Bill Ayers was turned back at the Canadian border. Boo hoo. I thought this was amusing:
The border guards reviewed some stuff and said I wasn’t going to be allowed into Canada. To me it seems quite bureaucratic and not at all interesting … If it were me I would have let me in. I couldn’t possibly be a threat to Canada.”
Yes, I’m sure that you would have let you in. Just as you let yourself build bombs, or radicalize schoolchildren. You may not have noticed, as some of the rest of us have, that you’re not all that discriminating about the sorts of things that you would let yourself do.
Is he a threat to Canada? Who knows? Who cares? He was a domestic terrorist who got off on a technicality. I’m not going to weep if he’s inconvenienced, either personally or academically. He’s led too charmed a life up to now.
When Obama releases all those Gitmo detainees, I wonder if Bill Ayers will give any of them a teacher’s assistant job…
Rand, you unpatriotic so-and-so! One of our free citizens, who is considered just as innocent of any crime as you (I presume), was discriminated against by a supposed ally. We should invade, or at least we should recall the ambassador to Ottawa! Harumph!
Why would you consider him innocent of a crime, Bob? He has essentially admitted to committing crimes. In fact, he’s proud of it.
We are a nation of laws, not men.
But we are not men if we do not stand up for our fellow citizen! And Canada has it coming. The shame of 1812 has gone unpunished for too long. And consider this: in 1859 the Canadians on San Juan island didn’t hesitate to threaten war with America over one of their pigs. Ayers may be a pig, but he is our pig!
For those of you not familiar with an important part of the long-simmering US-Canada conflict, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War for the other border dispute with Canada involving a pig.
We are a nation of laws, not men.
What is that supposed to mean?
Ayers may be a pig, but he is our pig!
Actually, in this case, as far as I’m concerned, the Canadians can have our pig. I’d rather he got stopped at the border coming back.
I hope it is obvious that I’m just kidding around, but I suppose it works like this: Say you proudly say that you committed a crime, and then the courts find you innocent of that crime (or dismisses the case, or otherwise fails to find you guilty of that crime). We might think you are nutty, but you’re still entitled to any diplomatic support that the US would give any of its citizens. I don’t know if the US protests when a US citizen is barred from entering another country, but if it does, I was suggesting that it should treat Ayers just like any other citizen. In particular, not being found guilty in a court case should be treated with respect, in order to uphold our legal process. The laws should matter, not the opinions, emotions, and ravings of men.
The government does treat Ayers as it treats any other citizen, despite the fact that he is an admitted and unrepentant terrorist, so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about, even in “kidding around.” Perhaps there are cases where the State Department has complained to Ottawa about US citizens being turned back at the border, but I’m not aware of any. I certainly won’t weep if they don’t do it for Bill Ayers.
I would hope that State is more concerned about who Canada sends across our borders than who they prevent crossing theirs from ours.
[Terrorist bomber Ayers] is considered just as innocent of any crime as you… We are a nation of laws, not men.
This from the man who claimed members of the Alaska Independence Party were guilty of treason. 🙂
“This from the man who claimed members of the Alaska Independence Party were guilty of treason. ”
So what does it mean to be called a traitor by one himself? Is Bob merely parsing a double-negative and therefor calling others patriots by his so-doing?
Touche! Can you have treasonous or traitorous opinions (which are legal, as all thoughts are legal) while not being guilty of the crime of treason?
Anyway, had the AIP actually tried to do anything treasonous, they would have probably would have been pardoned in the end, just as Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis were pardoned by Andrew Johnson. Today is a good day to think about presidential pardons!
Mike, what do you mean?
Anyway, had the AIP actually tried to do anything treasonous
That presumes that an action is “treasonous” simply because “Bob” disagrees with it.
By the way, why are you still “Bob”? You told us that name was a pseudonym to protect you from persecution for your political beliefs. Do you think you’re still going to be persecuted in the Obama Era?
Edward, if the AIP had become the majority party in Alaska and then passed a law declaring that Alaska had left the union, then yes, in some perhaps non-legal sense, the AIP would have been treasonous. Do you think that Jefferson Davis and the other leaders of the Confederate States of America were acting treasonous in any sense of the word? (They were not found guilty of the crime of treason, so that’s not the issue, and I think the term “treasonous” should only be considered here in a non-legal context, but that’s just a suggestion.) Also, just to shortcut any tedious arguments, I acknowledge that one generous interpretation of the AIP is that they only wanted a question put on the ballot, and that’s it.
As for screen names: I actually have explained here why I’m using a pseudonym, and it didn’t have anything to do with persecution! Since you asked, I’m happy to explain it again. I think my beliefs are more middle of the road than most of the people who post here, including Rand, and I have no fear of being persecuted, regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats are in office. I use a pseudonym here because I run a small business, and when people google my name, I’d like people to find my business and my business related internet activity. Google’s cache puts us all in a weird position. To explain: If I was at a picnic with any of you, I’d happily introduce myself and talk politics non-anonymously. The thing is, at a picinc, whatever I said couldn’t somehow hinder my customer’s ability to find my business or somehow break the strong association between my name and my business. Google’s cache actually has that effect. Of course, I could go the other way, and use each post I make here as a link to my website (as Rand’s blog software allows each commenter to do). But then I would be disassociating certain relevant keywords with my website. I hope that makes sense.
“Mike, what do you mean?”
Ask Ed. I bet he understands what I was saying.
Ayers was not found not guilty by a court. Key evidence was thrown out due to government procedural errors, and the government chose not to go ahead with the prosecution. Ayers later admitted — boasted, actually — that he was “guilty as hell”.
in some perhaps non-legal sense, the AIP would have been treasonous.
Some “non-legal sense.” Laugh.
In other words, a sense that you just made up. Thank you for that admission. 🙂
I think my beliefs are more middle of the road than most of the people who post here
Naturally. Everyone on the left thinks they are “middle of the road” while anyone who disagrees with them is a “right-wing extremist.” Even George W. Bush, who probably agreed with you on 98% of all issues.
I use a pseudonym here because I run a small business
Plenty of people run small businesses. If you think posts are “middle of the road,” why are you worried that they will harm your business?
You don’t believe that people who disagree with you have any right to privacy. You demanded that Sarah Palin turn over all her emails because there might be something you could use to drag her name through the gutter. You never asked your candidate to turn over his emails, and you want anonymity so your trash talk doesn’t affect your own business. You don’t see any contradiction there?
Edward, I think you have me mixed up with someone else,or your memory is otherwise faulty. I don’t think Bush is an extremist of any sort, and I didn’t make any such demands of Palin. (The issue revolved around why Palin insisted that her staff should not use her official email when conducting state business. There was never any question in my mind that she deserved complete privacy when her email did not involve state business.)
If there is ever a Transterrestiral Musings picnic, I’ll be sure to show up and introduce myself.
I’m not sure what Bob’s problem with Canada is. Canada is a sovereign nation, and they have the right to refuse entry to anyone they choose for whatever reason. It’s like this: say I have a friend whose ex-boyfriend beat her up, but who got off the charges on a technicality but later admitted that he had done the deed. Well, say he wants to come over to my place for some tea and sympathy. But I don’t want him in my house because he beat up my friend. No one has any right to compel me to let him in just because the court of law let him off on a technicality.
There, did that help any?
I was kidding around. You’re right Andrea, Canada is well within its rights. I’m not sure what the state dept position is. Our passports say “The Secretary of State of the United States Of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance….” but I’m not sure how sincerely that request is being made in cases like Ayers. I think, in principle, it should be, but only from a rule-of-law point of view. And of course Canada should be able to say no without fear of invasion by the USA! 🙂
Looking at the situation, it’s not clear to me why one would consider Mr. Ayers’ rights to be violated. Even though the US treats Ayers as innocent,he has claimed he committed terrorist acts in the US. It is legal for another country to deny Ayers entry into their country for those words alone.
I didn’t make any such demands of Palin. (The issue revolved around why Palin insisted that her staff should not use her official email when conducting state business.
Now you’re just plain fibbing. Palin did not “insist that her staff should not use her official email when conducting state business.” The difference between copying a few emails to a private account and forbidding staff to use official email for state business is obvious to any fair-minded person.
Why would care which email account someone used if you didn’t care about the contents?
Let me refresh your memory:
That said, to be ethical and principled, one should play by the rules, and observe their spirit as well their technicalities. Palin could certainly have lobbied to make all of her email to be private, regardless of email address. But if the rules stated that email containing state business needed to be public, she would be unprincipled to deliberately subvert those rules.
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/09/changing_the_ru.html
There was never any question in my mind that she deserved complete privacy when her email did not involve state business.
Artfully worded. So, Palin deserves privacy only for email that does not involve state business?
Again, those are not the same “rules” you apply to your party. Obama never turned over any emails, business or not, to his political opponents, nor did you accuse of him of being unprincipled or unethical because he hadn’t done so.
Bob, Bob, Bob (anybody remember the Bob Newhart Show?)
I understand your position. Any citizen of the US who has not been found guilty of a crime and had their rights revoked or diminished should be entitled to the same protection and assistance as any other citizen. In a perfect world this would work because all of the bad guys would be caught and incarcerated while the good guys enjoyed freedom and happiness. However, in the real world we start having problems with just the definition of bad guy.
Canada is not bound by our laws. If they don’t want to let somebody in they don’t have to, just as our government can select who can or can not enter the US. I applaud Canada for properly labeling Ayers for what he is but if we give them two pigs can they please take him?
When I consider Mr. Ayers, it occurs to me that Uday and Qusay were wasted on the wrong people.
If there is ever a Transterrestiral Musings picnic, I’ll be sure to show up and introduce myself.
Why wait? Introduce yourself now.
I, for example, live at 10040 Charlotte St in Kansas City, Missouri, and my home phone number is 816-943-0873.
I may be going way out on a limb here, but somehow I don’t think any pseudonymous trolls are going to show up on my doorstep to mess with me. Their cowardice is too ingrained.
You have to admit, though, the whole guilty until proven innocent actually happens quite a bit in real life.
For example, I live in Illinois – you may have heard that our governor had a few minor issues recently (well, too be honest that is not very specific – when was the last time we had a governor that didn’t end up in jail?).
By the letter of the law, there should have been no question about seating his pick of senators – he was not convicted, and so should have been presumed innocent…
Thankfully, the constitution is not a mutual death pact, and we (correctly) ignore it when necessary.
Blago wasn’t lawfully removed from office, therefore he retained all its vested powers.
We are a nation of laws, not men.
The original use of the phrase appears in article XXX (30) of the 1780 version of the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (the article remains unchanged to this day).
I believe it is credited to John Adams My interpretation is that in its most general use, it means that the rules of the US (not just of Massachusetts) are based on law not on whim. Maybe this phrase does apply to Ayers’ rejection from Canada, but I doubt it. Canada has the tribunal system which has resulted in the Human Rights tribunal among other things and blurs the distinction between the three branches of government present in (as far as I know) all US states as well as the US government itself.
Karl, the phrase “…laws not men” is also attributed to Marbury vs Madison. See http://www.google.com/search?&q=nation+of+laws+not+men+marbury Senator Burris was seated after his lawyers aptly appealed to Marbury, which makes the above reference to Blago particuarly appropriate. I believe Burris wouldn’t have been seated if Marbury hadn’t been invoked, but all I really know is that the Senate leadership and the pundits’ tone changed after the Marbury argument was made.
(And at the risk of being repetitous, the idea I was trying to express was only that Ayers was innocent under US law, even if he was guilty in the eyes of men (including Ayers himself). I wasn’t referring to Canadian laws or Ayers rights in Canada, although that’s clearly of interest to Ayer’s Canadian supporters. I was trying to humorously say that Canada’s rejection could be taken as a diplomatic affront, and that we should stand by our man, an idea I hoped Rand would find laughable!)
Canada has some what strict rules, certain misdemeanor drug and alcohol offenses from the US will keep you out. I suspect that Ayers got caught by that, and was told what the problem was. He is being dishonest with the press, and the press doesn’t care.
I think it maybe a pattern we’ll see again with other individuals.
Bob,
Not that it matters, but your original hypothetical concerned a hypothetical citiizen who had been found innocent, then boasted about committing the crime. Picky though it is…one is not found innocent, merely not guilty, and in Ayers case, neither finding was returned.
Jay,
I didn’t realize that you were in KC…I am on State Line, very near 435…howdy neighbor!
Scott
The US also bars people without a conviction.
Take the case of a prominent Canadian psychotherapist Andrew Feldmar. The guy is a Holocaust survivor, and later escaped from communist Hungary. He’s worked for the UN in Sarajevo and in Minsk with Chernobyl victims
He crossed the US border hundreds of times in his career. Then one day a border guard googled his work, and found an article in a medical journal describing his participation in the first LSD experiments 40 years earlier.
Lack of any conviction – his work was perfectly legal – did not enter into it. He was fingerprinted and permanently barred from entry to the US for “narcotics use”.