules governing conduct and the US in its sole discretion gets to decide who are terrorists? Interesting

Like is happening in Iraq? I understand your statement, it has been a rallying cry for the US military for a long time. It doesn't seem to be holding up in Iraq though. But then, I am not sure what kind of "blowback" they would be feeling. They had nothing to do with 9/11 to begin with. Maybe the US is actually feeling the "blowback" of invading a country for ego and financial gain?

Exactly it should be compared to murders and rapes.

Certainly wasn't saying I agreed with it in that case. Just showing that it has been used as a defence already.

Not if done in a test tube and not inserted into the womb

See, but he hasn't refused to do anything. he still does it, cause as a soldier he is required to do so. he doesn't agree with it and is using the required system in place to try and change it (while continuing to perform his duties as required). There is a system in place to hear his concerns. So far he is following it completely (while continuing to serve his duty) and really isn't getting anywhere. I have this feeling his civil suit will not be decided in his favour and life will go on as normal. I actually find it commendable that he continues to serve his country as required, yet tries to change something he doesn't feel is right through the proper channels.

Which means you punish his family as well as him. I don't think that is usually done. Only for the duration of his probation, since he asked to serve it in Canada with his family. he would normally not be allowed to get back into the US due to his sex offender status, so the judge had to make some type of ruling to let him back in. Which was exactly what the judge faced. And you never really answered what you would have done if you had been the judge. It would be interesting to see what you would come up with. I thought it was actually relatively well done. He pleaded guilty to a minor sex offence. He is not at a high risk to re-offend at all. US Society was well served by the sentence. The family of the girl agreed. This guy gets punished, yet is family doesn't get unduly punished any further. I don't see any risk for Canadian society, nor did he do anything wrong here. I understand that it is a great opportunity for politicians to flap their mouths, but there really isn't a big issue. In my eyes it isn't even a minor issue.

But, what do you do in this case? The sentence is parole. Normally with a sex offender status he could not cross the border. hence, you either make him homeless since he can't return to Canada. Or you allow him to return to Canada, but then he can't come back to report to his parole officer. It is a very interesting situation and really has nothing to do with sending your criminals here. That is a nice sensationalized media "slogan", but really doesn't have anything to do with teh case. How would you have dealt with it if you were judge?

I believe somebody recently got acquitted from a rape charge due to a sexsomniac defence. yup, I knew I remembered something like that: here

and the answer probably lies in a combination of a and b.

I agree, and would certainly vote in favour of abolishing the monarchy in Canada.

My understanding is that what was also taken into considerations was the level of sex offender status. At a certain level he would not be allowed to cross the border into Canada anymore. Since his wife and kids live there, that was seen as advisable, is my understanding.

Just that one includes an imaginary friend.

Him, Him, Him. Fuck Him! Please

His allegiance should be to Canada. personally I don't see the use of teh Queen for canada anyways. She just costs us a fucking fortune. I understand your point, but I can also see his side.

Nice rant, I voted for Harper though. If he has broken a law in Canada, then he should be prosecuted for that. Justice is best decided without heavy emotions attached. based on your rants on this thread, you seem to be unable to do that. LIEberal is new for me. You get bonus points for ingenuity, sadly they are deducted for lack of substance in that last post.

No it isn't, it isn't at all. From all accounts I can find though, it was consensual. To immediately rate him similar to a rapist is not fair in my book. I can understand the decision that was made by the judge. I think it has been completely blown out of proportion. The girl's family is okay with the deal. The guy's wife and children are okay with the deal. He is a Canadian citizen. he is not registered as a level 3 (I believe) sex offender in the US. I don't understand the big hoopla. It's not as if this guy can all of a sudden start working as a teacher in Ontario either.

I wonder what they arrested him for in Canada? One more thing: He was convicted of kissing a girl and touching her breast outside of her clothing. If it was a woman of the same age kising a boy and touching his chest over his clothes, this would hardly even get prosecuted. Let's keep a little bit of perspective here...

True. Though in this case, something happened that could affect homeland security as the phrase was coined by the president during the announcement of the creation of the Office of Homeland Security during a address to a joint session of congress and the american public. Though it was clear that DHS was not responsible for this partical incident. Nobody said that they were.... It is amazing how people jump to the rescue of something that isn't even being attacked....Pavlov anyone?

nah, I rather have that happen than people intentionally misleading and manipulating public opinion, using fear, for ego and financial gain. Both though are completely off topic.