Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, December 5 2010 Volume 14 : Number 183 In this issue: Questions we wouldn't be asking in a sane world Drug dealer gets one year in jail after shooting brother WikiLeaks Prosecution Faces Hurdles Obama's nominee for head of BATF "tragedy of honour killings"-Nat. Post Dec. 1st. LETTER: A pro gun registry Conservative MP? Small crossbows banned but large ones legal in Canada Life and Death Clock Political prisoners in Myanmar endure 'extreme oppression' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:22:27 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Questions we wouldn't be asking in a sane world Questions we wouldn't be asking in a sane world By Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen December 3, 2010 7:56 AM Comments (11) http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Gardner+Questions+wouldn+asking+sane+world/3919361/story.html On Wednesday, in response to a question from the opposition, a minister of the Crown stood in the House of Commons and assured the honourable members that neither he nor the Prime Minister of Canada advocates the murder of Julian Assange. Which is nice, I suppose. But it’s also troubling. How is it possible that in this most civilized of nations, in 2010, a member of Parliament felt the need to raise the matter? And while we’re asking rhetorical questions that would not need to be asked in a sane world, how is it possible that the Republican party has so completely embraced aggression and brutality that almost all its leading figures feel the near-drowning of suspects is a valid interrogation technique and imprisonment without charge or trial is a legitimate practice that should be expanded? Why is it that most people in the United States and elsewhere are not disturbed in the slightest that, despite abundant evidence, American officials who apparently committed heinous crimes in the war on terror will not be investigated and held to account, while Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who apparently did nothing illegal this week, is hunted to the ends of the Earth? And how in hell is it possible that when a former president of the United States of America admits he authorized the commission of torture — which is to say, he admits he committed a major crime — the international media and political classes express not a fraction of the anger they are now directing at the man who leaked the secrets of that president’s administration? I marvel at that paragraph. It would have been inconceivable even 10 years ago. Murder treated as a legitimate option in political discourse? Torture as acceptable government policy? No, impossible. A decade ago, it would have been satire too crude to be funny. And yet, here we are. The question in the Commons Wednesday was prompted by the televised comments of Tom Flanagan, political scientist and former chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “I think Assange should be assassinated, actually,” Flanagan said Tuesday. This was the hard-right id laid bare. The day before, Sarah Palin said much the same. Explicitly or implicitly, so did many others, including journalist Bill Kristol, Congressman Pete King, blogger John Hawkins, and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. Even in Canada, Flanagan wasn’t the first to advocate Mafia tactics. That honour, such as it is, goes to Ezra Levant, a columnist with the Sun newspaper chain and the man who distinguished himself on the Omar Khadr file by arguing it was unfortunate American soldiers didn’t grease the wounded 15-year-old on the spot. “They should have walked up to him and shot him like a mangy dog,” as Levant so memorably put it. Incidentally, Ezra Levant will soon host a primetime show on the new Sun news channel. One expects many more such bon mots. Happily for the cause of decency, sanity and civilization, Tom Flanagan apologized for his comments. Less happily, the others did not. “The way in which so many political commentators so routinely and casually call for the eradication of human beings without a shred of due process is nothing short of demented,” wrote Salon’s Glenn Greenwald. It started on Sept. 11, 2001. We were frightened. We were prepared to think the unthinkable, to accept what had been rejected, in the name of security. What was it Ben Franklin said about those who would trade liberty for security? We couldn’t remember. It was small stuff at first. There was talk of “stress-and-duress” interrogation techniques. It’s only sleep deprivation and a little pain, we were told. It’s not torture. Oh, no. When Abu Ghraib revealed what this meant in practice, we were shocked. Or most of us were, rather. Some had already become morally numb. Incarceration without charge or trial. Kidnapping. “Enhanced interrogation.” Detainee deaths. We learned more and more but cared less and less. A 2009 Pew poll found half of Americans think torture is “often” or “sometimes” justified when interrogating terrorists. Another 22 per cent say it’s “rarely” the right thing to do. Only one-quarter say it’s always wrong. Critics now call the Republicans the “party of torture” for good reason. Almost two-thirds of Republican voters think torture is “often” or “sometimes” justified, while only 14 per cent think it’s always wrong. Dick Cheney’s bizarre and legally absurd claim that the near-drowning of prisoners — “waterboarding” — is acceptable because it isn’t torture is now dogma among leading Republicans who either don’t know or don’t care that this and other policies they advocate would be deemed major crimes by any court in the civilized world. Then along comes George W. Bush with a memoir and the boast that “damn right” he had authorized waterboarding. “It is hard to overstate the enormity of this admission,” wrote Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayor of London. Waterboarding is torture. Torture is a major crime. Bush freely admitted it. And the Convention Against Torture requires authorities everywhere to investigate and prosecute “wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.” Which they refuse to do. And most people are just fine with that. Stuff the law. Now, contrast this with Julian Assange. One can certainly argue — as I would — that Assange is an irresponsible zealot. One can also argue that there should be a law forbidding what he did this week. But there isn’t. Legal analysts have looked hard but it seems that what Assange did wasn’t a crime. And a lot of people want the U.S. government to murder him. I suppose, if I were considerably more cynical, and liked crude satire, it would be funny. But all it makes me feel is a vague sadness for something that has been lost. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, December 3, 2010 11:02 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Drug dealer gets one year in jail after shooting brother VANCOUVER SUN DECEMBER 2, 2010 Drug dealer gets one year in jail after shooting brother By NEAL HALL http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Drug+dealer+gets+year+jail+after+shooting+brother/3920095/story.html VANCOUVER — A drug dealer who shot his brother has been sentenced to one year in jail. Scott Joseph Turner, 28, was sentenced to one year for possessing an unregistered loaded nine-millimetre semi-automatic Glock pistol, which carries a minimum one year punishment and a maximum of 10 years, and another year for possessing cocaine and methamphetamine for trafficking, which carries a maximum life sentence. Both sentences are to run concurrently. Turner pleaded guilty to the offences. The sentence was effectively a three-year prison sentence, reduced to one years after the judge accepted the joint submission of the Crown and defence to give Turner double credit for the 12 months he served in pre-trial custody. Police were called to an East Vancouver home on April 1, 2008, where officers found Turner's brother with a gunshot wound. A search warrant was later executed on Turner's home, an 18th-floor apartment in downtown Vancouver, where police found the Glock handgun and $138,000 worth of drugs: more than one kilogram of cocaine valued at $101,000, 39.53 grams of crack cocaine with a street value of $4,000, 336 grams of methamphetamine with a street value of $33,600, 1,496 pills of ecstasy with a street value of $14,960; and seven pounds of marijuana with a street value of $31,780. Police also found a money-counting machine, plastic bags, a vacuum‑ sealing machine and what appeared to be a bullet-proof vest. Turner, who had a history of substance abuse, was born in Port Alberni. His oldest brother committed suicide in April 1996 by shooting himself. Turner was 13 at the time, and this had a profound effect on him, the court noted, adding Turner began living on the street and became involved with drugs. He had no criminal record prior to committing these offences. But after he was released on bail, he became involved in an intoxicated attempt to recover a ring, which led to his conviction last Oct. 6 for assault, uttering death threats and forcible entry. The sentencing judge gave him four months credit for two months of pre-sentence custody, and then imposed a jail sentence of one day, plus 12 months' probation The full judgment of B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bill Ehrcke is online: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/16/2010BCSC1690.htm nhall@vancouversun.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:41:50 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: WikiLeaks Prosecution Faces Hurdles http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/WikiLeaks-Assange-espionage-EricHolder/2010/12/02/id/378730 WikiLeaks Prosecution Faces Hurdles Thursday, 02 Dec 2010 By Ronald Kessler WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be prosecuted in this country for espionage, but he may never be brought back to the United States to face the charges. That's the judgment of John L. Martin, arguably the country's foremost expert on the subject. For 25 years, Martin was in charge of espionage prosecutions by the Justice Department. By the time he retired in August 1997, Martin had supervised the prosecution of 76 spies. Only one of the prosecutions resulted in an acquittal. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has said the Justice Department has an "active, ongoing criminal investigation" of Assange, who is in hiding, over his apparent release of classified documents. While Assange could be indicted, "as long as he stays out of the United States, we don't have any jurisdiction over him," Martin tells Newsmax. "Moreover, because espionage is considered under international law to be a political offense, extradition treaties do not cover those accused of violating the espionage laws of any country." A major reason is that espionage laws could be applied to foreign intelligence officers who are under nonofficial cover and therefore have no diplomatic immunity from prosecution. In addition, a country such as Great Britain has an Official Secrets Act that would apply espionage laws to publishing material that other countries may not consider major breaches of security. As a result, countries are wary of supporting such laws by honoring extradition requests. "You would never want to put your people in jeopardy by sending an intelligence officer without diplomatic immunity back to that country to face trial for violating its espionage laws," says Martin, who was an FBI agent before becoming the country's chief spy prosecutor. So, while Assange could be charged by the United States, "He would have to come into the United States voluntarily or by some ruse," Martin says. However, aside from any treaties, Martin says a foreign country could decide to cooperate by putting him on a boat or airplane destined for this country under guard. That has happened in the past, Martin says. While Assange would argue that he is a journalist and therefore exempt from espionage laws, those laws actually have no exception for journalists, editors, or publishers, Martin says. "The espionage laws, believe it or not, do not make an exception for reporters," Martin says. However, as a matter of policy, reporters and publishers have never been charged under espionage laws. Martin says Assange could be charged under Section 793 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which prohibits unauthorized receipt, possession, or transmittal of classified documents, or under Section 798, which prohibits disclosure or publication of classified communications intelligence information. Given that Assange has run hundreds of thousands of classified documents on his web site, each one that is properly classified could be included as a separate count of an indictment. As a result, he could face a mounting prison term equivalent to a sentence of life in prison upon conviction, Martin says. The military arrested Private First Class Bradley Manning, suspected of being the source of the leaked documents, last May after WikiLeaks ran a video it had allegedly obtained from him. Taken by cameras on U.S. Apache helicopters, it shows several civilians, including two Reuters employees, being killed in a U.S. strike in Iraq in 2007. In an online chat, the Iraq-based intelligence analyst boasted about making available such classified material to the world. "Since Manning did not transmit these documents to an agent of a foreign power, the more serious espionage offense that carries life imprisonment or death would not apply," Martin says. However, "The military will be looking to indict Manning on multiple counts of violating Section 793 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code by passing national security information to an unauthorized person," Martin says. The government will have to establish that the documents it selects to be included in the prosecution "related to the national defense, that they were protected information, and that the disclosure of these documents to unauthorized persons could damage national security," Martin says. "You don't have to prove actual damage, only the possibility that it could cause damage." The fact that Manning will face a military court martial gives the government an advantage, Martin says. "It's going to be a prosecution where classified documents are central to the government's case, and in that situation a military judge may close the courtroom to the public to take classified testimony or when the documents are introduced into evidence," Martin says. "You can't close a public trial in a civilian courtroom." Another advantage in a military case is that each time a soldier commits a violation, he can be charged with violating general orders, a separate crime. "There's no such offense in civilian court," Martin says. Since each properly classified document would represent a separate count, "Manning would face the possibility of 100 years or more in prison," Martin says. "They could put him away for life if they do it right." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, December 3, 2010 11:53 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Obama's nominee for head of BATF THE DAILY CALLER - DECEMBER 3, 2010 Does Obama's nominee for head of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives oppose the Second Amendment? By Amanda Carey http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/03/does-obamas-nominee-for-head-of-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-oppose-the-second-amendment/ Things had been looking up for gun-rights activists. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller that Washington's handgun laws were unconstitutional. In the summer of 2010, in McDonald v Chicago, the court expanded that ruling to apply to handgun laws in all 50 states. Even President Obama seemed relatively open to Second Amendment rights, saying on the campaign trail: "I believe there is a Second Amendment right. I think it is an individual right. I think people have the right to lawfully bear arms." Now, it seems that when it comes to Obama and guns, he was for them before he was against them. Last month, the president nominated Andrew Traver to be the new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). But while gun-control advocates are lauding Obama's nominee, others are worried Traver will implement strict gun rules by way of bureaucratic regulations rather than law. Traver is a native of Chicago - a city with zero gun shops and that has had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. There, he's the special agent in charge of the city's BATFE division. He supports banning .50-caliber rifles, something that would cause many gun shops to close. Traver supports repealing the Tiahart Amendment, which prohibits the BATFE from releasing sensitive information from its database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor during a criminal investigation. The data that is released cannot be admitted as evidence in court in a civil lawsuit. The Amendment's supporters say it protects gun owners and makers from frivolous lawsuits. He is also involved with a group called the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which is associated with the Joyce Foundation. Both lobby for heavier gun control laws as a way to crack down on urban violence. What is really getting gun advocates riled up is a statement Traver made just last year during an interview with NBC News. As NBC reported, "Traver says the power and randomness of the heavy caliber, military-style weapons make them so dangerous not only to people, but to police. They're so powerful, body armor can't withstand a hit, and they're so difficult to control, their bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they're in their own homes." In the same interview, Traver said, "They seem them in movies, they see them on television and in video games and it's like 'Oh, let's get one of those.' It gives them a lot of street cred." He also said warned viewers about the "growing frequency of gang members and drug dealers using heavy caliber military-type weapons" Gun enthusiasts say that Traver's statements show he intentionally mislead the public by likening black-market automatic weapons with semi-automatic assault style rifles, which are legal. Shortly after the president's nomination, the National Rifle Association released a statement opposing Traver. "Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities. This makes him the wrong choice to lead an enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight and control over the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers," said the press release. It went on to say, "An agency involved in the regulation of a fundamental, individual right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution should not be led by an individual with a demonstrated hostility to that freedom". The BATFE regulates approximately 200 million guns in the U.S. Traver's nomination needs to be confirmed by the Senate - unless President Obama makes Traver a recess appointment when Congress leaves at the end of the month. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:10:55 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: "tragedy of honour killings"-Nat. Post Dec. 1st. National Post columnist Barb Kay on the tragedy of honour killings. U.K. police are investigating a suspected 100 or more. Pakistan has an estimate 1000 to 10,000 each year. A well written column but for one glaring omission. Here Kay refers to the ones in Canada as honour killings but omits the revelation of 20 years ago by, then Toronto Star columnist, Michele Lansberg about Gamel Garbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife beater being the person who committed the Montreal Massacre. Until that happens treating 5 million plus Canadian firearms owners as a scapegoat in a government holy war against civilians will continue. It won't stop until only the police, the criminals and the jihadi terrorists are armed. The best way of making that cover up public would be calling the radio phone-in programs. It appears none of the MSM will ever bring that up themselves until everyone learns it from somewhere else. http://www.nationalpost.com/tragedy+honour+killings/3908685/story.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, December 3, 2010 1:45 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: LETTER: A pro gun registry Conservative MP? OTTAWA CITIZEN - DECEMBER 3, 2010 LETTER: A pro gun registry Conservative MP? http://www.ottawacitizen.com/registry+Conservative/3920954/story.html Re: The Fantino effect, Dec. 1. Your editorial covered the election of Julian Fantino quite well and described the future impact he may have on the Conservative caucus with considerable insight. However, I would like to provide another scenario for your consideration. The urban voters of Vaughan riding displayed a remarkable degree of sophistication by sending the former chief of three police services and commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police to Ottawa as a member of the Conservative government. The police chiefs of Canada endorsed a resolution calling on the federal government to maintain the long-gun registry, however the government ignored their request and did all it could to kill the registry. By sending a recent high profile member of the police chiefs organization to become part of the government, the voters have enabled the police to have their views explained and amplified in the centre of the government itself. Hopefully, this will convince the prime minister to abandon his efforts to destroy the registry and will allow our front line police officers to continue to have access to this important safety tool. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Jack Wynter, Stittsville ------------------------------ Date: Sat, December 4, 2010 11:11 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Small crossbows banned but large ones legal in Canada TORONTO STAR - DECEMBER 3, 2010 Small crossbows banned but large ones legal in Canada By Alex Horkay http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/901639--small-crossbows-banned-but-large-ones-legal-in-canada Criminal Code provisions that would require a licence for all crossbow purchases have existed for 15 years, but they have never been implemented and there are fewer legal requirements to obtain a crossbow in Canada than to buy a gun. However, crossbows shorter than 500 mm or which can be fired with one hand are banned in Canada, says Pam Goode, legal counsel for Ontario's chief firearms officer. A crossbow was used to kill Si Cheng at a Toronto public library on Thursday, but police won't be releasing any other information about that weapon, says Const. Tony Vella. Sec. 97 of the Criminal Code, which would make it an offence to sell a crossbow to someone unless they hold a licence, is not in force even though it's been on the books since 1995, said Goode. "It's not a chargeable offence because it's never been proclaimed as law," she said, noting it would be up to Parliament to enact the section. "You do not need a licence to acquire (a legal crossbow) and it is not subject to registration and, of course, requiring a licence to acquire and requiring registration are the two pieces that apply to firearms," said Goode. The province's only role in crossbow use is under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, when used for hunting wildlife, said Greg MacNeil, media spokesman for the natural resources ministry. A hunting licence would be required, he added. A spokesman at Al Flaherty's Outdoor Store on Dufferin St. said they stock large crossbows that cost $500 to $700, are used for "big game hunting" and require a regular hunting licence and a training course. They're not used for sports. While the use of a crossbow in the Thursday homicide is astonishing, the weapon's use dates back to the 5th and 6th centuries BC in Europe, China and southeast Asia. It played an important role in warfare in those areas dating back to Roman times. The recent incident is not the first time crossbows have been seized or charges laid in the GTA. In June, a crossbow was seized from a car in the G20 traffic zone. Crossbows were also among weapons seized during a gang raid in Toronto in 2006. In 2004, a 28-year-old man was charged in a Toronto raid that netted police a crossbow, prohibited knives, a bazooka, assault rifle ammunition and magic mushrooms. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 12:47:06 -0700 From: Rocky7 Subject: Life and Death Clock Thought some of you might be interested in this visual representation of what gun owners have been saying for years. It's American but nonetheless valid; probably more so in Canada where we don't have large slums, big drug gangs and millions of illegal immigrants with a criminal past: http://calnra.com/lifeclock/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 18:33:52 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: Political prisoners in Myanmar endure 'extreme oppression' Political prisoners in Myanmar endure 'extreme oppression' Human rights groups say their estimate of 2,200 political detainees in Myanmar is probably conservative http://www.kentucky.com/2010/12/02/1549509/political-prisoners-in-myanmar.html YANGON, Myanmar -- In the decaying lakeside mansion where Aung San Suu Kyi spent much of the last two decades under house arrest, the Myanmar opposition leader and Nobel laureate was forbidden from using the Internet or the telephone or watching satellite TV. She did, however, have two maids, was free to read newspapers and listen to the radio, and had access to a doctor. For the other 2,200 or so political prisoners in Myanmar, conditions are quite different. Sentenced to impossibly long prison terms for speaking out against the repressive military regime, they face torture sessions, barely edible food, little or no medical care and years in solitary confinement. Some prisoners are forbidden to speak for years. "There's a great difference between prison and house arrest," said Phyo Min Thein, an opposition politician and brother-in-law of a political prisoner now serving a 65-year sentence. "Aung San Suu Kyi was treated well, while those in prison are treated with extreme oppression. Is it fair? Everything isn't fair. We live under an unfair system." Before and after her release, Suu Kyi vowed to spotlight the plight, and press for the release, of other political prisoners in Myanmar, also known as Burma. For hundreds of activists who have openly challenged 48 years of military rule, there's little hope of fair treatment at the hands of a clique of generals that has remained largely impervious to international condemnation, pressure or sanctions. The "crimes" prosecuted by the regime include demonstrating, passing on rumors, "undermining the state" or possessing uncensored videotapes. Among those jailed are comedians, musicians, artists and a writer convicted of inserting a message in a Valentine's Day poem. For many, the decades-long sentences are abstract numbers, their release dependent more on a political deal or a hoped-for change in government than in serving their time. "There's a signboard inside with the length of your sentence," said Phyo Min Thein, who served 15 years for opposing the regime, including five during which he wasn't allowed to talk. "My first five years, I hoped for freedom. After that, you just have to live." One of the toughest challenges is staying mentally fit. A lack of news, human contact or contact with loved ones eats away at you, former prisoners and family members said, deepening your isolation. "You become more hungry for information than food," Min Ko Naing, a leader of the student movement that rose up against the regime in 1988 who is serving a 65-year sentence, once said. Some described small acts of defiance: hiding a banned book by Suu Kyi in a hole carved out of the floor under a chamber pot, smuggling out appeals to the United Nations or singing protest songs, even if it meant severe punishment or years added to their sentence. In 2008, the regime transferred many prisoners to remote sites, making family visits more difficult. "Before 2008, I visited him twice," said a relative of prisoner Ko Ko Gyi, who is serving a 65-year sentence for, among other charges, illegal use of the telephone system. "But since then I haven't. It's a long way." Former prisoners said they tried to stay sharp by singing, reciting Buddhist verses, playing mental games and meditating. Suu Kyi, who was released from house arrest last month, said she drew strength from dawn meditation sessions. "Some people go mad talking to themselves," said Phyo Min Thein. "You start imagining you see your mother in front of you." Family visits, when they're permitted, are often limited to an hour or two per month with guards hovering. Some of the prisoners are sentenced to more than century, and in Myanmar, political prisoners are rarely released for good behavior. U Khun Htun Oo, 67, a political representative of the Shan ethnic minority in failing health, received 93 years in 2005 for a private discussion about political transition. Human rights groups say their estimate of 2,200 political detainees in Myanmar is probably conservative, because many in rural areas go uncounted. Periodically the regime declares an amnesty, although alleged criminals are the main beneficiaries. In 2008, it released 9,000 people; eight were political activists. Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/12/02/1549509/political-prisoners-in-myanmar.html#ixzz17BzzOoZQ ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #183 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)