I thought canada was not as racist as USA.

This is perplexing news.

Canada has had a welcome mat out for terrorist groups for years. Canada was the number one source of funds for the Tamil Tigers, and don't forget the terrorist who tried to sneak into the U.S. with a car full of explosives on December 31, 1999, but was caught by an American border guard.

Now, will this not-guilty verdict elicit the same outrage as the photos of a couple of guys at Abu Gharib with panties around their head?

Uhh...because of this no one should be stupid enough to brand Canadians as a bunch of racists. Excuse me md, explain to me how a white judge finding two brown sikh people to not have commited the crime suddenly make Canada racist? I'm not sure if I follow your idiotic chain of thought when you do this.

Stand-up guy, that KXB, I was thinking. Hit the nail right on the head about Canada being soft on terrorism. Then you had to come out with this:

Now, will this not-guilty verdict elicit the same outrage as the photos of a couple of guys at Abu Gharib with panties around their head?

"We've got 26 homicides in custody so far."

Was there a bunch of trials that only you were privy to? Death in custody does not mean automatically mean homicide. If it did, then hospitals would be homicide central, since that is where a lot of people die. Iraq was never the healthiest nation to begin with. Probably fewer people died at Abu Gharib in a year than die in NY's Bellevue in a month.

Keep in mind, Abu Gharib was investigated by the military, well before Seymour Hersh wrote about it in The New Yorker. There have been some trials so far, and some convictions, and continuing investigations in other cases of abuse. All of this is taking less than the 20 years it took Canada to find the two chief suspects in the murder of 300+ people not guilty.

The My Lai comparison is a hoot. There, you had American soldiers take no one into custody, it was clearly a civilian area, and they torched it. In Abu Gharib, you have non-soldier combatants, who are being granted POW status even though they were not fighting in uniform for a recognized military - taken into custody, and yes - some were beaten severely. But there is no bloody way putting a hood over a guy's head, and having stand on a chair is a violation of human rights.

For all you Orwell fans, here's a choice quote, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

I get sick and tired of the all the logical reasoning based upon pointing out the exception to the case.

Lets put this in simple terms:

1) Abuse of power exists, however there is a difference between systemic abuse and abuse by individuals within the system.

2) Abu Ghraib was a failure in the system, every POW was not put through the same inhumane practices. Quite the contrary, the few that did were the ones that got highlighted. In terms of justice though, enough has not been done. A commanding General cannot simply take say,"I did not know." and absolve herself of her duty.

3) Canada has taken 20 FREAKING years to solve this one. From what evidence has been put forth in the public arena, it is a suprising verdict. What is the judge opinion here on what happened. For 24 hours, my family thought, and myself, that my sister was on that plane and had died. It was nerve wrecking, however, she was not and had been on another flight an hour later.

4) No racism here, simply incompetant people. Again, have not seen any open source reports on why this so called 'slam dunk' verdict went the way it did.

5) Europe and Canada is soft on terrorism, just look at the people they have released with a slap on their hands. Kudos to those who can track the information down and nail it, and figure out how dangerous these released individuals are. They will hit back, with passion and hatred.

May justice be done according to the proper evidence, and not a method of logical reasoning that merely points out an exception to the case, rather than a failure in the system that believes otherwise.

tank,

I am writing this response slowly so that you can understand. In America it is well known that color vs. color crime is viewed leniently than color vs. white crime where the victim is white. The point is people don't give a damn when the victims are colored.

"...Death in custody does not mean automatically mean homicide."

True, but I think Oeth was quoting Gen. Richard Myers and not him/herself by referring to the cases as "homicide."

"...In Abu Gharib, you have non-soldier combatants..."

I think you should check the records on this, as not all of them are or were combatants and that was confirmed prior Seymour Hersh.

Compared to My Lai, today's news is just as bad, maybe worse, because when a prisoner dies in what's considered legal custody, there's a problem. This doesn't mean that civilians dying in an open field of war are irrelevant, but one situation is clearly governed by law and the other is clearly not and committing a homicide under the auspices of the former is a substantial abuse of power.

(who's racist? interesting comment, but I'm not sure in regard to what)

sorry forget my question about who's "racist"

Before this degenerates into a conversation about whether My Lai or Abu Ghraib was worse, can we look at Abu Ghraib and the Guantanamo detentions and the shipping of prisoners to 3rd countries to be tortured and the rest of U.S. detention policy in these wars for what they are:

1) disgusting
2) reflective of system-wide lack of concern for human rights, civil rights, and legal treaties like the Geneva convention with regard to people taken prisoner in the "war on terror"
3) ethically indefensible

On the issue about Canada being soft on terrorism: The Tamil diaspora did collect alot of money from Toronto, but that is very difficult to stop unless you're going to prevent them from sending any money abroad. This was hardly an official position of the Government of Canada.

When it comes to the AI bombing, the Canadian government has spent alot of time, effort and money on this case. The mounties staked their entire reputation on it, and worked closely with the Indian government. These were Canadian citizens that died, and they took it very seriously.

MD - I think you misread the verdict. The judge said his issue was with the reliability of the key witnesses presented by the state. For example:

The judge said another lead witness against Mr. Bagri, an FBI informant known as John, could not be relied upon because of inconsistencies in his statement and because he appeared to be willing to do anything to advance his own self-interest. John was paid $460,000 by the RCMP after agreeing to testify.

Also very important was the fact that the

Canadian Security Intelligence Service ... erased wiretap and interview tapes, including those of a key witness whose testimony the judge concluded could not be corroborated. [cite]

Lastly, some people speculate that part of the problem was that the RCMP and the Indian government worked closely on this case, but India had a different objective from the RCMP, and was more interested in disrupting Khalistani activity in Vancouver than catching those who were responsible, and so they may not have provided (ahem) the most reliable information.

Was there a bunch of trials that only you were privy to?

Saying that because Sikh militants or Tamil militants sourced money from some sections of their diaspora in Canada means that Canada is soft on terrorism makes as much sense as the claim that because the RSS raises funds in Britain or America that the UK or USA is 'soft on genocide'.

The Air India bombing trial has no doubt led more people to believe that Sikhs are Muslims.

(sad but true).

While it is fashionable in some circles to criticize Fox News, the NY Times has a long history of simply making stuff up, from Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize winning stories which covered up the Stalin initiated famines in the Ukraine to Jason Blair’s phony interviews. But, let’s take this one article at face value. Start with the headline itself

“U.S. Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide” Interesting how you chose to drop the word “may” from your initial posting, “We've got 26 homicides in custody so far.”

Then when you read the article, this comes out, “Army officials said the killings took place both inside and outside detention areas, including at the point of capture in often violent battlefield conditions.” Italics mine. So, imagine a scene with bullets whizzing around, bombs going off – you have a limited number of men. You can choose to shoot at the guys trying to kill you, but that may mean you leave unprotected prisoners you have already captured. Or, the prisoners start a riot, and you need to use harsh measures to bring them to heel. The same article notes that 11 detainee deaths were ruled justifiable homicide due to riots breaking out.

I couldn’t go on to page 2 of the article, cause the link was not working right. But, all the hysteria over Abu Gharib leaves out an important item – that reported abuse cases have dropped sharply since news of this first came to light.

The Washington Post, reporting on the same military report, offers these tidbits, not mentioned in the NY Times article.

“Reported Abuse Cases Fell After Abu Ghraib”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42007-2005Mar16.html

“According to an Army report obtained by The Washington Post, 208 abuse cases were reported to have occurred between the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and May 2004, when the Abu Ghraib abuses made international news. The reported abuse cases peaked in April 2004, when there were 25 cases, including four deaths. The numbers fell consistently through December, when the Army learned of six abuse cases. The Army data are complete through the end of 2004.”

“The number of deaths reported in battlefield detention facilities has also fallen since the Abu Ghraib scandal. From May 2003 to May 2004, 44 death cases were investigated, an average of more than 3.5 per month. Over the last seven months of 2004, 13 cases were investigated, an average of fewer than two per month.”

“more than 70,000 detainees have been processed in Iraq and Afghanistan “. Using the 26 homicide figure you posted, that is 3.7% over the course of 3 years of combat. Regrettable? Yes – but hardly indicative of a callous disregard for human rights.

So, what does this tell us? It tells us that in the course of war, crimes are committed. However, the U.S. investigates its crimes. Even so, the U.S. takes measures to keep abuses down, and does it all under the glare of a hostile media.

To get back to Canada-bashing, NPR this morning had an informative piece on the ineptitude of Canadian law enforcement:

“Two Acquitted in 1985 Air India Bombing”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4538602

Follow-up: Indo-Canadians rally at Anne McLellan's Edmonton office, demand Air India inquiry (Canadian Press, via Yahoo!)

-D