Ayers Turned Away From Canada By Immigration Officials

Perhaps the Canadians share my opinion of Ayers.....he's a terrorist.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/19/ayers-turned-away-canada-immigration-officials/

William Ayers, the 1960s radical whose ties to President-elect Barack Obama caused trouble for his campaign, was turned away from Canada Sunday night as he tried to enter the country for a series of educational events.

Jeffrey Kugler, the executive director for the Center for Urban Schooling at the University of Toronto, said Ayers was deemed not admissible after being pulled aside by Canadian immigration officials while trying to clear customs at the Toronto airport.

Ayers had been invited to speak before the center. He was also scheduled to meet with the Toronto District School Board and do interviews with Canadian television and radio stations, Kugler said.

Kugler said the center sent e-mails notifying guests who planned to attend Ayers' talk that he had been turned back. Kugler said the center will try to reschedule Ayers.

Ayers, a co-founder of the violent Weather Underground group and current education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told the Toronto Star that he didn't know why he had been turned away.

According to Kugler, Ayers was told he could request a hearing but that would mean some sort of detention and a possible two week wait. Ayers opted to return to Chicago.

FOX News' Jim Murphy contributed to this report.

Jeffery Kugler, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Urban Schooling said, "The entire four or five hours he was not allowed to have representation at all. To me this is an issue of academic freedom. He could not be a threat to anyone ever. Anyone who knows anything about this man – he's a distinguished scholar at the University of Illinois and he has been involved in education reform over the past 15 years. To imagine in any way he was a threat to Canada is really absurd."

I guess the Canadian government didn't consider Ayers as "...just a guy who lived in my neighborhood."

Huh, Kugler and his ilk can say what they like about the threat level Ayers poses. Our country refused entry to Cat Stevens based upon some benefit concert he gave (I'm pretty sure in Canada btw) for some philanthropic Muslim organization.

I can see the old hippie now.....Singing about peace & love and nature and then a little target practice with OBL. Yeah, right.

"I'm being followed by a moon shadow, moon shadow moon shadow"

Or is that the CIA? I never can tell the difference.

Well I wonder if GW Bush or D. Rumsfeld or D. Cheney will be travelling to western Europe any time soon?

sodbuster wrote:Well I wonder if GW Bush or D. Rumsfeld or D. Cheney will be travelling to western Europe any time soon?

Perhaps The Hague?

BMD do you think Pelosi will follow thru with Congressional investigations or is it just more political hype?

sodbuster wrote:BMD do you think Pelosi will follow thru with Congressional investigations or is it just more political hype?

i think that the bigger worry for the Bush-Cheney bunch is international. They might well wind up in Augusto Pinochet's shoes.

How very unfortunate. Is wishing for criminal prosecution of those with whom you disagree the "post partisan" environment that we've been promised?

If Bush/Cheney were to travel abroad, it would be with secret service escorts and neither would be touched. If they were, President Obama would react swiftly with overwhelming force. No American President is going to subject a former President/Vice President to an international court. Period.

I truly hope that you are right.

I don't think any President, regardless of political affiliation, would allow another one to be turned over to a world court.

If he does, he set's precedence for the very same thing possibly happening to him and I don’t know of many willing to set that precedence.

If any Bushies are picked up, it will be because there were valid indictments. They would almost certainly know of such indictments before they set foot out of the US. Given that, it would be as much a case of flaunting International Law as anything else. Now, I wouldn't put it past such a "humble" bunch to essentially dare the International Court to pick them up under such a scenario, but I wouldn't expect out government to lift a finger to get them out of the situation, either.

The bottom line is that these bastards condoned, aprroved of, and ordered torture, which is a war crime under international and US law. If the US system has been so emasculated as to be unable to prosecute them, then I hope the international system will be able to step in and do what absolutely needs to be done.

bio-mechanical lawyer dude, I don't think you're unhinged at all. It isn't enough to have elected someone more attuned to your own political persuasion, you should seek vengenance for you are righteous.

I guess that's what they were speaking of with all that talk of "hope" & "change".

I have an interesting Rahm Emmanuel quote that hasn't been mentioned in this forum. I'm going to go start a new thread because I'm very interested in how it jives with plans Reid & Pelosi & Co. have been cooking up. Keep an eye open for it. I'm just dying to know if I'm the only person who views this the way I do.

Well Steph (or any of those defending the high ranking members of the former administration) I wonder if you actually support torture and other violations of the Geneva Conventions?

Or do you think torture was not condoned or directed by them?

If your opponent opts not to abide by the Geneva Accords why bind your own hands by a slavish devotion to an ideal? How many were tortured and what was their torture? As a former police office I'd think you would want evidence of a crime before you prosecute it. I guess not if their are political points to be made, eh?

Well I understand your reluctance to say directly that you support torture.

Instead of the other option that you don't believe they did it.

I am not trying to cross-examine you, I really wanted to know.

I think I believe the majority at least condone it.

Maybe even would encourage it.

But I don't know.

With your last post, you've shown you have no grasp on political reality BMD. Barrack Obama would not allow, under any circumstances, for a former President to be apprehended by or subjected to an international court of law. If crimes were committed, US courts would be the ones handling any legal issues.

If an attack on the US mainland were imminent I would support making the perpetrator uncomfortable for up to ninety seconds.

The Geneva convention is one thing OC and I likely don't agree on. IMO, the reason we abide by the Geneva convention is because we signed the treaty and it's the right thing to do, not because of whether our enemies abide by it or not.

What I don't agree on with the far left is that we ordered "torture." The UN defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..."

There are some that will say that water boarding is torture but it's something we as a nation do in training our special forces. There is no eminent threat to life and the act itself is not physically painful so it’s not universally agreed that water boarding is in fact torture.

And as Ziggy correctly pointed out a few weeks back when he and I had a similar conversation, being forced to listen to classical music can be a form of torture. That same statement was also made about Manuel Noriega when he was held up in the Apostolic Nunciature and the American military blasted rock music.

People can voice their opinion all they like but that doesn’t make what they are spouting true. The simple fact is, a clear cut definition of torture is hard to come by and for someone, especially a lay person, to determine what is and isn't torture isn’t as cut and dried as the want to claim, especially when an act involves little to no physical pain.

ohio county wrote:bio-mechanical lawyer dude, I don't think you're unhinged at all. It isn't enough to have elected someone more attuned to your own political persuasion, you should seek vengenance for you are righteous.

If your dog poops in the living room, do you just put the dog out and not clean up the mess?

Aaron wrote:With your last post, you've shown you have no grasp on political reality BMD. Barrack Obama would not allow, under any circumstances, for a former President to be apprehended by or subjected to an international court of law. If crimes were committed, US courts would be the ones handling any legal issues.

I seriously doubt that we are going to start a war with Europe over the fate of a group that trashed our constitution, our economy, and our reputation with the rest of the world? Get real! Bush might, MIGHT, get a little protection as a former head of state. But the rest of the pack, from Cheney on down, will get little more than a token objection in response to their appeals for help.

If these bozos do get indicted, and are stupid enough to test the International Court and the rest of the world by traveling to countries they know are likely to throw their sorry butts in jail, then I seriously doubt that whatever US administration is in power at the time will do much to help them (other than maybe forward their mail).

Do you actually believe the tripe your spouting here BMD?

Well Aaron it is obvious you do not want them charged by an International court.

But is it because you dont think they could have done any thing wrong?

Or just that an American should not be tried in an International Court?

If it's the latter would you support an investigation and possible charges in this country?