Canada's Sovereignty - A Joke ?

[Blodrast]

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Athens to Rome, Athens to Rome.

[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.

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]

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 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.

[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.

[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. 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.

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

[Beirut]

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.

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

[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 ?