Marijuana.com

Buzzby

I'd say you should probably get your facts straight before trying to insult someone by calling him the wrong name.

At the time of the American Revolution, the English king was George III.

__________________

 

Buzzby

How is that relevant? The legal assistance treaty requires that the crime in question be a crime in both countries, not that it must have the same penalties.

Emery is not charged with committing a crime in Canada because Canada doesn't bother to enforce its own laws. That's not the US's fault. The US is merely calling on Canada to comply with the agreement it signed 20 years ago.

Bannor

Actually, from what I can glean, Canada does not even require dual criminality in it's MLAT's.
Source.

Now the question remains, does the specific MLAT between the U.S. and Canada specifically require dual criminality?

lilgrasshoppah

The II was because he is the second George Bush to rule your fair land with warmongerish intensity. It was supposed to be moderately funny.

__________________
I got soul, But i'm not a soldier - The Killers

Buzzby

Yeah. I've been spending far too much time looking at this screen. I should have know that. Sorry.

 

BC.Buddy

Actually, in fact it does. If the two countries have significant difference in penalty, the extradition can be denied and the suspect can be tried in his home country.
For instance, if someone can be sentenced a life sentence as opposed to a couple years, they can deny the extradition.

But let's keep cheering for him to be tried in the U.S., right?

Question; do you work for the D.E.A.?
...
"Go U.S.!! At least we bother to enforce our laws! Sheesh, imagine those Canadians, letting the dope fiends go!! Well, not this time. There's no way Marc Emery can get away with his "arrogance" any longer!"

"Canada doesn't bother to enforce its own laws. That's not the US's fault."

No, no it isn't, is it? :spark:

__________________
BC Marijuana Party
"Overgrow The Government"
| Cannabis Culture | Pot TV |

- Proud Cannabis User -

lilgrasshoppah

Yet, both Governments do consider it a crime and he wasn't absconded, he was given up on a silver platter. Blame the Canadian Government and the MLAT's as much as the U.S.

A large percentage of people on this board recognize, to some extent, the wrongness of marijuana laws. Myself, I find them to be wholly evil. Thus, the acts performed in the service of marijuana laws, are like wise wholly evil. The line between rightness and wrongness of a given action depends on whether you believe that action is justified. I believe that Mafiosi demanding protection money to be extortion... and yet I don't think paying cops is the same thing. Because I recognize that police (generally) have a mandate to protect people. I don't think cops have a mandate, or a even moral reason, to imprison people, or kill them, or even to confiscate their stuff. Hence, to me, taking somebody's freedom is akin to kidnapping. And yes, Niteshift, I know that's not the technical term. But as you know I was never one for technicalities.


And the armchair activist refrain: "You do something about it. I'm busy."

You don't know what I do, or how much, or even why. As if that's relevant anyway. Being responsible means you are responsible. The DEA is most responsible for the present status of marijuana prohibition. They can't claim that their just doing their job, when they created their job.

Wow, you don't know much about different forms of governments, huh?
Lots of places that aren't democracies elect their governments...For instance, a Democratic Republic for one.

I am aware of the varied types of democracy out there. How ever you slice it, though, it's still bread. Demoskratia: it's still from the Greek, meaning "rule from the people". The fact is, that the US has been a plutocracy for a long time. First, because only the powerful had the voice to make themselves heard, and second because the listless poplulace prefers servitude to the RESPONSIBILITY of self-governance.

Buzzby

Can you support that? I looked at this page on Canada's MLATs and found only that they'll refuse extradition in a death penalty case. Other than that, there are requirements for minimum sentences. Nothing is said about maximum sentences.

You are wrong about the requirement for dual criminality. It's not required for arrest but it is required for extradition.


Please provide a citation.


Question: Why do you keep resorting to this lame tactic? It really diminishes your credibility as a debater. Let's turn it around: Are you Marc Emery's butt-monkey? See how stupid that sounds?


The Emery cult keeps saying that he didn't break Canadian laws because they haven't been enforced. I was simply restating what you guys have been putting forth as a reason Emery shouldn't have been arrested.

Buzzby

I appreciate your moral position but I fail to see what it has to do with the current debate in the legal realm. Are marijuana laws wrong (a moral question)? In my opinion they are. My opinion and your opinion have no weight in the question of whether or not Marc Emery's arrest and possible extradition are legal. Isn't that what we've been talking about?

If it's wrong to arrest Marc Emery, isn't it wrong to arrest anyone who broke a law that in our moral opinion is wrong? Of course it is. Then why is all this fuss being made over this one man? When Joe Anonymous gets busted for possession you don't find people screaming that he was illegally arrested. They say, "That's a shame. It shouldn't happen. We really need to do something about these marijuana laws." What makes this case so different? It's not. The only difference is that members of the Emery cult seem to think that their hero is somehow above the law.


First of all, LEOs don't imprison people. They apprehend and arrest them. Other parts of the legal system try, convict, and imprison them. LEOs certainly have a mandate to apprehend and arrest suspects in crimes. That's exactly what their jobs, supported by law and our tax dollars, are. (Or are you drifting off into the moral realm again?) Under certain circumstances police officers may find it necessary to kill people who are in the process of committing a crime, threatening the lives of the police officers, or the lives of innocents. Would you prefer that the officers scold the criminals and then walk away?

How are the police going to protect anyone if they can't separate criminals from their victims? Would you prefer that criminals be allowed to keep their guns and ill-gotten gains and continue to prey on society? If you don't want to incarcerate criminals, what, exactly, would you do with them? We tried giving them lollipops but for some reason they just kept going back to a life of crime.


How? They're just law enforcement. "Drug Enforcement Agency" See? They didn't pass the laws. Your elected representatives in Congress did that.


The DEA was created by an act of Congress to enforce the laws passed by Congress. Could you explain what you mean?

Mamabudz

Anyone want to GUESS how the folks in Congress who Create and CHANGE Our Laws to Reflect the Popular Opinion are PUT THERE???

... a cookie to the first one...