H
Hydrogen
Guest
^Which Americans?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Drocker
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Superstar
No taxation without representation!
EnviroTO
Senior Member
In the news today they were mentioning that foreign affairs under the Conservative government was considering allowing foreign officers to enter Canada armed to enforce Canadian and foreign law. Good grief. This would effectively legalize rendering and people would secretly disappear in the middle of the night to show up in US or Guantanamo courts... or courts in Syria or Iran perhaps. What a poorly thought out idea. I'm especially worried that it states "Canadian and foreign law". We don't have any input on foreign law... I have issue with it being enforced here.
M
MajorComplainer
Guest
Easy simple solution, kick Assper and his Conserv-tight-ass-tive out, we will be fine. Until then, keep biting your nails...
JasonParis
Moderator
Leonard Asper?
H
Hydrogen
Guest
One guy is responsible for all this angst? What happened to all the unnamed Americans?
cacruden
Senior Member
I believe that if this is the case, the officers would be entering Canada - and making an arrest. The changes would not change the requirement for abiding by Canadian law, which means anyone arrested would be taken into Custody in Canada -- and then the extradition treaty would be the next set of rules to abide by. If someone is fleeing across the border, I am ok with any officer continuing the pursuit (as long as they are aware of the local laws), I would prefer the police radio be interoperable (which is still a problem between local police forces as well -- which is currently being addressed in the US).
I am guessing this is more applicable to the ship ports where we have both Canadian and American officers there for inspection (needed for shipments that are entering a Canadian port, loaded on a truck/train - and continuing into the United States).
Ummagumma66
Active Member
nice!
a little foriegn rule never hurt anyone...bush is soo much better at this whole world domination thing than his predessors (read Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot). just set up puppet govenments that bow to everything you say...brilliant.
a little foriegn rule never hurt anyone...bush is soo much better at this whole world domination thing than his predessors (read Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot). just set up puppet govenments that bow to everything you say...brilliant.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I don't know how a US officer could possibly be held accountable. The SIU would investigate a US officer and be able to revoke the badge of a US officer? There are discussions all the time about rules of pursuit in Canada, how would this be enforced against US agents who may or may not be known to be in Canada? How would Canadians know if US agents haven't taken people off Canadian soil? The US has taken people from other countries without permission before. Now we are letting them in with guns and hoping for the best? We are talking about a nation that "doesn't recall" why judges were fired and revokes the legal rights of people by setting up a holding zone outside the country's borders. I don't think these agents are going to fully appreciate the lives and rights of Canadians the way Canadian officers would.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
While I am certainly no fan of G. W. Bush, and consider him to be one of the worst presidents ever, to compare him to the above is way over the top - unless you want to actually belittle the crimes of Hitler, Stalin et al.
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
But he's done so many of the same things - stealing elections, unprovoked invasions of foreign countries, establishing concentration camps, destroying constitutional liberties...he may be the least of the lot, but Hitler, Stalin et al are the lot he's with.
Observer Walt
Senior Member
That's pretty extreme. I'm certainly no admirer of Bush, but he certainly didn't "steal" his second election, and the first one is arguable at worst. More importantly, he has to deal with a Congress, not always friendly to him to put it mildly, and unlike dictators, he will be gone by a fixed date. Let's not go over the top.
Ummagumma66
Active Member
I don't belittle, I think Bush is right up there with Stalin and Hitler and Co. look at the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and the blantent war mongering on his part against other nations. How many Iraqi and Afgan civilians have died? the detention of "Enemy Combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, the US Patriot Act (alot like Hitler's "Anti-Terrorism Act" after the Reichstag fire), and many, many other acts that make Dubya not a president, but a dually elected dictator, but the point I make is he is every bit the Tyrant that Hitler, Stalin or Mao was, in my opinion.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Sorry, but you are way off in terms of proportions. Stalin remained in power by having his opponents murdered. Millions died under his rule and millions more were imprisoned for the most minor reasons, or by way of nothing more than coerced confessions. Hitler left office by his own hand after initiating the most deadly war in human history that, among other things, featured factory-style genocide. Both these leaders lead regimes in which terror, torture and fear were regular features. Dissent was not tolerated at all.
From what I read and from my experiences in the United States, Bush is hardly popular. There is active dissent against him, and he will be leaving office according to the law. Beyond that, the office of the president comes nowhere near possessing the powers that both Hitler and Stalin could wield. To confuse them is to either mock history or simply reveals a lack of understanding of the past.
One can criticize Bush for his actions and his considerable failing, but that should never be done by stooping to poor reasoning or shallow arguments that will, in the end, actually reduce the charges against Bush that one wishes to make.
From what I read and from my experiences in the United States, Bush is hardly popular. There is active dissent against him, and he will be leaving office according to the law. Beyond that, the office of the president comes nowhere near possessing the powers that both Hitler and Stalin could wield. To confuse them is to either mock history or simply reveals a lack of understanding of the past.
One can criticize Bush for his actions and his considerable failing, but that should never be done by stooping to poor reasoning or shallow arguments that will, in the end, actually reduce the charges against Bush that one wishes to make.
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Will he? He didn't enter office according to the law. He hasn't complied with the law during his term in office. Why should anyone feel confident he will start to respect the law on January 20, 2009?
As for his other crimes - the concentration camps, the illegal invasions, the destruction of civil rights - they are different only in degree, not in type.