Canada aims to block Chelsea Manning from entering country
theglobeandmail.com
theglobeandmail.com
Edit:
> The decision, made in the last days of Obama's presidency, means that Manning can be freed May 17 [2017], seven years into a prison term that has been marked by two suicide attempts and a hunger strike aimed at obtaining sex reassignment surgery.
Looks like it was 2017. I had no idea. Is Canada going to take her?
And also the part where she tried to starve herself to force USA taxpayers to pay for her gender transfer surgery while she was serving a 35 year prison sentence for betraying them...
They aren't covered by most insurance programs, either in the US nor in most other countries.
Denying it is not the same as denying someone antibiotics when they have an infection.
Or what about breast reduction after medication induced growth (on men or women)?
Do you think those should be covered by insurance or other responsible parties?
As a Brit, I think it’s pretty petty as she was fine to move to the UK and work there. We now live in the US where she works for a large employer and has passed numerous background checks.
Sometimes I think Canada is more interested in portraying itself as a progressive beacon to the world than actually being one.
He was stripped of citizenship and it was instated 3 times by the Canadian court system. Why? "2013 Supreme Court ruling that guilt by association is not sufficient grounds to be considered a war criminal."
What you called "sheltering nazi war criminals" I would call due process. You know, not actually punishing people unless they've been fairly judged as guilty according to the law.
Even more, in Canada there're memorials dedicated to nazi war criminals, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Shukhevych
Regarding the memorials, I could not find this in the link. Could you point me at it?
There is also no evidence that this person committed any war crime at all. The notes in the link document that his military division committed war crimes.
Guilt by association? Collective punishment? Really?
He isn't guilty by association - he was a leader of death squadron and he is directly responsible for extermination of tens of thousands of non combatants.
Same crown as today was in charge back then. Same head of state.
The Acadians were deported literally hundreds of years before.
Maybe we should demand Mongolia apologize for Genghis Khan as well?
Seems slightly early for it to go away, but the question did have a finite lifetime.
I wish I was making this up.
[0] https://www.foxnews.com/world/omar-khadr-ex-gitmo-detainee-w...
I'm glad he sued and won compensation.
We can play on words, that won't bring back his victims.
> Not getting your country invaded also, but that's a whole different matter
He was rather quick to claim Canada was "his" country despite having brutally murdered an allied soldier. Also, he was fighting "his" country pretty hard until it became convenient not to.
I really disagree with calling a soldier on a mission, an agressive overseas mission, getting killed in action "a victim". A casualty, yes. If anyone's a victim, it's the innocent civilians getting blown up by both sides in a conflict they didn't ask for, not the combattants on either side.
> He was rather quick to claim Canada was "his" country despite having brutally murdered an allied soldier. Also, he was fighting "his" country pretty hard until it became convenient not to.
He says he did so to be extradited there so that he actually has some human rights and dignity restored, because, remember, he was tortured for actions he did when he was 15. He's still technically a war criminal if he did indeed kill the US soldier (not being a regular soldier in uniform), but the US had no jurisdiction over him, illegally detained and tortured him for an alleged crime he committed while being a minor.
Anyone involved with this on the US side should rot for life in The Hague ( of course that would never happen).
A NATO operation. A NATO operation "his country" was very much involved in (and where citizens of "his country" paid the highest price).
Keep in mind he could have surrendered at any time.
> He's still technically a war criminal
Indeed.
NATO isn't the Red Cross or Doctors without borders. An overseas mission by NATO includes armed soldiers.
Its attitude to seals is not very progressive: https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/about-canadian-seal-...
Or the environment: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/alber...
Last one closed in 1996.
Whistleblowing war crimes and embarrassing the US on the world stage = "serious criminality"
Ethically, I understand some debate that - but legally - it is not in debate.
Like it aims to block all the other convicted criminals who apply for entry.
For both countries, pardons, commuted sentences, do not hide the transfer of information, and are meaningless. This is because each country only cares about the crime, and its own assessment of "should this person, with crime x, be allowed in".
Outside of that, a presidential commuted sentence, by its very nature, is political, not court based.
Lastly, each country puts the safety of its citizens, above the rights of foreigners to visit.
I wanted to reply with these points, before reading the article, as generic, non-case specific logic is important here.
I have no idea, after reading. I wish I knew if the delays were standard (eg, backlog), and so on.
I also wish I knew how others in this situation fare. As a Canuck, I want no special treatment for anyone, pro or against, but just the job done correctly, and that means fair, compared to how others are treated / the law.
Is her lawyer using the media / spinning things, to try to help the case? Maybe.
Not enough info for me to know wtf.
Which is not actually a right. Americans have no more a right to travel to Canada than Canadians have a right to come to the US. I venture that more canadians are probably denied entry to the US than Americans are denied by Canada.
It very much depends on who you ask. Some libertarians will say that it hasn't been that long the modern system has been in place. I think since roughly WWI?
The lack of a "right" to enter a country could be compared with the modern lack of a right for pedestrians to walk in middle of most streets. Now and then some people get quite bitter about that.
You don't know, though! I mean, not everybody gets angry that easy, but many are aware that you don't have to commit a crime or do something wrong to be barred from crossing an international border.
I remember an article by a woman who was turned back from Canada because she had antidepressant medication with her.
I mean, no need to debate it, who knows, but I think you're exaggerating your certainty. It's possible that this has an additional political dimension, even though similar things can happen without it.
How would people feel if someone convicted of insider trading, an arguably much more “victimless” crime than espionage, tried the same thing? I suspect the same people who argue for Manning to be admitted would argue against the hypothetical inside trader. The only just approach is to apply the standard fairly to all people.
Surely everybody agrees with that, for everything, except that it communicates absolutely nothing about what is fair and uniform.
I have no idea whether someone convicted of insider trading would be barred, or whether they should be, or whether the average person would want them to be.
It always strikes me as weird when someone gives an example of something that they assume everybody agrees on, and it is something that surely 99.99% of the world has never thought of even once.
Maybe the people to whom you refer just have different concerns about things which they see as different.
People see hypocrisy everywhere when they refuse to contextualize anything the same way as another person does.
It's a way of "laundering" prejudice as "logic".
How can you say I didn't justify a distinction when you compared her to "ordinary" ex-convicts, which sounds like non-celebrities?
The issue is not double standards, the issue is disagreement on what attributes are salient.
Just pretend the first two sentences of my previous comment aren't there. I don't care if you agree. The rest of it stands by itself. It's abstract and not related to these events.
Your original complaint was just "why do people only care about who they care about?" I wanted to communicate how tautological I found it.
Outside of that, a presidential commuted sentence, by its very nature, is political, not court based.
Lastly, each country puts the safety of its citizens, above the rights of foreigners to visit.
I am not a cheerleader for Chelsea Manning, who I have sympathy for in some respects but dislike in others.
Actually, Chelsea Manning has better odds of being let into Canada than a lot of "boring" people with felony convictions. And that's kind of a problem.
Canada does not popup that much in the international news. Maybe I missed a similar article on HN were the majority had the exact oposite reaction like in this one?
There’s not an immigration service in the world who wants to choose which felonies should be enforced on a case by case basis and generally not a populace who believes that fame should get you a golden ticket.
Would I personally let her in? Sure! If I ran an immigration department? Nope.
Apparently they share way more than criminal records.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadian-woman-refuse...
I suppose that saves the application for a waiver, and she can just appeal right away via federal courts?
1. On 2017-09-22, Ms. Manning attempted to enter Canada but was denied by the border guards. [0]
2. On or about On 2017-09-25, Ms. Manning received a letter from the Canadian government detailing why she was previously denied entry.
3. Ms. Manning and her lawyers files an appeal to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. A tribunal hearing is scheduled for 2021-10-07. Let's call this hearing "Hearing A".
4. While Hearing A was still pending, the Canadian government allowed Ms. Manning entry for a few days into Canada in 2018.
5. Both sides (the Canadian border official side and Ms. Manning's side) are able to argue their case before Hearing A. The title of this news story refers to the fact that the border official side plans to put forth an argument in Hearing A.
The fact that she was allowed despite rather well known criminal charges and jail time points to rather high likelyhood of her appeal being successful. I think that is highly unusual.
This is probably just a campaign to generate some favourable publicity.
Can anyone in the world file a case with the Canadian Supreme court and be heard? They would need to have some sort of legal standing to appear before the court.
Neither of these facts are exemptions that apply to anyone else entering Canada.
Not surprised heh.
It didn't even seem like the US govt is coordinated enough between the different states to reliably catch this.
It may be that the states are terrible at gathering information rather than reporting it.
If you lie about it they will likely ban you for even longer.
They simply ID'd us, asked us where we were heading and why, then told us to pull aside. They knew already.
Fingerprint records will come up at the border.
> he had been busted for using a fake ID at a bar to buy booze when he was a minor.
Also completely legal, for recreational use, in 6 of the 10 US states that border Canada, and legal for medicinal use in 9 of the 10 states, Idaho being the only hold-out.
This is getting pretty silly now, no?
As such, would the US object if I took THC under prescription in an in-patient medical context in another country, and then attempted to enter?
And if they wouldn't object, then why would they suddenly object if I didn't get prescribed the THC, but rather purchased it over the counter, under advisement of a doctor? (After all, this is how most legal, OTC medications work. Doctors in outpatient settings don't prescribe you e.g. aspirin; they just tell you to "take two aspirin and call me if it doesn't feel better." They assume you can get your own aspirin without their help.)
>So it'd be weird if THC was an exception to that
As others in the thread have already mentioned, Desoxyn is schedule 2, while Cannabis is federally schedule 1 (with lower schedule number being more restricted).
So no, THC isn't an exception, it is a part of the same rule system. The one in which schedule 2 drugs have more legal privileges than schedule 1 drugs.
Plenty of substances are dual scheduled, desoxyn is just most prominent example.
Are you sure you're not getting it mixed up with MDMA or something?
0. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs5/5049/5049p.pdf
https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling
(I don't agree with this, just explaining the law.)
No they're not. Desoxyn is only legal with a prescription because methamphetamine is a schedule II drug, not a schedule I drug.
There probably is some shadowy special-forces division that gets the cool stuff but I gather that even amongst the USAF's endurance fighter squadrons you won't see much stimulant use: it's too much of a liability, and the services really don't want human-liabilities piloting hundred-million-dollar supersonic death-machines.
Fun-fact: the Nazis used meth, then known as "Pervatin" - but then they also mixed it with cocaine and oxycodone and called it "D-IX" - sounds like quite the party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-IX
Our vehicle was searched during that time as well, and about 30 minutes later they finally let all of us enter. Nice to hear we aren't the only folk who have dealt with a similar issue.
I was interrogated for 3 hours. Apparently it looks bad if you travel 12 hours to cross the border to go on a date.
This is very confusingly worded. Was the border agent trying to let your brother in law in or not?
...and some paid lawyers suck and will roll-over.
Price of your lawyer is a poor predictor of results in the legal system.
The best advice is to know a good lawyer before you need one - rich or poor.
Canada is a Five Eyes member and works to undermine the privacy and digital freedoms of billions globally.
Can't have an opponent to the surveillance state around, after all.
It happens tens of thousands of times per year to other people.
Give it a few months and if re-elected will roll out the red carpet for her.
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920
There are numerous articles that discuss this article in turn. The short version: Many current members of the ACLU are advocating to take up progressively-aligned cases specifically instead of civil liberties causes generally.
Calling out her crimes and placing them on the same level of rape, murder speaks to a disinformation campaign that gets unleashed but those in power.
I have no clue what her message is but why is it _so dangerous to those in power that they would try to shut her down?
Doing that doesn't go well for canada
It’s not a disinformation campaign it’s the law, you and I may not like it but it’s been this way for a long time. They aren’t singling out Manning.
What makes you think she was compared to murderers and rapists? Comments elsewhere in this thread says that people with DWIs get stopped at the border as well.