All countries play politics at the border. Britain barred Geert Wilders from entry for no legitimate reason, just because it thought that he would stir up trouble. Canada barred William Ayers from entry for no legitimate reason either, not even because it was afraid of him but bizarrely just to pander to the US election. And the Bush Administration barred the Canadian Maher Arar from entry for the worst reason of all: because they couldn’t admit that they had him kidnapped at Kennedy Airport and tortured in Syria.
All of these actions are unwarranted at best and outrageous and shameful at worst. But that does not mean that any of these countries have somehow died or lost a war. It does mean that they should apologize and use better judgment the next time.
Jim?
Exactly what did Geert Wilders blow up, please?
Jim,
I like you because you are glass half full type of guy (as long as it is not a Bush glass)
Exactly what did Geert Wilders blow up, please?
There is no tangible evidence or allegation that Maher Arar blew anything up either. And it is one thing to be turned back at the airport; it is quite another to be kidnapped at the airport and then tortured for months in a country like Syria.
Yes, unlike the other two Ayers blew up some things some decades back. But he’s hardly alone in having a dangerous past. For example, Michael Yon killed a man in a bar fight in 1983. Canada would do itself a disservice to second-guess American justice in the case of Yon or Ayers or any other such person. I admit that legally they can bar whoever they want to, but it’s false and counterproductive for them to pass moral judgment on every visitor, as if their border were the Pearly Gates. No, the right question is whether the visitor is a current threat. And again, a threat should mean someone planning to commit crimes in the host country, not someone like Maher Arar who might expose the government’s crimes.
I like you because you are glass half full type of guy
Thanks, George, I’d like to think so. But to the extent that I truly have an even temperament, it isn’t by nature; I have only learned the hard way.
Anyway, yes, I can’t accept all of this Chicken Little talk about the defeat of Britain, the end of Europe, or the death of our Republic. Yes, Britain, the rest of Europe, Canada, and America all face some serious challenges. But they are still successful nations and great places to live.
I’m betting that Jim doesn’t think that Britain, Europe or our Republic are being defeated because he sees where they are going to be exactly where he wants them to go.
Jim,
I have a question. Do you know the difference between a circle and a square or are they indistinguishable to you because they both share the symmetry of a dihedral group with 8 elements? Would you regard a person who cannot tell the difference between a circle and a square as deeply insightful or mentally retarded?
This rhetorical device – that you often use – of creating an equivalence between cases which are clearly different does not make you seem as intelligent as you might think.
Not by destroying buildings and subjugating the British people — but by destroying our values and subjugating our freedoms.
Uh, don’t blame the Islamists for that, it was a self inflicted wound.
Canada barred William Ayers from entry for no legitimate reason either, not even because it was afraid of him but bizarrely just to pander to the US election.
Funny, I thought Ayers was barred from entering Canada after our election.
Jim,
You are a pile. Comparing Yon and Ayers is so far beyond the pale I’m glad I don’t know you personally. One fought to defend our country the other was willing to kill to destroy it. Your moral equivalence is disgusting.
“Comparing Yon and Ayers is so far beyond the pale I’m glad I don’t know you personally.”
Moral equivalence is an ugly cancer on the human soul. It eats at the root of integrity, destroying it from within.
“Jim,
I like you because you are glass half full type of guy (as long as it is not a Bush glass)”
The question is full of what?
This rhetorical device – that you often use – of creating an equivalence between cases which are clearly different
The case of Geert Wilders is clearly not equivalent to that of Maher Arar. Wilders wasn’t tortured. The fact remains that the border patrol plays politics in many countries, not just in the UK, and it’s generally a bad thing.
Funny, I thought Ayers was barred from entering Canada after our election.
That’s right, McGehee. I’m not saying that the Canadians tried to influence the election — indeed, they would probably be reluctant to do that. Rather, the election clearly caught their attention and they decided to act like some of the campaign propaganda was logical. That does happen from time to time and it is generally after elections.
Comparing Yon and Ayers is so far beyond the pale
Sure, Bill, there are differences. For one, Ayers never killed anybody. Sure, Yon is a veteran and that’s fabulous, but when he killed that guy in Maryland he wasn’t fighting to defend anyone other than, at the most, himself. Being a veteran isn’t any special moral absolution. If you robbed a bank, you can’t say that it’s not so bad because you’re a veteran.
Again, the fact remains that it isn’t appropriate for the Canadian border patrol to second-guess American justice. They dropped the charges against both Yon and Ayers and Canada shouldn’t slam the door on anyone in that position just because it may wish otherwise.
Ayers never killed anybody.
No, he only built bombs with that intent.
Don’t feed the troll, folks.
Somehow, Rand, you’ve gotten to the point of reasoning that intent is worse than the actual deed.
Some Homicide is justified Jim. The Apparently, Yon’s was since his charges were dropped.
The so-called ‘Deed’s’ aren’t the same.
“Witnesses said the dead man had been the aggressor. Second-degree murder charges were reduced, then dropped, months later.”
Some Homicide is justified Jim. The Apparently, Yon’s was since his charges were dropped.
The charges were dropped, therefore it was justified? That logic just doesn’t work, Mike, because Ayers’ charges were also dropped. No, dropped charges don’t prove that you’re innocent of anything; they only mean that the government chose not to prosecute.
But again, my whole point is that a nation’s border patrol shouldn’t pass judgment just on the basis of unproven charges.
because Ayers’ charges were also dropped
Followed by the words “Guilty as hell, free as a bird.”
You defend interesting people, Jim.
Yes, intent to deliberately murder dozens or hundreds of innocent people is in fact worse than killing someone in a bar fight without intent. Not that we would expect a vile moral midget to understand that.
I think Jim watches too much Bridges TV.
You ready for that moral chemo-therapy yet Jim?
There is a difference between dropping charges because you cannot build a case and because you do not have a case.
The prosecutor had ALL the evidence in the Yon incident. ALL of it and the charges were dropped.
“The charges were dropped, therefore it was justified? That logic just doesn’t work, Mike, because Ayers’ charges were also dropped. ”
No, the charges were dropped because Yon acted in self-defense. Try thinking out of that moral coffin you slumber within.
I suppose next that pimple on top of your neck will tell us Ayers acted in self-defense too.
I’m not saying that the Canadians tried to influence the election — indeed, they would probably be reluctant to do that. Rather, the election clearly caught their attention and they decided to act like some of the campaign propaganda was logical. That does happen from time to time and it is generally after elections.
Right. They did it for purely political reasons knowing it might offend the new incoming president, rather than because they actually thought Ayers might be dangerous.
You’re a riot and a half, Jimbo. Delusional as hell but that’s what makes you funny.
Hey Jim, since you want to defend intent, what exactly is Ayers going to use exposives for, rooting up errant garden gnomes?
We know as a fact how he feels about this country and we know he’s made threats and we know he hs built explosive devices…what is required for youto make the leap of logic that this is not a very nice man to have cross your borders?
Yes, intent to deliberately murder dozens or hundreds of innocent people is in fact worse than killing someone in a bar fight without intent.
See, the beauty of intent is that you can always portray it to suit yourself. Whereas a dead body is a stubborn fact.
You have convinced yourself that Ayers tried to kill hundreds of people. But that’s not what was he was charged with. Meanwhile a grand jury convinced itself that Yon either acted in self-defense or killed the guy accidentally. But the Maryland police saw it differently, and the Canadian border patrol has the right to agree with them (although I think it would be overstepping).
They did it for purely political reasons knowing it might offend the new incoming president, rather than because they actually thought Ayers might be dangerous.
I’m sure that they convinced themselves that Ayers is dangerous, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t political. If you’re a conservative, it’s become politically convenient to think that he’s dangerous. He’s been to Canada before; they didn’t think that he was dangerous then.
As for offending Obama, or at least trying to, lots of people don’t mind doing that. You don’t mind it and Rand doesn’t mind it, and you shouldn’t think that you two wear a special badge of courage for that.
“You have convinced yourself that Ayers tried to kill hundreds of people. But that’s not what was he was charged with. Meanwhile a grand jury convinced itself that Yon either acted in self-defense or killed the guy accidentally. But the Maryland police saw it differently,”
Actual witnesses saw it otherwise. That is why Yon is free.
And the Maryland police did not charge Yon, they detained him, not unusual after a death in a bar. The prosecutor, who later dropped the charges did.
Not only that, Yon was allowed to remain in the Army which means his chain of command and the Army JAG Corps thought him innocent as well.
Unlike Ayers, Yon was throughly vetted.
So Jim — does that mean dissent is still patriotic?
Yes, Mike, Yon says that there were witnesses who called it self-defense. But there is much missing from his story, even though he published it in a book, beginning with the name of the guy that he killed. At least it is absent from the first chapter.
Not only that, Yon was allowed to remain in the Army which means his chain of command and the Army JAG Corps thought him innocent as well.
Just because you’re allowed to stay in the Army, that does not mean that the Army thinks that you’re innocent. Sometimes the Army doesn’t care, as long as you don’t have a felony conviction. Or even if you do have a felony conviction — they have granted an increasing number of waivers lately.
So Jim — does that mean dissent is still patriotic?
That was never my slogan and I would say that it is an oversimplification. It’s not especially patriotic if you dissent just for the sake of dissenting. But if you dissent for a good reason, yes that’s always patriotic.
“Just because you’re allowed to stay in the Army, that does not mean that the Army thinks that you’re innocent. Sometimes the Army doesn’t care, as long as you don’t have a felony conviction. Or even if you do have a felony conviction — they have granted an increasing number of waivers lately.”
They granted a helluva lot fewer in 1983.
Look, Jim. I actually was in the Army and I can tell you if command had suspected he had comitted a murder, he would have been gone in the bink of an eye. I have seen others gone for much, much less.
Please do not attempt to impose your characateured, fun-house mirror image of todays military onto the actual one of 25 years ago.
So Jim Harris, if you kill someone in self-defense, that means you’re just as bad as someone who deliberately planned to murder hundreds of unwitting people, and smugly bragged about getting off scot-free because of a technicality? Or are you saying you have inside knowledge no one else has that 1) Yon actually killed the guy in the bar deliberately and the charges were dropped wrongfully, and 2) that Ayers really is innocent of all the terroristic activity he has actually boasted about being involved in?
If I had real money I’d bet right now that he’ll ignore what I just wrote, not answer me, or repeat his previous distortions and fantasies.
So Jim Harris, if you kill someone in self-defense, that means you’re just as bad as someone who deliberately planned to murder hundreds of unwitting people
If you kill someone and it is actually self-defense, then it is not as bad as if you actually planned to murder hundreds of people. But no authority has positively established either one of these claims about either Yon or Ayers. All of it is speculation.
It would be one thing if Ayers made a public claim of trying to kill hundreds of people, or if that’s what the federal charges against him said. But that’s not what he said and it’s not what the charges said either. The part about mass murder is a creative interpretation.
Yes, Yon claims that he killed in self-defense. The first chapter of his book is problematic in support of that claim, but (at least according to Yon) he persuaded a grand jury. However, grand juries and trial juries can be wrong, and they can have ulterior motives. Again, it does not help that so much is left unpublished in Yon’s account.
No, I’m not saying that I have inside knowledge one way or the other. Neither does the Canadian border patrol. What I’m saying is that it’s not their business to speculate, any more than it is mine or yours. Technically they may have the legal right to turn people away for any reason or for no reason, but arbitrary bars to entry are a disservice to Canada, just like the UK’s decision to turn away Wilders is a disservice to the UK.
For the record, according Ayers, he was turned back because a Canadian agent falsely claimed that he had a felony conviction. For its part, the Canadian government said — actually the Canadian government has said nothing in defense of barring Ayers. It did not explain why he’s dangerous now, when he wasn’t dangerous the other dozen times he went to Canada. It claims that it can’t discuss the matter for privacy reasons, but that too is a head-scratcher. If they don’t explain why they turned him back, and if they also don’t explain how “privacy” prevents them from explaining it, then it’s just not honest government.
Jim said,
“The fact remains that the border patrol plays politics in many countries, not just in the UK, and it’s generally a bad thing.”
So the border patrol, of any country, makes their own rules? Interesting, I thought they followed the rules set down by the laws made by elected leaders of said countries.
I like your way better, easier to circumvent and bribe our way through if need be.
So the border patrol, of any country, makes their own rules?
Often they have far too much latitude under their laws, even in Western countries. Western countries are generally awake to their rights of their own citizens, but visitors are a different matter. Generally outright bribery is illegal, but even then border patrol agents are relatively more corrupt than other public officials, again for the usual reason that society has less sense that visitors have rights and deserve due process. There was a case last year in which a US immigration agent made a female immigrant repeatedly pay him with oral sex in order to be able to stay in the US. Since the agent had the power to brand her illegal, she had no way to complain to the authorities; eventually the case made it the newspapers.
But also in the cases of Maher Arar and Geert Wilders, and quite possibly William Ayers too, you have political meddling from on high. Some Joe Shmoe at the border has no reason to care whether Arar can visit the US from Canada or not. But the Bush Administration was afraid to let him visit because they previously kidnapped him at Kennedy Airport and had him tortured in Syria. Hopefully Obama will do something about this case.
Damn I knew I shoulda made that bet.
Jim says: Western countries are generally awake to their rights of their own citizens, but visitors are a different matter. Generally outright bribery is illegal, but even then border patrol agents are relatively more corrupt than other public officials, again for the usual reason that society has less sense that visitors have rights and deserve due process.
There’s the liberal line. Obviously since one border patrol agent does something wrong, no one else on the border has the personal responsibility to do their job. So, government has to step in and do it for them. Lovely.
> But no authority has positively established either one of these claims about either Yon or Ayers.
Jim “forgets” that the authorities can’t use certain evidence against Ayers because that would undercut his “not convicted, therefore didn’t do it” argument.
Frankly, “authorities positively established” doesn’t mean that much. Authorities haven’t positively established that a white car just sped past my house, but it did.
Authorities haven’t positively established that a white car just sped past my house, but it did.
Yeah, it seems Jim is using the lawyerly trick as to what is authoritative. A border agent has authority, but they don’t have the authority to determine guilt. But then, neither does a police officer or a prosecutor, and depending on the crime, a judge cannot determine guilt alone. So thus, no authority has found so and so innocent or guilty. That would require a full trial with a unanimous decision by a jury.
The fact is, the border agent had authority to turn Ayers away. That authority was granted to the agent by Canada’s government. If the border agent didn’t have the authority, then Ayers would have entered Canada.
All countries play politics at the border. Britain barred Geert Wilders from entry for no legitimate reason, just because it thought that he would stir up trouble. Canada barred William Ayers from entry for no legitimate reason either, not even because it was afraid of him but bizarrely just to pander to the US election. And the Bush Administration barred the Canadian Maher Arar from entry for the worst reason of all: because they couldn’t admit that they had him kidnapped at Kennedy Airport and tortured in Syria.
All of these actions are unwarranted at best and outrageous and shameful at worst. But that does not mean that any of these countries have somehow died or lost a war. It does mean that they should apologize and use better judgment the next time.
Jim?
Exactly what did Geert Wilders blow up, please?
Jim,
I like you because you are glass half full type of guy (as long as it is not a Bush glass)
Exactly what did Geert Wilders blow up, please?
There is no tangible evidence or allegation that Maher Arar blew anything up either. And it is one thing to be turned back at the airport; it is quite another to be kidnapped at the airport and then tortured for months in a country like Syria.
Yes, unlike the other two Ayers blew up some things some decades back. But he’s hardly alone in having a dangerous past. For example, Michael Yon killed a man in a bar fight in 1983. Canada would do itself a disservice to second-guess American justice in the case of Yon or Ayers or any other such person. I admit that legally they can bar whoever they want to, but it’s false and counterproductive for them to pass moral judgment on every visitor, as if their border were the Pearly Gates. No, the right question is whether the visitor is a current threat. And again, a threat should mean someone planning to commit crimes in the host country, not someone like Maher Arar who might expose the government’s crimes.
I like you because you are glass half full type of guy
Thanks, George, I’d like to think so. But to the extent that I truly have an even temperament, it isn’t by nature; I have only learned the hard way.
Anyway, yes, I can’t accept all of this Chicken Little talk about the defeat of Britain, the end of Europe, or the death of our Republic. Yes, Britain, the rest of Europe, Canada, and America all face some serious challenges. But they are still successful nations and great places to live.
I’m betting that Jim doesn’t think that Britain, Europe or our Republic are being defeated because he sees where they are going to be exactly where he wants them to go.
Jim,
I have a question. Do you know the difference between a circle and a square or are they indistinguishable to you because they both share the symmetry of a dihedral group with 8 elements? Would you regard a person who cannot tell the difference between a circle and a square as deeply insightful or mentally retarded?
This rhetorical device – that you often use – of creating an equivalence between cases which are clearly different does not make you seem as intelligent as you might think.
Not by destroying buildings and subjugating the British people — but by destroying our values and subjugating our freedoms.
Uh, don’t blame the Islamists for that, it was a self inflicted wound.
Funny, I thought Ayers was barred from entering Canada after our election.
Jim,
You are a pile. Comparing Yon and Ayers is so far beyond the pale I’m glad I don’t know you personally. One fought to defend our country the other was willing to kill to destroy it. Your moral equivalence is disgusting.
“Comparing Yon and Ayers is so far beyond the pale I’m glad I don’t know you personally.”
Moral equivalence is an ugly cancer on the human soul. It eats at the root of integrity, destroying it from within.
“Jim,
I like you because you are glass half full type of guy (as long as it is not a Bush glass)”
The question is full of what?
This rhetorical device – that you often use – of creating an equivalence between cases which are clearly different
The case of Geert Wilders is clearly not equivalent to that of Maher Arar. Wilders wasn’t tortured. The fact remains that the border patrol plays politics in many countries, not just in the UK, and it’s generally a bad thing.
Funny, I thought Ayers was barred from entering Canada after our election.
That’s right, McGehee. I’m not saying that the Canadians tried to influence the election — indeed, they would probably be reluctant to do that. Rather, the election clearly caught their attention and they decided to act like some of the campaign propaganda was logical. That does happen from time to time and it is generally after elections.
Comparing Yon and Ayers is so far beyond the pale
Sure, Bill, there are differences. For one, Ayers never killed anybody. Sure, Yon is a veteran and that’s fabulous, but when he killed that guy in Maryland he wasn’t fighting to defend anyone other than, at the most, himself. Being a veteran isn’t any special moral absolution. If you robbed a bank, you can’t say that it’s not so bad because you’re a veteran.
Again, the fact remains that it isn’t appropriate for the Canadian border patrol to second-guess American justice. They dropped the charges against both Yon and Ayers and Canada shouldn’t slam the door on anyone in that position just because it may wish otherwise.
Ayers never killed anybody.
No, he only built bombs with that intent.
Don’t feed the troll, folks.
Somehow, Rand, you’ve gotten to the point of reasoning that intent is worse than the actual deed.
Some Homicide is justified Jim. The Apparently, Yon’s was since his charges were dropped.
The so-called ‘Deed’s’ aren’t the same.
“Witnesses said the dead man had been the aggressor. Second-degree murder charges were reduced, then dropped, months later.”
Some Homicide is justified Jim. The Apparently, Yon’s was since his charges were dropped.
The charges were dropped, therefore it was justified? That logic just doesn’t work, Mike, because Ayers’ charges were also dropped. No, dropped charges don’t prove that you’re innocent of anything; they only mean that the government chose not to prosecute.
But again, my whole point is that a nation’s border patrol shouldn’t pass judgment just on the basis of unproven charges.
because Ayers’ charges were also dropped
Followed by the words “Guilty as hell, free as a bird.”
You defend interesting people, Jim.
Yes, intent to deliberately murder dozens or hundreds of innocent people is in fact worse than killing someone in a bar fight without intent. Not that we would expect a vile moral midget to understand that.
I think Jim watches too much Bridges TV.
You ready for that moral chemo-therapy yet Jim?
There is a difference between dropping charges because you cannot build a case and because you do not have a case.
The prosecutor had ALL the evidence in the Yon incident. ALL of it and the charges were dropped.
“The charges were dropped, therefore it was justified? That logic just doesn’t work, Mike, because Ayers’ charges were also dropped. ”
No, the charges were dropped because Yon acted in self-defense. Try thinking out of that moral coffin you slumber within.
I suppose next that pimple on top of your neck will tell us Ayers acted in self-defense too.
Right. They did it for purely political reasons knowing it might offend the new incoming president, rather than because they actually thought Ayers might be dangerous.
You’re a riot and a half, Jimbo. Delusional as hell but that’s what makes you funny.
Hey Jim, since you want to defend intent, what exactly is Ayers going to use exposives for, rooting up errant garden gnomes?
We know as a fact how he feels about this country and we know he’s made threats and we know he hs built explosive devices…what is required for youto make the leap of logic that this is not a very nice man to have cross your borders?
Yes, intent to deliberately murder dozens or hundreds of innocent people is in fact worse than killing someone in a bar fight without intent.
See, the beauty of intent is that you can always portray it to suit yourself. Whereas a dead body is a stubborn fact.
You have convinced yourself that Ayers tried to kill hundreds of people. But that’s not what was he was charged with. Meanwhile a grand jury convinced itself that Yon either acted in self-defense or killed the guy accidentally. But the Maryland police saw it differently, and the Canadian border patrol has the right to agree with them (although I think it would be overstepping).
They did it for purely political reasons knowing it might offend the new incoming president, rather than because they actually thought Ayers might be dangerous.
I’m sure that they convinced themselves that Ayers is dangerous, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t political. If you’re a conservative, it’s become politically convenient to think that he’s dangerous. He’s been to Canada before; they didn’t think that he was dangerous then.
As for offending Obama, or at least trying to, lots of people don’t mind doing that. You don’t mind it and Rand doesn’t mind it, and you shouldn’t think that you two wear a special badge of courage for that.
“You have convinced yourself that Ayers tried to kill hundreds of people. But that’s not what was he was charged with. Meanwhile a grand jury convinced itself that Yon either acted in self-defense or killed the guy accidentally. But the Maryland police saw it differently,”
Actual witnesses saw it otherwise. That is why Yon is free.
And the Maryland police did not charge Yon, they detained him, not unusual after a death in a bar. The prosecutor, who later dropped the charges did.
Not only that, Yon was allowed to remain in the Army which means his chain of command and the Army JAG Corps thought him innocent as well.
Unlike Ayers, Yon was throughly vetted.
So Jim — does that mean dissent is still patriotic?
Yes, Mike, Yon says that there were witnesses who called it self-defense. But there is much missing from his story, even though he published it in a book, beginning with the name of the guy that he killed. At least it is absent from the first chapter.
Not only that, Yon was allowed to remain in the Army which means his chain of command and the Army JAG Corps thought him innocent as well.
Just because you’re allowed to stay in the Army, that does not mean that the Army thinks that you’re innocent. Sometimes the Army doesn’t care, as long as you don’t have a felony conviction. Or even if you do have a felony conviction — they have granted an increasing number of waivers lately.
So Jim — does that mean dissent is still patriotic?
That was never my slogan and I would say that it is an oversimplification. It’s not especially patriotic if you dissent just for the sake of dissenting. But if you dissent for a good reason, yes that’s always patriotic.
“Just because you’re allowed to stay in the Army, that does not mean that the Army thinks that you’re innocent. Sometimes the Army doesn’t care, as long as you don’t have a felony conviction. Or even if you do have a felony conviction — they have granted an increasing number of waivers lately.”
They granted a helluva lot fewer in 1983.
Look, Jim. I actually was in the Army and I can tell you if command had suspected he had comitted a murder, he would have been gone in the bink of an eye. I have seen others gone for much, much less.
Please do not attempt to impose your characateured, fun-house mirror image of todays military onto the actual one of 25 years ago.
So Jim Harris, if you kill someone in self-defense, that means you’re just as bad as someone who deliberately planned to murder hundreds of unwitting people, and smugly bragged about getting off scot-free because of a technicality? Or are you saying you have inside knowledge no one else has that 1) Yon actually killed the guy in the bar deliberately and the charges were dropped wrongfully, and 2) that Ayers really is innocent of all the terroristic activity he has actually boasted about being involved in?
If I had real money I’d bet right now that he’ll ignore what I just wrote, not answer me, or repeat his previous distortions and fantasies.
So Jim Harris, if you kill someone in self-defense, that means you’re just as bad as someone who deliberately planned to murder hundreds of unwitting people
If you kill someone and it is actually self-defense, then it is not as bad as if you actually planned to murder hundreds of people. But no authority has positively established either one of these claims about either Yon or Ayers. All of it is speculation.
It would be one thing if Ayers made a public claim of trying to kill hundreds of people, or if that’s what the federal charges against him said. But that’s not what he said and it’s not what the charges said either. The part about mass murder is a creative interpretation.
Yes, Yon claims that he killed in self-defense. The first chapter of his book is problematic in support of that claim, but (at least according to Yon) he persuaded a grand jury. However, grand juries and trial juries can be wrong, and they can have ulterior motives. Again, it does not help that so much is left unpublished in Yon’s account.
No, I’m not saying that I have inside knowledge one way or the other. Neither does the Canadian border patrol. What I’m saying is that it’s not their business to speculate, any more than it is mine or yours. Technically they may have the legal right to turn people away for any reason or for no reason, but arbitrary bars to entry are a disservice to Canada, just like the UK’s decision to turn away Wilders is a disservice to the UK.
For the record, according Ayers, he was turned back because a Canadian agent falsely claimed that he had a felony conviction. For its part, the Canadian government said — actually the Canadian government has said nothing in defense of barring Ayers. It did not explain why he’s dangerous now, when he wasn’t dangerous the other dozen times he went to Canada. It claims that it can’t discuss the matter for privacy reasons, but that too is a head-scratcher. If they don’t explain why they turned him back, and if they also don’t explain how “privacy” prevents them from explaining it, then it’s just not honest government.
Jim said,
“The fact remains that the border patrol plays politics in many countries, not just in the UK, and it’s generally a bad thing.”
So the border patrol, of any country, makes their own rules? Interesting, I thought they followed the rules set down by the laws made by elected leaders of said countries.
I like your way better, easier to circumvent and bribe our way through if need be.
So the border patrol, of any country, makes their own rules?
Often they have far too much latitude under their laws, even in Western countries. Western countries are generally awake to their rights of their own citizens, but visitors are a different matter. Generally outright bribery is illegal, but even then border patrol agents are relatively more corrupt than other public officials, again for the usual reason that society has less sense that visitors have rights and deserve due process. There was a case last year in which a US immigration agent made a female immigrant repeatedly pay him with oral sex in order to be able to stay in the US. Since the agent had the power to brand her illegal, she had no way to complain to the authorities; eventually the case made it the newspapers.
But also in the cases of Maher Arar and Geert Wilders, and quite possibly William Ayers too, you have political meddling from on high. Some Joe Shmoe at the border has no reason to care whether Arar can visit the US from Canada or not. But the Bush Administration was afraid to let him visit because they previously kidnapped him at Kennedy Airport and had him tortured in Syria. Hopefully Obama will do something about this case.
Damn I knew I shoulda made that bet.
Jim says: Western countries are generally awake to their rights of their own citizens, but visitors are a different matter. Generally outright bribery is illegal, but even then border patrol agents are relatively more corrupt than other public officials, again for the usual reason that society has less sense that visitors have rights and deserve due process.
There’s the liberal line. Obviously since one border patrol agent does something wrong, no one else on the border has the personal responsibility to do their job. So, government has to step in and do it for them. Lovely.
> But no authority has positively established either one of these claims about either Yon or Ayers.
Jim “forgets” that the authorities can’t use certain evidence against Ayers because that would undercut his “not convicted, therefore didn’t do it” argument.
Frankly, “authorities positively established” doesn’t mean that much. Authorities haven’t positively established that a white car just sped past my house, but it did.
Authorities haven’t positively established that a white car just sped past my house, but it did.
Yeah, it seems Jim is using the lawyerly trick as to what is authoritative. A border agent has authority, but they don’t have the authority to determine guilt. But then, neither does a police officer or a prosecutor, and depending on the crime, a judge cannot determine guilt alone. So thus, no authority has found so and so innocent or guilty. That would require a full trial with a unanimous decision by a jury.
The fact is, the border agent had authority to turn Ayers away. That authority was granted to the agent by Canada’s government. If the border agent didn’t have the authority, then Ayers would have entered Canada.