Canada's Sovereignty - A Joke ?

[Blodrast]

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/230287

Armed U.S. agents a blow to sovereignty
Email Story Email story
PrintPrint
Text Size Text Size Text SizeChoose text size
Report Typo Report typo or correction
Email the author Email the author
iCopyright License this article
Tag and Save Tag and save
Powered by Delicious


Jun 28, 2007 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom

The federal government plans to give an unspecified number of American police agents carte blanche to carry guns in Canada. It insists that in the post-9/11 world it is just being sensible. It is not.

Few things are more crucial to a nation's sovereignty than its control over legalized violence. It is quite often lawful for the police to shoot you. It is almost never lawful for you to shoot the police. We accept that arrangement only because those who have been given this remarkable life and death authority are in some sense "ours" – they are responsible to governments that we elect.

Ottawa's plan would dramatically change this relationship. It would introduce a whole new array of armed peace officers into this country that are answerable to a foreign power.

Stephen Harper's government, which quietly published these proposed regulatory changes in its Canada Gazette last weekend, suggests the move is designed primarily to accommodate armed air marshals who routinely fly back and forth across the border. But it also says the arrangement would apply to other situations, including "various cross-border enforcement initiatives between Canada and the United States."

This is bureaucratese for open-ended. It means the new law could apply to just about any U.S. agency – from the FBI to Homeland Security to Buffalo police.

Presumably, foreign agents would be allowed not just to carry weapons but to use them. Otherwise what would be the point?

And if, under this new regime, a U.S. agent killed someone on Canadian soil, to whom would he be responsible? Who would investigate? If the shooting were deemed improper, who would lay charges or impose discipline?

Until the `90s, no foreign peace officer was allowed to enter Canada armed – a rule that particularly irked U.S. secret service agents assigned to protect their president during official visits. That rule was relaxed in 1995 specifically to let foreign leaders bring in armed bodyguards. However, these bodyguards – and anyone else who wants to bring a gun in or out of Canada – must apply for one-time permits.

For armed air marshals who make regular cross-border runs, this can be a bureaucratic process. But it seems to work. And it surely can't be more onerous than any of the other security provisions imposed on air travellers.

So why loosen the rules? The government offers no coherent reason – except to say that in some instances peace officers cross the border several times a day. This may be true. But unless these unspecified agents are planning to police someone else's country, they could simply leave their guns at home.

And that is the rub. Since 9/11, the U.S. has already expanded its security and police presence in Canada. The FBI has opened new offices here. The public inquiry into the imprisonment and torture of Maher Arar revealed that agents from the FBI and other unnamed U.S. agencies routinely took part in RCMP meetings dealing with his case. Undercover U.S. agents monitored the Six Nations standoff at Caledonia. Their presence was exposed publicly only after native protestors hijacked their car.

But so far, none of these foreign agents has been given broad legal authority to arrest, detain or shoot anyone in Canada – which is why they are not allowed to carry weapons here. That privilege is reserved for Canadian peace officers answerable to Canadians. Now, Ottawa plans to erode this important distinction.

For a country that claims to be sovereign, this is a bad idea.


A few thoughts...

For one thing, this looks like a clear admission on the side of the Canadian gov't that its law enforcement agencies are useless, and cannot do the job they are being paid to do.
Otherwise they wouldn't need the help of the US law enforcement agencies, would they ?

Another aspect is, which law will the US agents enforce ? Canadian Law ? Isn't that what the Canadian police is for ? US Law ? Whoa, that be getting a bit crazy then, wouldn't it ?

If Canadian police can't do their job, then why should Canadians keep paying taxes to cover their salaries ?
Also, why should Americans keep paying taxes for their agents to enforce the law in Canada ?

Yet another aspect: is Canada really such a hotbed of terrorism and a major threat to the US that this measure is justified ? Are Canadians breaking the law left and right ?
Why the heck not start with Mexico, I reckon there's a few more things to be done about enforcing the law over there, rather than on the north of the border...

And finally... the US might as well annex Canada, and save on some of the paperwork... 'cause so much for sovereignty - the first similar case that comes to mind is Iraq, which is under occupation. How is that similar ? Well, it's a non-US territory where the US law enforcement troops are, well, enforcing the law. Looks like it'll be the same in Canada.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A man attempting to carry out a terrorist attack on the millennium's eve was caught as he crossed from Canada into Washington State.

Do you have an objective news article, instead of an opinion piece? It doesn't seem that crazy to me to let FBI agents to carry guns when they investigate things in Canada, should they have cause to do so.

Crazed Rabbit

[InsaneApache]

Madge will be a tad upset if the USA keep invading her territories. OK we let them off for Grenada, because we liked the idea of the prez being in the same film as a chimp. :clown:

Athens to Rome, Athens to Rome. :shame:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Fantastic. Europe should follow suit and allow foreign agents from all EU member states to investigate, arrest and detain suspects anywhere. :2thumbsup:

Jealously guarded national sovereignty serves only the old-fashioned, criminals and terrorists.

[Duke Malcolm]

We should respond by sending a battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland over there to enforce some British laws which they have openly flouted for over 200 years...

[Devastatin Dave]

:laugh4: Here's a better title for this thread...
"Canada - A Joke ?"

Much better.

[Conradus]

Wasn't the one thing that Serbia refused to Austria-Hungary in the 1914 ultimatum allowing Austrian policemen on their territory?

However if policeforces are allowed to chase criminals that pass borders, it can only help to fight crime. I thought this was already allowed in some European countries? Other then that I believe in closely working together between policeforces of different nations to figth terrorism, criminals,... but not to allow some men to go through the entire country without stating where they are, what they are doing, or obeying only the law of their own country.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Enforcing American laws in Canada is of course absurd, but sending agents to help hunt down terrorists or the like, with the consent of the Canadian gov't, doesn't seem that crazy.

CR

[KukriKhan]

I've scanned thru the last 5 editions of the Canada Gazette (http://canadagazette.gc.ca/index-e.html) and can't find the legislation/order the article's author refers to. Anyone else have a clue?

Assuming someone finds what I've missed, here's another question: is this allowance of sidearms extended to other countries, or just the US? Can the bodyguards of Hugo Chavez, should he decide to visit Toronto, pack heat?

[Kagemusha]

EDIT: Gah! Cant even remember posting that.Note to one self: Decrease the amount of Vodka on fridays a bit.:shame:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Been drinking Kage?

[KukriKhan]

Been drinking Kage?

It's 0430 in Helsinki now. No way. :)

[Hosakawa Tito]

There is an ongoing negotiation between Canada and the US over border security in my local area. New York State has been dragging it's feet over replacing the "Peace Bridge", an international crossing point over the Niagara River between Buffalo, NY and Fort Erie, Ontario. One of the sticking points (besides internal State & Federal politics on other issues related to this bridge) is the location of the Toll Plaza and Inspection Station for checking vehicles, especially the large volume of tractor trailers that cross this point, there's a lot of commerce at stake here. The existing plaza on the US side is not big enough now to handle the larger volume of traffic (causing major traffic backups), and to expand it means using "eminent domain" on a nearby neighborhood to acquire the needed real-estate to build what is needed. However, the Canadian side can be expanded with no such trouble. What can't be agreed upon is the Canadian government won't allow US Border Agents to be armed on Canadian soil, and the US Home Land Defense Dept. insists that they be armed.

I imagine there are similar issues at other US & Canadian border crossings involving pursuit of fleeing criminals and suspects across our shared boundary. I don't see why there can't be some kind of arrangement made for cooperation between our two countries in such important police and security emergencies. A little diplomacy is in order here.

[Devastatin Dave]

Somebody take Kage's keys and call a cab.:laugh4:

[lars573]

Assuming someone finds what I've missed, here's another question: is this allowance of sidearms extended to other countries, or just the US? Can the bodyguards of Hugo Chavez, should he decide to visit Toronto, pack heat?
According to that editorial yes. Any foregin leaders security staff can get permits to bring in and pack heat. Like when Castro came to Montreal for Tredeau's funeral his revolutionary guards were packing.



For one thing, this looks like a clear admission on the side of the Canadian gov't that its law enforcement agencies are useless, and cannot do the job they are being paid to do.
Otherwise they wouldn't need the help of the US law enforcement agencies, would they ?
Where. To. Start. :no: Those US law enforcement agencies are there to track potential threats going to the US. The US and Canada have a fairly open border. Not as relaxed as say an inter EU border but fairly loose. US and Canadian citizens/permanent residents can get across the border fairly quickly and easily. And it's the permanent residents that can house potential problems. They are still technically foregin nationals but the status of permanent resident means that they can get health cards, drivers licenses etc. Everything you need to cross the border. Until the passport laws come into effect. Also we have differnt laws and attitudes toward those laws. For example. Although marijuana is illegal in all of Canada the city of Vancovers police has decided that controlling it's production, distribution, and consumption isn't worth their time and resources. Vancover is also a border city. Meaning that drug runners could go to Vancover buy their stuff and go sell it in the US. So the DEA has an operation in Vancover to keep an eye on that potential situation.

[HoreTore]

Somebody take Kage's keys and call a cab.:laugh4:

He's in Finland, he's "sober" enough to drive there. Unless he's in a coma.

[Beirut]

:laugh4: Here's a better title for this thread...
"Canada - A Joke ?"


A joke? Hmm, maybe in some ways. But at least you don't hear us endlessly whining and complaining about how unfair the world is to us. ~:wave:

As for US cops bringing guns into Canada, go right ahead. The only reason to carry a gun is because you have the intention of eventually shooting someone for some reason or another. As soon as a US cop kills a Canadian on Canadian soil, US/Canada relations will sink like a rock, the minority government, if it did not condemn the shooting loudly and repeal the foreign gun carry law the same day, would fall, and the voters would flock to the Left Wing parties. The Liberals would gain power on an anti-American platform, the NDP (our true left party) would pick up a fair number of new seats in Parliament, the Conservatives would burn, and billions in tourism would shift from Florida to Cuba, and the Governor of Florida, whoever's brother he might be at the time, would be screaming bloody murder on our behalf.

Oh the can of worms...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

As soon as a US cop kills a Canadian on Canadian soil, US/Canada relations will sink like a rock, the minority government, if it did not condemn the shooting loudly and repeal the foreign gun carry law the same day, would fall, and the voters would flock to the Left Wing parties. The Liberals would gain power on an anti-American platform, the NDP (our true left party) would pick up a fair number of new seats in Parliament, the Conservatives would burn, and billions in tourism would shift from Florida to Cuba, and the Governor of Florida, whoever's brother he might be at the time, would be screaming bloody murder on our behalf.

Even if the shooting were in self-defence?

[Beirut]

Even if the shooting were in self-defence?

It would never be seen that way. It would be seen only as a US cop killing a Canadian person on Canadian soil. Only the very far right would back it, the rest of us would be howling mad.

We have our own unwarranted police shooting going on here, the public has zero patience for foreign cops coming over to chip in.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So a terrorist who happens to have Canadian citizenship could be in the process of attacking defenseless Canadians, be shot by a US agent, thereby saving many people, and the Canadian public would get angry?

Or are you just bitter about those darned conservatives taking over North America?

CR

[KafirChobee]

Er, Beruit? Charlie Crist is the Governor of Florida. Jeb left in 2006 - thank Zeus. Don't know anything about Charlie's brothers though - actually, I think, he only has frat brothers - and a few really suspicious cohorts. He's been accused of being a gay liberal, you know, by our friendly unbiased religious right down heya.


Personally, I see no problem with law enforcement personnel of other nations carrying arms elsewhere - for their protection. However, they must fall under the laws of the land they are in and take second chair to that nations lawmen. In other words they follow, not lead - and share all pertinent info with their host country on what ever case they are investigating. Other wise - what's the purpose?

[Blodrast]

Nobody's saying that cooperation shouldn't be in place - and IT IS.
Read the article. Heck, you can pick any official publication, and you'll find that there is PLENTY of cooperation between the two - as it should be.

But cooperation means that the US make the rules on US soil, and Canadians make the rules on Canadian soil, period. Each calls the shots on their own territory, and that's as it should be, as well.
It seems to me that this law would pretty much give freedom to US agents to do as they wish, which is not ok.

And I agree that this should be targeted towards border issues, and customs stuff, and maybe even personal bodyguards for officials, but as far as investigations go, I think Canadian police should be capable enough to enforce the law on Canadian soil. The problem with the law, as the author of the article suggests, is that it appears to be so vague that it can be applied very liberally.

Beirut, I also looked for the bill in the Canada Gazette, and I couldn't find it either... It would indeed help if we could find the actual text of the bill.

Rabbit: thank you for your knee-jerk reaction. So I take it you're ok with Mexican cops crossing the border into US and shooting US citizens if they broke Mexican law ?
And please, you sound like Bush by bringing "terrorists" into every phrase... No, everything is NOT justified by the fear that "terrorists will attack us !!".
The US has an incredibly porous border with Mexico, and you're telling me that you're worried that terrorists are coming in from Canada ?!

[Kralizec]

Well, the article completely leaves out one important aspect: under what circumstances is an on-duty cop formally allowed to enter Canada?

Germany and the Netherlands have had for years a cross-border pursuit arrangement so that a patrol car doesn't have to give up on a fleeing suspect because he could not be intercepted before reaching the border. I haven't heard of any trouble associated with it, and as far as I know the cops aren't legally obliged to throw their weapons out of the window before crossing the mark.

Suppose a NY state police department just learned that there may be a bomb "factory" about 40 miles into Canada, could they carry out a police raid without explicit permission from Canada?

[Blodrast]

Well, the article completely leaves out one important aspect: under what circumstances is an on-duty cop formally allowed to enter Canada?


And that's exactly why I also looked for the actual text in the Canada Gazette: to read the nitty-gritty details for myself.



Germany and the Netherlands have had for years a cross-border pursuit arrangement so that a patrol car doesn't have to give up on a fleeing suspect because he could not be intercepted before reaching the border. I haven't heard of any trouble associated with it, and as far as I know the cops aren't legally obliged to throw their weapons out of the window before crossing the mark.

Suppose a NY state police department just learned that there may be a bomb "factory" about 40 miles into Canada, could they carry out a police raid without explicit permission from Canada?

Is there no reason why they could not alert the Canadian authorities so that they could potentially do a joint raid ?
If it's 40 miles into Canada, this means that some Canadian law enforcement agencies would actually be closer to that target and may have a better response time anyway.

Also, "agreement" is the keyword in your posts. It implies that both sides have agreed on this, and it's mutual: Dutch law enforcement acting in Germany, and German law enforcement acting in the Netherlands. I'm not aware of any law that would allow Canadian law enforcement to act in the US, so this is one-sided.

[Kralizec]

And that's exactly why I also looked for the actual text in the Canada Gazette: to read the nitty-gritty details for myself.

Is there no reason why they could not alert the Canadian authorities so that they could potentially do a joint raid ?
If it's 40 miles into Canada, this means that some Canadian law enforcement agencies would actually be closer to that target and may have a better response time anyway.

Well 40 miles isn't really a long distance in the USA or Canada, and police coverage isn't always good. I asked the question because I was genuinely curious. I do think such a carte blanche to cross the border for police work is absurd, but I wasn't sure wether that's what the law is actually about.


Also, "agreement" is the keyword in your posts. It implies that both sides have agreed on this, and it's mutual: Dutch law enforcement acting in Germany, and German law enforcement acting in the Netherlands. I'm not aware of any law that would allow Canadian law enforcement to act in the US, so this is one-sided.

Yeah it's not a reciprocal agreement (or the article is deviously letting that out...), so we're left wondering wether Harper got something totally sweet in return for all this or if he's totally useless as a prime minister.

EDIT: I think I've found the right article: link (http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2007/20070623/html/regle2-e.html)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Rabbit: thank you for your knee-jerk reaction. So I take it you're ok with Mexican cops crossing the border into US and shooting US citizens if they broke Mexican law ?
What the...? How in the world did you get that from what I said?


And please, you sound like Bush by bringing "terrorists" into every phrase... No, everything is NOT justified by the fear that "terrorists will attack us !!".
The US has an incredibly porous border with Mexico, and you're telling me that you're worried that terrorists are coming in from Canada ?!

At least one terrorist has tried to come into Washington state from Canada. You're vastly missing the point if you think I support FBI agents or cops just being shipped up to Canada for no reason, or going in without official Canadian permission.

I bring up terrorists because I see that as one of the main reasons Canadians might let US agents into Canada. I don't see cops pursuing suspects into Canada or anything like that. For crying out loud, you hardly know anything of this and yet slam people who suggest any possible good reasons for it.

Geez.

CR

[Beirut]

So a terrorist who happens to have Canadian citizenship could be in the process of attacking defenseless Canadians, be shot by a US agent, thereby saving many people, and the Canadian public would get angry?

CR

Yeah, on paper it's a lovely thing - Joe Bond saves the day. In the real world it's never so cut and dried. If there were a shooting the circumstances would doubtlessly be fuzzy, the facts unclear. "He was reaching for a weapon," or "I thought he had a gun", and in the end it would be a case of mistaken identity, or someone who wasn't a terrorist but maybe had some drugs in the house and therefore "the shooting is justified". Who knows.

It would not be a clean head shot on a black hooded Al-Queada wearing C4 in central Toronto, it would be a three in the morning raid on a "suspected dwelling" where the owner gets killed in a hail of bullets because he jumped out of bed when a bunch of armed men smashed in his door and ran at him. It's happened before, very recently, and it will happen again. But if it was a US cop that did the shooting, with the reaction from the Canadian public you'll think you were living next to Iran.

[Crazed Rabbit]

and in the end it would be a case of mistaken identity, or someone who wasn't a terrorist but maybe had some drugs in the house and therefore "the shooting is justified".

So, you totally reject the possibility that there might be a legitimate terrorist in Canada? It would seem so, given that you believe there can't possibly be a clean, good shoot. And that would be an incorrect belief, considering terrorists have tried to get into the US from Canada.


But if it was a US cop that did the shooting, with the reaction from the Canadian public you'll think you were living next to Iran.

You'd be flooding our country with military weapons?

Sweet! Sign me up!

Crazed Rabbit

[Blodrast]

What the...? How in the world did you get that from what I said?

No, you're right, you didn't say that. But what I took from your post was that you're perfectly ok for US law enforcement agents to come into Canada and enforce the law - even if the suspects/criminals are Canadian citizen.
My Mexican analogy is the same thing, except I switched Canadian with US and US with Mexico.



At least one terrorist has tried to come into Washington state from Canada. You're vastly missing the point if you think I support FBI agents or cops just being shipped up to Canada for no reason, or going in without official Canadian permission.

I bring up terrorists because I see that as one of the main reasons Canadians might let US agents into Canada. I don't see cops pursuing suspects into Canada or anything like that. For crying out loud, you hardly know anything of this and yet slam people who suggest any possible good reasons for it.


I don't see one case as a good enough reason to pass a law with potentially very far-reaching implications.
You don't see cops pursuing suspects into Canada, but if the law allows it, we just might see it.

And no, I see plenty of good reasons for it - re-read my second post. I fully believe in cooperation, I don't believe in one-sided, carte-blanche laws.

And from my understanding this was meant to serve primarily for border-related incidents, not for terrorists. That, I actually consider a worthwhile objective to pursue - to become more efficient by eliminating unnecessary red tape. However, even there, I still believe we can have cooperation, rather than one-sided actions, which the law might make acceptable.

It's possible that I misunderstood your post, although I thought you were pretty clear.
If I did, well, my apologies.

[Blodrast]

Kralizec: thank you for the article!

I believe the relevant portion is this:



(a) employees of a foreign state who, for the purpose of ensuring public safety or security or of enforcing the laws of the foreign state or of Canada, carry goods in the course of their employment when entering or exiting Canada for which permits are required under the Export and Import Permits Act and whose duties and functions are described in an arrangement or commitment between the foreign state and the Government of Canada;

I indeed find it way too vague. The analysis, before the text of the actual regulation, specifies a few of the cases where this might be applicable ("Such programs could include the Canadian Air Carrier Protective Program (CACPP), the U.S. Federal Air Marshall Program, in-flight security officer programs operated by various foreign governments, prisoner exchange programs, and various cross-border enforcement initiatives between Canada and the United States."), but there are virtually no limitations imposed by these regulations.

Basically, any foreign law enforcement agent can enforce the law on Canada's territory - even, as specified, "the laws of the foreign state".

What if the two countries' laws are different on the issue that the suspect/criminal is suspected/guilty of ? i.e., it's not a crime in Canada, but it is in the US ? (And yes, I can give examples, think of IP rights and copyright issues, and I'm sure there are more).

Look. You wanna do this, do it right: you want it for US Air Marshalls ? Fine, specify that it only applies to US Air Marshalls. You want it for the border customs agents as well ? Fine, specify that it only applies to border customs agents.
Be specific as to who exactly is exempt through this law, and what exactly they are allowed to do in potentially complicated circumstances - such as, which law takes priority, what happens when the laws are conflicting, etc.

And yeah, this is tricky and complicated to do - so why not just always involve the damn Canadian forces, and avoid all these thorny issues ?

[Beirut]

So, you totally reject the possibility that there might be a legitimate terrorist in Canada? It would seem so, given that you believe there can't possibly be a clean, good shoot. And that would be an incorrect belief, considering terrorists have tried to get into the US from Canada.

Well, contrary to what some may have espoused, we do have police in Canada, and they even get to carry guns. I have no problem with international co-operation, but within the confines of our borders, we do not need or want foreign police enforcing the law in Canada.


You'd be flooding our country with military weapons?

Crazed Rabbit

No, but you would see very unpleasant videos on the evening news of American flags being burned and thousands of people demonstrating against the US. I can't imagine either of us would really want that.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Well, contrary to what some may have espoused, we do have police in Canada, and they even get to carry guns. I have no problem with international co-operation, but within the confines of our borders, we do not need or want foreign police enforcing the law in Canada.



No, but you would see very unpleasant videos on the evening news of American flags being burned and thousands of people demonstrating against the US. I can't imagine either of us would really want that.

I agree and don't blame those opposed to this hair-brained scheme. Any US law enforcement personnel operating inside Canada should be accompanied by their Canadian counterparts sans arms, as it should be now. A confined area like a Border Check Point Station (Canadian personnel can handle any pursuit needs from these places) is a different matter than roaming across Canada.

Why do you think the current Canadian Administration wishes to change the current arrangement to allow this? Has there been a need, deadly physical force threat against foreign law enforcement agents to justify arming them? If so, it sure hasn't been reported to the general public.

[KukriKhan]

Having now read through the proposed legislation (thanks, Kralizec; good eye!), I agree: it's too vague, and leaves the door open to abuse.

If I were Canadian, I'd oppose it.

I could see awarding some kind of 'permanent exemption' to specifically-vetted individual law-enforcers, so they don't have to repeatedly clog up the system with "Form 1020, Request for Exemption to Carry Sidearms While On-Duty in Canada" blah-blah-blah...

but exempting entire classes of gun-toting guys, without specific, individual vetting by Canadian authorities strikes me as inviting trouble of the kind Beirut predicts, without good reason.

[Beirut]

Why do you think the current Canadian Administration wishes to change the current arrangement to allow this?

Because our Prime Minister's nose is so far up your President's backside...


Has there been a need, deadly physical force threat against foreign law enforcement agents to justify arming them? If so, it sure hasn't been reported to the general public.

Even if there has been, and I have not heard of it, any threat to any foreigners on Canadian soil should/will be dealt with by Canadian authorities.

I do not, however, oppose the Secret Service being armed in the company of your President when he is here. I think many/most Canadians would agree with this courtesy we extend to our American friends. One major reason for this allowance is that most Canadians respect the professionalism of the President's detail and the importance, for all concerned, of keeping the President safe.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, contrary to what some may have espoused, we do have police in Canada, and they even get to carry guns. I have no problem with international co-operation, but within the confines of our borders, we do not need or want foreign police enforcing the law in Canada.

So you admit that there could be a legitimate shoot against a terrorist like person, which would mean a US federal agent could take part in such an operation and US-Canadian relations wouldn't immediately go sour, or that they could shoot in self defense. But you don't want US agents on those (or any type of active law enforcement) types of missions, which is completely understandable. However, that is not the same as agents being armed just for self defense. I'd agree that the law is too vague though.


No, but you would see very unpleasant videos on the evening news of American flags being burned and thousands of people demonstrating against the US. I can't imagine either of us would really want that.

Flag burning? We've got people burning effigies of US soldiers in the US (******* anarchists). Maybe if you want to lose some of your biggest trading partner's money, but even then that's weak sauce compared to actually living next to Iran.

Crazed Rabbit

[Strike For The South]

Why the hostility guys? Yall act lke Canada needs to bow to our wishes to help us find the terrorist. If they dont want us to have guns in there country than they can do that. Just like they can make everyone wear purple on tuesday. There their on country and csn do as the wish with or withput our approvsl

[Beirut]

So you admit that there could be a legitimate shoot against a terrorist like person, which would mean a US federal agent could take part in such an operation and US-Canadian relations wouldn't immediately go sour, or that they could shoot in self defense. But you don't want US agents on those (or any type of active law enforcement) types of missions, which is completely understandable. However, that is not the same as agents being armed just for self defense. I'd agree that the law is too vague though.

I'll admit a lot of things. I'll admit the sky is blue and the moon might truly be made of green cheese. But I will not admit into my country armed foreign agents to enforce the law. Los Angeles might very well be a safer place if we sent a thousand RCMP down with MP5s, but somehow I don't think the locals would appreciate it. It's a bad idea no matter who goes where.

Foreign agents, except in the most exceptional circumstances, should never be armed in a foreign country unless they are within the perimeter of their embassy. Those exceptional conditions do not exist here. If they did, if the situation was so grave as to require extra manpower, we have our own highly regarded RCMP SWAT teams and army Special Forces who can be called in. We do not want, nor need, armed American cops on Canadian streets. Period


Flag burning? We've got people burning effigies of US soldiers in the US (******* anarchists). Maybe if you want to lose some of your biggest trading partner's money, but even then that's weak sauce compared to actually living next to Iran.

Crazed Rabbit

Yeah, but seriously, if you put yourself in a situation where the igloo dwellers up north actually leave the house in order to protest against our friend's down south, you've got to know you've pushed the wrong button somewhere along the line.

As for the money, that goes both ways. Over the course of one elected term for either of our governments, the US and Canada trade goods measured in trillions of dollars. Screw that up and both sides will suffer, make no mistake.

[KukriKhan]

...Los Angeles might very well be a safer place if we sent a thousand RCMP down with MP5s, but somehow I don't think the locals would appreciate it...

I'd actually pay money to watch the Mounties in LA. It's the finest idea I've heard yet for cleaning up that swamp. They'd likely have things wrapped up in a week, then they could come on down to my house for Brewski's.

Consider the invitation extended. :)

[Papewaio]

What is this thing about driving from one country to another? Surely it isn't so?

[Husar]

I don't know about guns, but some european countries exchange policemen at times and the Schengen-treaty allows police to chase criminals over borders, I find the idea to stop at some imaginative line and let them escape quite ridiculous. About full operations in foreign countries, well, I'd say that should be done in cooperation, wouldn't really like some polish policemen storm my appartement because I wouldn't be able to explain anything in polish.:sweatdrop:

[Suraknar]

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/230287

Armed U.S. agents a blow to sovereignty
Email Story Email story
PrintPrint
Text Size Text Size Text SizeChoose text size
Report Typo Report typo or correction
Email the author Email the author
iCopyright License this article
Tag and Save Tag and save
Powered by Delicious


Jun 28, 2007 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom

The federal government plans to give an unspecified number of American police agents carte blanche to carry guns in Canada. It insists that in the post-9/11 world it is just being sensible. It is not.

Few things are more crucial to a nation's sovereignty than its control over legalized violence. It is quite often lawful for the police to shoot you. It is almost never lawful for you to shoot the police. We accept that arrangement only because those who have been given this remarkable life and death authority are in some sense "ours" – they are responsible to governments that we elect.

Ottawa's plan would dramatically change this relationship. It would introduce a whole new array of armed peace officers into this country that are answerable to a foreign power.

Stephen Harper's government, which quietly published these proposed regulatory changes in its Canada Gazette last weekend, suggests the move is designed primarily to accommodate armed air marshals who routinely fly back and forth across the border. But it also says the arrangement would apply to other situations, including "various cross-border enforcement initiatives between Canada and the United States."

This is bureaucratese for open-ended. It means the new law could apply to just about any U.S. agency – from the FBI to Homeland Security to Buffalo police.

Presumably, foreign agents would be allowed not just to carry weapons but to use them. Otherwise what would be the point?

And if, under this new regime, a U.S. agent killed someone on Canadian soil, to whom would he be responsible? Who would investigate? If the shooting were deemed improper, who would lay charges or impose discipline?

Until the `90s, no foreign peace officer was allowed to enter Canada armed – a rule that particularly irked U.S. secret service agents assigned to protect their president during official visits. That rule was relaxed in 1995 specifically to let foreign leaders bring in armed bodyguards. However, these bodyguards – and anyone else who wants to bring a gun in or out of Canada – must apply for one-time permits.

For armed air marshals who make regular cross-border runs, this can be a bureaucratic process. But it seems to work. And it surely can't be more onerous than any of the other security provisions imposed on air travellers.

So why loosen the rules? The government offers no coherent reason – except to say that in some instances peace officers cross the border several times a day. This may be true. But unless these unspecified agents are planning to police someone else's country, they could simply leave their guns at home.

And that is the rub. Since 9/11, the U.S. has already expanded its security and police presence in Canada. The FBI has opened new offices here. The public inquiry into the imprisonment and torture of Maher Arar revealed that agents from the FBI and other unnamed U.S. agencies routinely took part in RCMP meetings dealing with his case. Undercover U.S. agents monitored the Six Nations standoff at Caledonia. Their presence was exposed publicly only after native protestors hijacked their car.

But so far, none of these foreign agents has been given broad legal authority to arrest, detain or shoot anyone in Canada – which is why they are not allowed to carry weapons here. That privilege is reserved for Canadian peace officers answerable to Canadians. Now, Ottawa plans to erode this important distinction.

For a country that claims to be sovereign, this is a bad idea.


A few thoughts...

For one thing, this looks like a clear admission on the side of the Canadian gov't that its law enforcement agencies are useless, and cannot do the job they are being paid to do.
Otherwise they wouldn't need the help of the US law enforcement agencies, would they ?

Another aspect is, which law will the US agents enforce ? Canadian Law ? Isn't that what the Canadian police is for ? US Law ? Whoa, that be getting a bit crazy then, wouldn't it ?

If Canadian police can't do their job, then why should Canadians keep paying taxes to cover their salaries ?
Also, why should Americans keep paying taxes for their agents to enforce the law in Canada ?

Yet another aspect: is Canada really such a hotbed of terrorism and a major threat to the US that this measure is justified ? Are Canadians breaking the law left and right ?
Why the heck not start with Mexico, I reckon there's a few more things to be done about enforcing the law over there, rather than on the north of the border...

And finally... the US might as well annex Canada, and save on some of the paperwork... 'cause so much for sovereignty - the first similar case that comes to mind is Iraq, which is under occupation. How is that similar ? Well, it's a non-US territory where the US law enforcement troops are, well, enforcing the law. Looks like it'll be the same in Canada.


I think you are grosselly misinterpreting what is going on here, and misunderstanding some things.

US marshals (the exemple brought on by the article here) follow many different cases, now lets supose that an American prison escapee crosses the border and comes in to Canada to hide, the marshals curently have to cross the border and coordinate efforts with Canadian police, while handing their gun. In an eventual shootout the American Citizen Marshal, cannot do anything but watch as the Canadian police takes down that "american" criminal.

This agreement between the two would in fact permit to a US marshal to be able to detain and shoot an american citizen in canadian soil if need be and given the same scenario.

This is called cooperation for mutual safety interests, and I am convinced that such an agreement would be two way in that it would also permit canadian RCMP that have to cross the border to also retain the right to carry their gun and use it if need be.

This has nothing to do with US police policing canadian Citizens or Canadian Police policing American Citizens, it is simply a courtesy for the betterment of cooperation and resolution of certain cases between two bordering and neigboring countries, and its goal the safeguard of both these countries citizens.

[Papewaio]

This is called cooperation for mutual safety interests, and I am convinced that such an agreement would be two way in that it would also permit canadian RCMP that have to cross the border to also retain the right to carry their gun and use it if need be.


I don't think a law made in Canada will have so an effect. So you can cite the reciprocal law in the US that will allow Canadian law enforcement to do such? And the one that will allow the same for Mexican law enforcement officers?

No? Probably because such a method would have to be a signed and ratified treaty that is done by the mutual parties rather then a single party making it so within their locale.

In an idealistic world:
That the Canadian government will do so without a reciprocal agreement should be enough to dissolve parliament and have a new set of elections take place where a government will govern on behalf of its electorate not anothers without a fair exchange.

[Redleg]

I'll admit a lot of things. I'll admit the sky is blue and the moon might truly be made of green cheese. But I will not admit into my country armed foreign agents to enforce the law. Los Angeles might very well be a safer place if we sent a thousand RCMP down with MP5s, but somehow I don't think the locals would appreciate it. It's a bad idea no matter who goes where.

Foreign agents, except in the most exceptional circumstances, should never be armed in a foreign country unless they are within the perimeter of their embassy. Those exceptional conditions do not exist here. If they did, if the situation was so grave as to require extra manpower, we have our own highly regarded RCMP SWAT teams and army Special Forces who can be called in. We do not want, nor need, armed American cops on Canadian streets. Period



Yeah, but seriously, if you put yourself in a situation where the igloo dwellers up north actually leave the house in order to protest against our friend's down south, you've got to know you've pushed the wrong button somewhere along the line.

As for the money, that goes both ways. Over the course of one elected term for either of our governments, the US and Canada trade goods measured in trillions of dollars. Screw that up and both sides will suffer, make no mistake.

So the age old cooperation between the United States and Canada concerning law enforcement is now out the window?

You do know that several of the worse white supremist groups operate in an area that requires active cooperation between armed police of both nations? That sometimes agents cross into the other nation in active pursuit of criminals.

Should the United States police agencies enter into Canada without the knowledge of the Canadian government and/or the local authority - No. However to claim that it should not happen at all - especially when the police force of either nations is in hot pursuit of an individual involved in a criminal enterprise ignores the pourous nature of the border between our two nations.

[Redleg]

I don't think a law made in Canada will have so an effect. So you can cite the reciprocal law in the US that will allow Canadian law enforcement to do such? And the one that will allow the same for Mexican law enforcement officers?

No law but there are some treaties and other such things


http://ottawa.usembassy.gov/content/textonly.asp?section=can_usa&subsection1=general&document=relations_lawenforcement

[Papewaio]

What should happen is hand in hand cooperation. But not carte blanche here is the keys to the estate.

I think it is a very serious thing to allow criminals to get away over red tap.
It has to be balanced by very serious concerns over a country having say on whom its law enforcement officers are.

EDIT:
What would be useful is a mini-me North America Interpol

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I don't know about guns, but some european countries exchange policemen at times and the Schengen-treaty allows police to chase criminals over borders, I find the idea to stop at some imaginative line and let them escape quite ridiculous. About full operations in foreign countries, well, I'd say that should be done in cooperation, wouldn't really like some polish policemen storm my appartement because I wouldn't be able to explain anything in polish.:sweatdrop:
Why would Polish policemen storm your apartment?

Oh, I forgot. Our parents/grandparents deprived them of EU voting rights. :shame:

[Redleg]

What should happen is hand in hand cooperation. But not carte blanche here is the keys to the estate. If the Canadian government is attempting to grant carte blanche to US Law Enforcement agencies then its overstepping its own authority and is making bad law. If the Canadian Government is attempting to establish a new measure to allow ease of law enforcement along the border then they have done a poor job of writing law. The people of Canada instead of thinking the United States wants to take over their nation need to ensure that their government is doing its job.



I think it is a very serious thing to allow criminals to get away over red tap.
It has to be balanced by very serious concerns over a country having say on whom its law enforcement officers are.


Current agreements between the two nations allow for several things, some of those areas need to be improved, just like any agreement once it begins to have contact with reality.



EDIT:
What would be useful is a mini-me North America Interpol

I believe there is. If I remember right there are liason officers between the two nations major law enforcement agencies. I also remember reading about local agencies have execellent cooperation along the border. There a few areas with problems such as the freedom bridge, but in all I think the cooperation is fine.

[Beirut]

So the age old cooperation between the United States and Canada concerning law enforcement is now out the window?

Never said that. Never will. Just leave your guns at home. We have lots of guns up here thank you very much.


You do know that several of the worse white supremist groups operate in an area that requires active cooperation between armed police of both nations? That sometimes agents cross into the other nation in active pursuit of criminals.

We have lots of radios up here as well.


Should the United States police agencies enter into Canada without the knowledge of the Canadian government and/or the local authority - No. However to claim that it should not happen at all - especially when the police force of either nations is in hot pursuit of an individual involved in a criminal enterprise ignores the pourous nature of the border between our two nations.

Hot pursuit may constitute exceptional circumstances that we may see as justifiable.

I was talking to my buddy about this last night and the first thing he brought up was what I brought up many posts back, that a shooting involving US police in Canada would not be a "Joe Bond saves the day" head shot on a C4 packing Osama as he attempts to board a school bus full of pregnant nuns, it would be a midnight raid on a home that would kill a "suspected person" in a hail of gunshots under dubious circumstances.

US cops carrying guns in Canada? No. Nein. Nyet.

[Watchman]

Granted, US cops have a somewhat bad rep when it comes to responsible employement of firearms - at the municipal level anyway. Dunno about the federals and other "higher tier" ones.

[Redleg]

Never said that. Never will. Just leave your guns at home. We have lots of guns up here thank you very much.

A police officer out to arrest an armed criminal without a weapon is not a smart idea when one is in hot pursuit of a criminal. Everything else should operate just like it has for years. Armed United States police forces operating subordinate to Canadian police forces within the national borders of Canada.



We have lots of radios up here as well.


See above - the old agreements are still valided.



Hot pursuit may constitute exceptional circumstances that we may see as justifiable.


See above - the historical joint particapation between the United States and Canada demonstrates my point very well.



I was talking to my buddy about this last night and the first thing he brought up was what I brought up many posts back, that a shooting involving US police in Canada would not be a "Joe Bond saves the day" head shot on a C4 packing Osama as he attempts to board a school bus full of pregnant nuns, it would be a midnight raid on a home that would kill a "suspected person" in a hail of gunshots under dubious circumstances.


Raids on Canadian homes should only be done by the Canadian Police - Which I believe is what I have stated in an indirect way - and I believe from what I have read on this new measure being looked into by your government is still going to be the law.



US cops carrying guns in Canada? No. Nein. Nyet.

Then you should stay really upset - United States Police have been going into Canada armed under the guidance of your government and local police for years. Your about 200 years late.

Just like United States Armed Forces train in Canada every now and then. And the reverse is also true. Canadian Armed Forces train in the United States and Canadian Police have been invited into the United States carrying their weapons.

[Papewaio]

I believe there is. If I remember right there are liason officers between the two nations major law enforcement agencies. I also remember reading about local agencies have execellent cooperation along the border. There a few areas with problems such as the freedom bridge, but in all I think the cooperation is fine.

Maybe what is needed is border guards/marshals/customs that can freely operate in both countries... probably to a depth of x km into each.

Might be easiest to do if they are all dual citizens. But more seriously, if it was cooperative group allowing people crossing the border to go into a one stop shop that checked them with minimal hassle, while also having a 'border swat' team that is the guys who are used to chase international criminals, and a 'border HQ' that coordinates between all groups.

[Beirut]

A police officer out to arrest an armed criminal without a weapon is not a smart idea when one is in hot pursuit of a criminal. Everything else should operate just like it has for years. Armed United States police forces operating subordinate to Canadian police forces within the national borders of Canada.

The Canadian people (I'm speaking for all of them right now since I actually know all of them quite well and they have all been to my house for dinner) do not want armed Americans in Canada. It is very simple, very clear, and anytime there is an armed American in Canada, he might be there with the government's permission, but I can assure you without a shadow of a doubt the Canadian people do not want him there. Period. Pointe finale. You want come up for a visit, business or pleasure, sure. Leave your guns at home. The idea of armed Americans enforcing the law in Canada is as tasteful to us as Fidel Castro going for a whiz in the Lincoln Bedroom would be to you.



Then you should stay really upset - United States Police have been going into Canada armed under the guidance of your government and local police for years. Your about 200 years late.

It's never to late to tell someone to leave.


Just like United States Armed Forces train in Canada every now and then. And the reverse is also true. Canadian Armed Forces train in the United States and Canadian Police have been invited into the United States carrying their weapons.

Training is a different matter than enforcing the law. We have NATO fighter jets training all over Canada, but if they start bombing Montreal we're going to take it personally.

[Suraknar]

I don't think a law made in Canada will have so an effect. So you can cite the reciprocal law in the US that will allow Canadian law enforcement to do such? And the one that will allow the same for Mexican law enforcement officers?

No? Probably because such a method would have to be a signed and ratified treaty that is done by the mutual parties rather then a single party making it so within their locale.

In an idealistic world:
That the Canadian government will do so without a reciprocal agreement should be enough to dissolve parliament and have a new set of elections take place where a government will govern on behalf of its electorate not anothers without a fair exchange.

here you go:




Officers could carry their guns across border

UNNATI GANDHI

Globe and Mail Update

June 26, 2007 at 1:18 AM EDT

The federal government is proposing to ease restrictions on foreign law-enforcement officers who carry weapons into Canada.

In a reciprocal agreement with the United States, the regulation would exempt officers, including police and air marshals, from a “foreign state” from having to obtain permits for side arms, according to a posting on the government's official publication, the Canada Gazette and reported on CTV News Monday night.

The changes could mean that both domestic and foreign officers could enter and leave Canada with their weapons without having to get an import and export permit. Currently, police officers from other countries can bring weapons into Canada only in extreme circumstances, such as when accompanying a head of state on an official visit.

While some say the regulation would lead to a safer border, others suggest it could have broad implications for gun control in Canada and could lead to dangerous situations.

The proposed changes could open the rules to wide interpretations, Liberal MP Dan McTeague said.

“[This] opens the door to a number of real concerns that I don't think police or politicians or Canadians have had a chance to look into,” he said.

“Issues of sovereignty, issues of the kind of guns and duty weapons that are being brought in, may very well be inconsistent with the laws we have on prohibition of weapons.”

A Foreign Affairs spokesman would not comment on the change Monday night.

Paul Cellucci, former U.S. ambassador to Canada, said the regulation will make the border safer.

“If you're working on a joint team and you're chasing some criminal, you're not going to be dropping your weapon every time you go across the border,” he said.

“We're working together, we're going after the same bad guys. It's in our national interest to stop the terrorists, to stop the smugglers.”


From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070626.wguns26/BNStory/National/home

It is a reciprocal agreement between the two countries not just a law made in Canada.

[Redleg]

The Canadian people (I'm speaking for all of them right now since I actually know all of them quite well and they have all been to my house for dinner) do not want armed Americans in Canada. It is very simple, very clear, and anytime there is an armed American in Canada, he might be there with the government's permission, but I can assure you without a shadow of a doubt the Canadian people do not want him there. Period. Pointe finale. You want come up for a visit, business or pleasure, sure. Leave your guns at home. The idea of armed Americans enforcing the law in Canada is as tasteful to us as Fidel Castro going for a whiz in the Lincoln Bedroom would be to you.


Then you need to pressure your government to break each and every treaty and agreement that your nation has with the United States in regards to military training and police cooperation. It seems you are in complete disagreement with the established agreements of the last century.



It's never to late to tell someone to leave.


See the above - take issue with your government not the police of the United States. The cooperation has been ongoing for many years.



Training is a different matter than enforcing the law. We have NATO fighter jets training all over Canada, but if they start bombing Montreal we're going to take it personally.

They are stilled armed - notice what you have stated and see the direct contradiction in your own statements. Blaming the United States for wanting to arm its police when they are after criminals is a nonsense arguement, the point is that the issue is not the United States wanting its police armed in the performance of their assigned duties - its that your nation's government is deciding to take the lazy way out, instead of working on a law and an agreement that is acceptable to its people, notice that their is no uproar in the United States about having Canadian Police coming into the United States armed when performing thier duties under the agreements.

In other words the United States can not be blamed because your nation's government is being lazy or acting contray to its people's wishes - you can only blame yourselves for electing your government in the first place.

[Beirut]

Then you need to pressure your government to break each and every treaty and agreement that your nation has with the United States in regards to military training and police cooperation. It seems you are in complete disagreement with the established agreements of the last century.

We are well capable of emptying the bath without the poor toddller slurping down the drain, thank you very much.



In other words the United States can not be blamed because your nation's government is being lazy or acting contray to its people's wishes - you can only blame yourselves for electing your government in the first place.

Oh I do, I do. Our Prime Minister is a brown nosing, weak, lily livered shmoo when it comes to dealing with several foreign governments. I look forward to voting him out of office at the earliest opportunity.

But no matter how the blame pie is sliced, no matter which piece we get and which we give away, no matter if we don't get a slice at all or if we get it all, we do not ever want armed Americans enforcing the law in Canada. It cannot be said more plainly.

Look at it this way, would the KGB and their conspicuous Kalashnikovs be welcome in Texas to enforce the law?

Well there you have it then.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You're saying Canadian-US relationships are like cold war US-Soviet relationships?

It's reciprocal, Beirut, and US cops aren't going to be enforcing laws in Canada.


we do not ever want armed Americans enforcing the law in Canada.

You said the same thing about private health care, but it seems Canada is not one monolithic being in agreement with yourself.

CR

[Suraknar]

Well,

I think we have a problem in Canada in relation to our politicians, because they have taken this "Reprsentative Democracy" concept a bit too far.

Most often than not they assume that just because they were elected for 4 years that they have carte blanche in deciding on all issues independently of how the public feals about he issue.

There have been many instances were our Governements in the past have gone forth with decision even if the public did not agree with em, under the umbrella of the 4 year mandate that they won.

So our solution in order to remind politicians that that "representative" means to represent the people since we are a Democracy, and that they do not get carte blanche just because they won the elections is to have a minority governement, and I personaly dont really care who or which party does win the elections, as long as we get another minority governement, it works wonders to see politicians for once working for the interests of the people of this country and not their familly, friends and party. And that is what Democracy is all about, we elect representatives of the people, for the people, we are not interested in electing 4 year dictatorships.

That being said,
and back to this topic, soveregnty of canada has nothing to do with a law inforcement agreement between two neigboring countries, someone is taking this issue too far., the aim here is not to mandate american or canadian law officers to enforce law in the other's soil, the aim is simply to reduce beurocracy which may and does impede on the execution of law enforcement procedures and thus facilitate their task in dealing with badies and keeping everyone else safe.

[Beirut]

You're saying Canadian-US relationships are like cold war US-Soviet relationships?

No, I'm saying armed American police enforcing the law in Canada are as welcome as the KGB would be in Texas.

Apples and oranges may be compared without any prerequisite of a fruit cocktail being constructed.




It's reciprocal, Beirut, and US cops aren't going to be enforcing laws in Canada.

Wonderful. Then they won't need guns then, will they?



You said the same thing about private health care, but it seems Canada is not one monolithic being in agreement with yourself.

CR

Give it time, Mr. Rabbit, give it time.

[KafirChobee]

here you go:



From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070626.wguns26/BNStory/National/home

It is a reciprocal agreement between the two countries not just a law made in Canada.
Gah! Gah!

Someone change the thread title quick to: USA Sovereignty a JOKE.

Leaping to conclusions, then item by item disallowing the conclusions of others that lept seems to be a time honored tradition in the backroom.
I love it.
Especially when someone points out the reality of it and it is ignored so that the item by item disallowances go on and on and on - without any other purpose than the reinforcement of personal ego. The old - I know I'm right ... so there for I am right!

:oops: Sorry, it just strikes me that the idea that this topic has gone on as long as it has is more a matter of moving from the topic to migrating to one of philosophy. Philosophic opinion being the previlent of all things here in the backroom. I love it!!
:whip:

[Redleg]

We are well capable of emptying the bath without the poor toddller slurping down the drain, thank you very much.

The United States is not attempting to empty the bath water for you. It seems you are over-reacting because of an issue not even associated with this agreement.



Oh I do, I do. Our Prime Minister is a brown nosing, weak, lily livered shmoo when it comes to dealing with several foreign governments. I look forward to voting him out of office at the earliest opportunity.

Again then the issue is not what the United States is doing but what your own government is doing.



But no matter how the blame pie is sliced, no matter which piece we get and which we give away, no matter if we don't get a slice at all or if we get it all, we do not ever want armed Americans enforcing the law in Canada. It cannot be said more plainly.

Then you should read the proposal more clearly - it does not read that the United States is going to attempting to enforce the law in Canada. It reads that when performing thier duties under the current agreement that police officers will have an easier time bringing thier weapons into Canada. There might be some issue with the wording of this new law - but the old agreements alreadly allow for both nations to cross the border on official business of law enforcement.



Look at it this way, would the KGB and their conspicuous Kalashnikovs be welcome in Texas to enforce the law?

Well there you have it then.

The measure does not read that it is to enforce the law - but if my government were to attempt such a law - I would blame my government not the KGB.

[Beirut]

The United States is not attempting to empty the bath water for you. It seems you are over-reacting because of an issue not even associated with this agreement.

I AM NOT OVER-REACTI...

Ahem. I am not over-reacting. I am exercising judicious foresight.




Then you should read the proposal more clearly - it does not read that the United States is going to attempting to enforce the law in Canada. It reads that when performing thier duties under the current agreement that police officers will have an easier time bringing thier weapons into Canada. There might be some issue with the wording of this new law - but the old agreements alreadly allow for both nations to cross the border on official business of law enforcement.

If they are not going to be enforcing the law then they do not require firearms. If they are bringing firearms, it means they see themselves being in a situation where they might use them. A gun is to shoot someone, to be used as a movie prop, or carried as a moral boost for sexualy disfunctional, weak willed people so they can "feel like real men". A gun is not carried, especially in someone else's country, for no reason. If US police require a fashion statement, a jacket and tie will do just fine.


The measure does not read that it is to enforce the law - but if my government were to attempt such a law - I would blame my government not the KGB.

Indeed, just as I blame my own government.

But you still wouldn't want the KGB in Texas would ya?

[Redleg]

I AM NOT OVER-REACTI...

Ahem. I am not over-reacting. I am exercising judicious foresight.


Not when your using language to blame others versus your own government for passing or attempting to pass what you beleive is to be bad law.



If they are not going to be enforcing the law then they do not require firearms. If they are bringing firearms, it means they see themselves being in a situation where they might use them. A gun is to shoot someone, to be used as a movie prop, or carried as a moral boost for sexualy disfunctional, weak willed people so they can "feel like real men". A gun is not carried, especially in someone else's country, for no reason. If US police require a fashion statement, a jacket and tie will do just fine.


There are several functions that happen that require the possiblity of the use of weapons by an officer from the United States interacting with the proper authories of Canada. The one that first comes to mind is the extradiction of dangerous criminals.



Indeed, just as I blame my own government.

But you still wouldn't want the KGB in Texas would ya?

Again read the answer - Its not the KGB I would have issue with - it would be the actions of my government. The KGB in the exact same instance as this issue would not be at fault. My government would be at fault.

[Beirut]

Not when your using language to blame others versus your own government for passing or attempting to pass what you beleive is to be bad law.

Though I have espoused, at length, my displeasure with having armed foreigners in my country, I'm not sure I have blamed them. On the other hand, I have clearly blamed my own government.


There are several functions that happen that require the possiblity of the use of weapons by an officer from the United States interacting with the proper authories of Canada. The one that first comes to mind is the extradiction of dangerous criminals.

That's a very reasonable example. If you have others, I am willing to entertain them.


Again read the answer - Its not the KGB I would have issue with - it would be the actions of my government. The KGB in the exact same instance as this issue would not be at fault. My government would be at fault.

I cannot for the life of me ascertain whether my writing is consistently deficient or you are reading more into what I write than was intended. I never said the KGB would be at fault (I mean, really, how could the KGB ever be at fault), I only asked if you would welcome them into your cities. Which I assume you would not. Likewise, I never said the US police would be at fault for being armed in Canada, all I said was that there would be a fault if they were here.

[Redleg]

Though I have espoused, at length, my displeasure with having armed foreigners in my country, I'm not sure I have blamed them. On the other hand, I have clearly blamed my own government.

Oh its the rethoric that your using. However I am begining to wonder if you realize that armed police from the United States have been going into Canada with approval from your government for many years in the performance of offical duties. The law is not about wether US Police can come in to perform offical and sanctioned duties, but to ease the restrictions on bringing in thier firearms - ie its been possible through permits for many years.




That's a very reasonable example. If you have others, I am willing to entertain them.

THere are several - one also includes joint raids on the militia compounds that are on the border areas of both our nations.


I cannot for the life of me ascertain whether my writing is consistently deficient or you are reading more into what I write than was intended. I never said the KGB would be at fault (I mean, really, how could the KGB ever be at fault), I only asked if you would welcome them into your cities. Which I assume you would not. Likewise, I never said the US police would be at fault for being armed in Canada, all I said was that there would be a fault if they were here.

Your rethoric is directed at the police of the United States - versus the error that you believe that your government is making. For instead your comment here - its not about the KGB, but what the US government was attempting to do. It could be the Mexican Military for all I care, the result would be the same - if the United States government sanctioned it - I would be angry with my government not with the Mexican government or police or army.

[Strike For The South]

You make it seem like the KGB would last in Texas

[Papewaio]

You make it seem like the KGB would last in Texas

Well if KBR can be such a success why not former KGB as they are major stakeholders in oil too...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Give it time, Mr. Rabbit, give it time.

Hmm. The funny thing is, Canada seems to be moving in the opposite direction; electing a conservative, starting to fight for private health care, etc.

Here's an important local take on this issue, and how something like this law is necessary.

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/123956.html


Faith St. John, spokeswoman for Canadian customs, said they accommodate law enforcement trying to pass through the border area “on a case-by-case basis.”

But Elfo, who is traveling to Washington, D.C., next week to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Homeland Security on the need for international cooperation between law enforcement agencies, said his agency is often frustrated by Canadian requirements when crossing the border.

Elfo said Canadian rules require that his deputies unload the ammunition from all of their weapons and lock the weapons and ammunition in the trunk before crossing the border — a problem if they are responding to an emergency.

“When the seconds count in order to save lives, that is not a reasonable response time,” Elfo said.

Deputies are also forced to take anyone arrested in Point Roberts to jail by boat or by helicopter.

The Sheriff’s Office has two deputies stationed in Point Roberts but needs additional units in the event of a potential emergency like Tuesday, Elfo said.

Whatcom County deputies used to be allowed to have

Canadian weapons permits and went through the border with much less hassle, but the requirements became more stringent several years ago when the Canadian national government, instead of individual provinces, began enforcing border policy.

So would you deny these cops the ability to get to Pt Roberts quickly, Beirut?

CR

[lars573]

Hmm. The funny thing is, Canada seems to be moving in the opposite direction; electing a conservative, starting to fight for private health care, etc.
Your making a bit too much out of that. In the 80's we had almost 3 terms of a conservative government. When we tired of their BS the Liberals were handed one of the largest majorities ever in 1993. Fast forward to 2005. Afer nearly 4 terms the Liberals were removed to a slim conservative minnority. In other words Stephen Harpers conservatives were voted in on the sole basis of not being the Liberals. Not because they agreed with him. And if he does something that the other parties really don't like and they all 3 gang up they can force him to call an election.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Your making a bit too much out of that. In the 80's we had almost 3 terms of a conservative government. When we tired of their BS the Liberals were handed one of the largest majorities ever in 1993. Fast forward to 2005. Afer nearly 4 terms the Liberals were removed to a slim conservative minnority. In other words Stephen Harpers conservatives were voted in on the sole basis of not being the Liberals. Not because they agreed with him. And if he does something that the other parties really don't like and they all 3 gang up they can force him to call an election.

From my brief time in Canada, it seems to me that the only reason parties are elected is because of the fact they are the opponents of the party Canadians happen not to like at the moment, even if the individual doesn't necessarily agree with the policies of the new party.




Seems sensible to me. :book: