U.S. Says Canada Cares Too Much About Liberties

A cheeky writer at Canada's Ottawa Citizen newspaper has written a story about the U.S. State Department's 2002 Patterns of Global Terrorism.

Screw you, America

[WolfeCanada (604888)]

Oh give me a break......the US does not hold jurisdiction over Canada, and they can keep their grubby fingers out of my country, thank you very much. If I want to smoke pot in my own country, if that right has been 'allowed' by my own government, what gives the US the right to interfere in the sovereignity of Canada? F*CK OFF!!

Re:Screw you, America

[TC (WC) (459050)]

I'm Canadian as well, but guess what? This is how international politics work. You try to influence policies in other countries that you think will negatively affect your own position.
This isn't just something the US does...

The country that they're trying to influence can then tell them to fuck off, or decide that their approval is worth bending their policies for. It isn't like the US is going to invade Canada and truely interfere in our sovereignity. It's Canada's choice as to whether we'll let the US affect policy, as it's our choice to decide whether any external political forces should affect our policies.

Re:Screw you, America

[Asic Eng (193332)]

The problem isn't the fact that they are trying to influence other countries, but the direction in which they are trying to influence them. The US ought to stand for freedom and civil rights, not the opposite.

Re:Screw you, America

[by Anonymous Coward]

If I want to smoke pot in my own country, if that right has been 'allowed' by my own government ...

When questioned about America's response to legalizing marijuana in Canada, Canadian Prime Minster Jean Cretien remarked: "They just want our pot. BC pot is the shitznit."

Re:Screw you, America

[Jason1729 (561790)]

We have vast oil resources in Western Canada. It is exported to the US very cheaply, and here in Eastern Canada, we import oil from the Middle East at much higher prices.

Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]

Re:Screw you, America

[bandit450 (118835)]

Yes, actually...Alberta's full of it.

Great, now I'm fearing for my life...next thing I know some "glorious" American army is going to "liberate" me from my "prison".

You all know the sayings:
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength

Re:Screw you, America

[York the Mysterious (556824)]

They put out a huge ad in the NY Times earlier this year just to let everyone know that they were the US' largest supplier of oil. Apparently not many people know. -Tim

Re:Screw you, America

[Moofie (22272)]

If by "liberated" you mean "purchased for cash money from the people who owned it at the time who were not Canadians", then yes, your sentence is true.

If by "liberated" you wish to draw spurious parallels between the purchase of Alaska and the deposing of Saddam, you're an idiot.

Re:Screw you, America

[91degrees (207121)]

imagine how trivial invading across an undefended border would be....

I dunno... General Hull tried this in 1812, and got his ass whipped.

wow

[Pompatus (642396)]

You mean I not only get to smoke pot, enjoy less crime, and get free healthcare, I get my civil liberties too!!!!

Re:wow

[crodak (630241)]

I've heard it explained many times, that the reason why America is targeted by terrorists is that "certain elements" are simply jealous of our outstanding quality of life. They want to destroy what they can't build for themselves.

If you're right about Canada -- what, with all the pot smoking, low crime rates, free healthcare, and civil liberties -- I would expect Canada to rise to the top of the terrorists' hit list. So, maybe instead of trying to get the damned Canadians to cooperate with us, we should simply launch an advertising campaign in the Islamic world explaining that Canada is the more logical target for their anti-western fringe element.

Re:wow

[gotw (239699)]

Let me explain this a little.
It is not the US standard of living alone which attracts terrorism, it is what it does to sustain that quality of life. The US cares about civil liberties (at least nominally) within its own shores, but those from other countries are not afforded the same rights (wasn't someone shipped to an american court rather than camp X-Ray due to their being a US citizen, the non americans were illegally imprisoned with the rest of them). It effects politics all over the world for good and bad.

It's size and cultural power has another interesting implication. The pervasiveness of american culture and media (cinema, McDonalds, nike trainers .... maybe I mean corporate american culture and media) means that everyone in the world not in the US has knowledge of at least two cultures, that of US corporatism and their own, and when one is seen to be overpowering the other it leads to conflict. The american stereotype as ignorant and insular is in no small part influenced by the fact that by and large most americans only see one culture, their own.

Americans with an interest in the civil liberties of all people, not just those americans with the power and money to defend their own (and to take those of others), many of whom I'm sure read slashdot should fight terrorism in their own way. By making America the state it was founded to be, by scrutinising businessmen, politicians (and anyone else in a position of power and influence) by using the power of their wallet, their vote and whatever else it takes to make america a state and a symbol that is not viewed by the rest of the world with contempt. It's not about what they cannot do, but what they see America (as a symbol for the global economic system?) doing to them.

A perception of america as a greedy, self interested, intefering, imperialist power is what attracts terrorism. To fight terrorism america should look within.

Re:wow

[shamilton (619422)]

Uh, 50% income tax? Maybe 30% on a healthy salary... the highest is around 43% above ~$100,000 CAD.

And round here, these things aren't enforced nearly as much. House is worth $1,000,000, paying property tax for $300,000? Nobody cares to hear about it. And you're certainly not getting thrown in JAIL for dodging taxes.

In the meantime at the White House

[borgdows (599861)]

Colin Powell : Mr President, Canada Cares Too Much about liberties.

Bush,Rumsfeld,Cheney (CHORUS) : Bomb them!! Bring canadians democracy!!

Hysteria.

[Mr2cents (323101)]

That's all I can say about it. OK, so terrorism claimed 700 lives last year. In Belgium alone (that tiny country you can never find on the map) 1500 people died in car accidents. Not to mention how many died of the flue. So why is such a pathological, marginal fenomenon causing so much panic? Right. Hysteria. That's always a good way to ruin people's rights.

Re:Hysteria.

[Danse (1026)]

You just don't understand. Dubya just wants to take our rights and keep them in a safe place for us. That way the terrorists can't get them, don't ya see? All our rights are still there. We may even get to take our kids to see them someday. They'll be preserved in pristine condition in hermetically sealed jars. We should thank Dubya for taking such good care of our rights!

Re:Hysteria.

[fiiz (263633)]

My friend you have hit the spot *exactly*.

And the answer is...because it gives a wonderful excuse for any sort of action, and a convenient way of attacking those you don't like for economic, political or geostrategic reasons. Read the arab states, at the moment.

It gives an unquestionable moral high ground for what the likes of Noam Chomsky call *state terrorism* -i.e. direct wars and state sponsored terrorism. Look at Algeria, Colombia, Israel for recent examples of state sponsored terrorism, some with links to the US...

See this is Reagan's cold war all over again, a great way of shaping foreign policy to your convenience, and with a heavy hand.

And the best thing is that the public is buying it!

Thanks Canada for doing it right ;-p

Evolution of the State

[mindpixel (154865)]

If we're very very lucky, in 200 years most countries will be like Canada is now. I was going to type a joke here, but I just discovered, I'm serious.

Re:Evolution of the State

[samael (12612)]

Well, Canada does seem kinda European...

Oh great.

[eidechse (472174)]

Now government agencies have even stopped pretending that the U.S. is the paragon of freedom.

In response...

[toriver (11308)]

... the leaders of China and Myanmar nodded vigorously in agreement that liberties are bad for you.

Chretien in a speech declared USA to be part of an "Axis of Oppression" and said "those that are not with the Commonwealth is with the oppressors".

"Too much emphasis"?

[geekwench (644364)]

The very fact that the government of the United States is claiming that Canada (or any other country) places "too much emphasis on civil liberties" says something profoundly disturbing about the state of our State, and the Evil Old (and young) Men currently infesting Washington.

I know that I will sleep much more soundly the day that Ashcroft is forced to clean out his desk.

Author's words, not State Department's

[Galvatron (115029)]

As far as I can tell, the headline is simply the author's interpretation of the State Department's report, not the wording of the US government. In actual point of fact, the State Department seems mainly concerned with police funding (which has nothing to do with civil liberties), low penalties for marijuana possession (also not a civil liberty) and privacy laws. Privacy obviously is a fairly important civil liberty, and clearly the US government is going too far with its anti-terrorist legislation, but the headline is also a tad too alarmist. Indeed, the article does not even specify which privacy related laws the US objects to in particular.

Re:Author's words, not State Department's

[AndrewRUK (543993)]

What ths State Dept. report says is
"Some US law-enforcement officers have expressed concern that Canadian privacy laws, as well as funding levels for law enforcement, inhibit a fuller and more timely exchange of information and response to requests for assistance. Also, Canadian laws and regulations intended to protect Canadian citizens and landed immigrants from Government intrusion sometimes limit the depth of investigations." (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19 987.htm)
Sounds to me like they're complaining that Canada cares too much about privacy and preventing Government intrusion, and I would consider that to be caring about liberty.

Dillema's

[John_Renne (176151)]

There's definately some tension between privacy, political freedoms, law-enforcement and anti-terrorism-measures.

I'm just concerned about the way the US is trying to tell the rest of the world how to handle this tension. Every country for itself should make it's own descision in how to solve these challenges.

A different way isn't allways a worse way

Mice And Elephants

[Farley Mullet (604326)]

I think it was former Prime MInister Pierre Trudeau who used the metaphor of the mouse in bed with the elephant to describe Canada-U.S. relations. In a lot of ways it's a good metaphor.

Canada has to walk a tightrope: on the one hand our economic prosperity as a nation depends on our trade relationship and close economic ties with the U.S. (Canada is the U.S.'s largest trading partner, and vis versa), and certainly Canada's national security is largely tied to that of the U.S. But on the other hand, Canada is a distinct sovereign nation, and it's important to protect our sovereignty, and not become an extension of the U.S. The article mentions the Canadian government's long-standing flirtation with legalizing pot, and not to downplay issues like that [1], there are other, bigger, issues to consider. The current U.S. administration has shown a cavalier attitude towards environmental protection, weakening the EPA and making efforts to open up protected areas in Alaska for oil exploration and exploitation. Canada has been (awkwardly at times) tracing out it's own environmental policy, balancing the need to preserve our unique and precious ecological heritage, while at the same time preserving our resource based economies. It'd be a real shame if that balancing act was thrown out of whack by pressure from south of the border. The situation with freshwater policy is similar, and will perhaps become even more important.

Canada/U.S. relations loom large over Canadian politics, just as the movements of the elephant loom large in the thoughts of the mouse that it's in bed with. So when U.S. officials make "rumblings", the Canadian government can't help but take note.

[1] I'm for it. The war on drugs has been an abject failure, especially as far as pot is concerned

Re:Mice And Elephants

[Galvatron (115029)]

I agree that pot should be legalized, but you have to recognize that so long as the majority of the US is against it, the US government is going to try very hard to keep Canada from doing it. If pot is legal in Canada, then we (the US; I'm American) are going to have to radically overhaul the way we monitor US-Canada border crossings. It would be an absolute nightmare (even more than it already is) for the US to have pot illegal and for Canada to have it legal.

The privacy/terrorist issue is similar in nature. It's not that the State Department believes Canada is actively harbouring terrorists, but if Canada is less vigilent (or, less kindly, intrusive) than the US, then the US government will have to make up for the difference with more strict border checks. A system is only as secure as its most vunerable part, and the State Department is worried that Canada will become that vunerable part.

Their evaluation of France

[Mostly a lurker (634878)]

France has provided outstanding military, judicial, and law-enforcement support to the war against terrorism.

Unfortunately, they do not support attacks on countries, justified by the war on terrorism, based on a combination of manufactured and inadequate evidence.

Re:Their evaluation of France

[lovebyte (81275)]

I think Bush put it thus:
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."
-George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair

Wait- we're the ones

[Fat Casper (260409)]

With a Bill of Rights. The Constitution protects our rights to freedom of speech, free assembly, to keep and bear arms, privacy, a speedy trial, legal counsel and not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.

Wow. Watching the news for the last year and a half made me forget all that. Hey, Bush- remember this? "I, George W. Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Try reading it instead of wiping your ass with it.

It's not fair. We're the ones with these rights guaranteed, and Canadians are the ones getting them. It's not my fault; I voted for the other loser machine politician.

Re:Wait- we're the ones

[rtscts (156396)]

and I will

to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States

I think he's found a loophole...

Let me get this straight

[Billly Gates (198444)]

During the American revolution Canada went one way while the states went the other. Before then they really was no Canada except by the french in what is now Quebec.

Representatives from upper and lower Canada including Ontario were originally part of the continental congress during the American revolution but backed off when the declaration of independance was signed.

It was then when loyalist for England moved north into Canada while freedom loving rebels stayed in the states or moved south from Canada.

How is it that today Canada is more free then the US?

Americans love freedom and credit the revolution but support the president and look at anyone non conformist as unpatrotic. Guess what?

Bush is the one who is unpatrotic. I really hope he is not re-elected. Many Americans are becoming wary of not only his economic record but his horrendous foreign policy. Bush advisors mentioned that he will start his reelection on ground zero this september 11 and run on a foreign policy campaing. I think it will fail. They do not look Bush or Powell twisting everyones and threatening everyone they see fit. I think Powell definetely acted inapropriatly in Syria yesterday.

I was on yahoo messages boards and found many are upset and look at Bush as reckless and a threat to global stability more then anyone else. He really could overreact and create a nuclear war if he is not carefull. Some republicans do not like what is going on with the patriot act and even view bush as more pro-government then Clinton.

Re:Let me get this straight

[ebbomega (410207)]

Very simple. Freedom has become a buzz-word in the states. The flag, the white house, apple pie, Declaration of Independence. It's all become symbol.

Canadians pride themselves not on their past accomplishments. I know of relatively few Canadians that happen to know about the actions taken at Vimy Ridge during WWI where they took what the British and French had been trying to take for years in half a day, even fewer know about how a Canadian was the first to enact the Uniting For Peace resolution in the UN.

But we don't base our freedom on these past actions. We base our freedom on our current standard of living and how we live our day to day lives.

Let me put it this way. Read 1984. It's all based around having relatable symbols to your "freedom": Big Brother, Minutes of Hate, slogans and catchphrases. This is the one way to guarantee your own personal attachment to your government and as such gives more way to control the people. What are our national symbols? Beer and Hockey. These aren't things you pledge alleigance to, these are things that you do to make life more for the living.

As far as I'm concerned, my patriotism means having a country that makes me happy with my life. It doesn't mean being blissfully in love with a flag or a pledge that you have to say every day at the beginning of class or of a history of accomplishments.

At least that's my take on it. I'm proud to be a Canadian, but not because I was told to be.

Re:Let me get this straight

[holviala (124278)]

What are our [Canadian] national symbols? Beer and Hockey.

As a Finn, that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside... Beer..... Hockey.... More beer.....

:-)=

Remember why 9/11 happened...

[weave (48069)]

Bush claimed shortly after 9/11 that we were attacked because they hate us because of our freedoms.

So what a great way to prevent a future terrorist attack. Remove those freedoms so they (theoretically) have no reason to hate us anymore.

(Of course, that is a bunch of crap. "They" hate us now more than ever.)

Terrorists won already

[LittleStone (18310)]

Americans, look what your lives have change.

It's just amazing that, when you walked into any government related building in DC, you gotta go through a metal detector. All visitors are treated as potential terrorists.

Then it's always a pain to fly. All those hassle, especially if you have the wrong look (I thought being a Chinese Canadian is easier, not so. Security officer in airports like to pick me, because they know for sure there's nothing to look at, just to pass the quota.)

How about Americans visiting other countries? Better pretended to be Canadians.

That's how the terrorists won. Canadians, on the other hand, just refuse to live like that. The first step Canadians do: be friendly to others. Respect the difference, accept other's value. No matter how inefficient or stupid Canadian governments sometimes are, Canadians still can live peacefully.

So, if you have the right to vote in US, exercise your right and tell your government what you think.

Re:Terrorists won already

[by Anonymous Coward]

Reading this reminded me of something I read in my local newspaper (Canadian) a few weeks after 9/11.

It was basically a transcribed message (or something like it) from Osama bin Laden saying, essentially, that they (al Queda) had already won. Supposedly, the idea behind their attacks was not to kill citizens, or destroy landmarks. It was to kill liberties, and destroy freedom. Apparantly Osama wanted the citizens of the US to live in fear, and to loose their freedoms. He wanted them to experience life as other countries did, with checkpoints, searches, and the constant fear of attacks.

It would seem he succeeded admirably.

Interesting read but..

[praksys (246544)]

Privacy is not liberty, nor is it a "civil liberty", although it might be a "civil right". A liberty is a right to carry out some type of action without being obstructed by anyone else. Privacy rights restrict the actions of others (to obtain or publish information about you) which makes them claim-rights. So the US complaint about Canadian privacy laws has nothing at all to do with liberty.

This [geocities.com] gives a pretty good introduction to the theoretical classification of rights.

The stuff about legalizing dope is of course another matter entirely. I have no idea why American politicians gets so wound up about dope, when most Americans have used it without comming to much harm.

Re:Interesting read but..

[glenebob (414078)]

I have no idea why American politicians gets so wound up about dope...

Power. Control. Money. What used to be accomplished through the proper application of religion is now done through things like War on Drugs and War on Terrorism. They even tried it with a War on Alcohol a few years back, but that one was way too over the top and it didn't fly. We now have a War on Tobacco ramping up too.

Crime in Canada

[ottawanker (597020)]

.. suggests that while Canada has been helpful in the fight against terrorism, it doesn't spend enough on policing and places too much emphasis on civil liberties.

This is interesting.. the following are some stats I found on crime in Canada and the US (and Sweden, see this page.) [www.ccsd.ca]

- Homicides per 100,000......Canada-1.8..US-5.5
- Assault/Threat per 100,000.Canada-4.0..US-5.7
- Prisoners per 100,000......Canada-118..US-546

Left and Right

[gonvaled (584635)]

That is the difference between a left and a right government. - A left government promotes state intervention to guarantee a minimum living standard (read taxes) - A right government promotes state intervention to guarantee security (read limit liberties and free speech) I wonder why normal citizens vote right parties. It's happening all around Europe, and it has been happening in the US for a long time. We are selling today the liberties we will need tomorrow, just to get a short term beneffit (some Euros in our pocket)

IRA

[malx (7723)]

Astonishingly, there is no mention in the report on the United Kingdom of the IRA.

There is a section on the IRA in the appendix on "other Foreign Terrorist Organisations" which notes that the IRA "retains the ability to conduct paramilitary operations" but it accepts that "the IRA reiterated its commitment to the peace process and apologized to the families of what it called "non-combatants" who had been killed or injured by the IRA" without noting that its activities of "kidnappings, punishment beatings, extortion, smuggling, and robberies" are active and continuing.

The report does not mention that two of the leaders of the IRA Army Council were allowed to become Sinn Fein Ministers in the (currently suspended) government of Northern Ireland.

Sinn Feinn, a major political party in Northern Ireland, is acknowledged by everybody except itself as the political wing of the IRA. The name translates into English as "Ourselves Alone" - illuminating its racist basis. Sinn Fein is not mentioned in the report.

Most astonishingly, NORAID's role in fundraising for the IRA within the USA is not mentioned in the report either.

Americans should realise that many British people who are temperamentally and politically inclined to give full support to American foreign policy find it severely compromised by America's sentimental and hypocritical blindness to the IRA threat.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Ainu (135288)]

Schedule B

Constitution Act, 1982
Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982
PART I
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Democratic Rights

Democratic rights of citizens

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Maximum duration of legislative bodies

4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members.

Continuation in special circumstances

(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.

Annual sitting of legislative bodies

5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months

Mobility Rights

Mobility of citizens
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

Limitation
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

Affirmative action programs
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
Legal Rights
Life, liberty and security of person 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Detention or imprisonment
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
Arrest or detention
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

Proceedings in criminal and penal matters 11. Any person char

Over-sensationalism all around

[ndogg (158021)]

The State Dept., more precisely, said this about Canada and terrorism:

At the end of 2001, the Canadian Parliament passed into law an antiterrorism act that toughens penalties for terrorists and terrorist supporters and provides new investigative tools for Canadian law-enforcement and national-security agencies. It also makes terrorist fundraising illegal and allows officials to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists, but it cannot be applied retroactively to activities before the law was passed. In July 2002, Canadian officials published a list of banned terrorist organizations pursuant to the antiterrorism act, which consisted of al-Qaida and six of its known affiliate groups. Addendums to the list in late November and mid-December added nine more groups, including HAMAS and Hizballah, and Canadian officials expect the list to grow further as they examine and evaluate more organizations.

The Government of Canada has been a helpful and strong supporter of the United States in the fight against international terrorism. Despite some differences in approach, overall antiterrorism cooperation with Canada remains excellent and is a model for bilateral cooperation on counterterrorism issues. Seven US law-enforcement agencies have officers posted to Ottawa and other Canadian cities. Canadian law-enforcement personnel, in turn, are assigned to the United States.

Some US law-enforcement officers have expressed concern that Canadian privacy laws, as well as funding levels for law enforcement, inhibit a fuller and more timely exchange of information and response to requests for assistance. Also, Canadian laws and regulations intended to protect Canadian citizens and landed immigrants from Government intrusion sometimes limit the depth of investigations.

The US Attorney General and Canadian Solicitor General conduct policy coordination at the US-Canada Cross-Border Crime Forum, established during the Prime Minister's 1997 visit to Washington. (The Forum met most recently in Calgary in July 2002.) Under the US-Canada Terrorist Interdiction Program, or TIP, Canada records about one "hit" of known or suspected terrorists per week from the State Department's Visa Lookout List.

Additionally, Canada and the United States will hold a new round of talks under the auspices of the Bilateral Consultative Group on Counterterrorism Cooperation, or BCG. This bilateral group is tasked with reviewing international terrorist trends and planning ways to intensify joint counterterrorist efforts. It last met in June 2001 and was expected to meet in mid-2003. Other cooperative mechanisms include groups led by the immigration and customs services known as Border Vision and the Shared Border Accord, extradition and mutual legal-assistance treaties, and an information-sharing agreement between the US Drug Enforcement Administration and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In 2002, Canada cooperated with the United States in implementing most provisions of the Smart Border Action Plan. This plan and its bilateral implementation have become a model for securing national frontiers while ensuring the free and rapid flow of legitimate travel and commerce.

Canada has continued to be a strong supporter of international efforts to combat terrorism. Besides signing and ratifying the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Financing and implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1373, Canada is active in the G-7, G-8, and G-20 and promotes the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering's Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing and other international efforts to counter terrorist financing. In the autumn, Canada also became the first country to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism, which was opened for signature in June. Canadian armed forces participated in Operation Enduring Freedom with the largest deployment of Canadian troops overseas since the Korean war. Canada also maintained a naval task force group engaged in interdiction operations

Franks and Karimov

[KjetilK (186133)]

Scroll to the bottom of Eurasia Overview [state.gov] and you'll see Tommy Franks cheerfully shaking hands with Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan. Here, you see why people really do not believe that the war in Iraq has anything to do with freedom.

In the early 1990-ties, Islam Karimov was a cheap Soviet-style dictator wannabee. But he worked hard, intensive surveillance of pro-democracy workers, rigged elections, and eventually, political assassinations, extensive use of torture, etc., gaining real, dictator power.

Most political dissidents have fled, notably, Mohammad Salih, who ran against Karimov in one of the elections. He was the subject of an assassination attempt, that fortunately failed. Salih is a member of the Erk Democratic Party [uzbekistanerk.org].

After 9/11, the US has given Karimov all the support he needs to grow from a dictator wannabee to a full Saddam/Hitler-style tyrant. There is hardly any serious democratic opposition left in Uzbekistan. What there is, however, is a bunch of extreme muslim fundamentalists, so, should Karimov loose power, it is not going to be the democratic opposition taking over, it is going to be the religious extremists (which is a development we're unsurprisingly seeing in Iraq too).

When I see Tommy Franks shaking hands with of the worst tyrants on the planet, it makes me wanna puke... It is history repeating itself, it is a reminder that Saddam too was a dictator wannabee before Donald Rumsfeld went to shake hands with him in 1984.

If the US wants to have any credibility whatsoever with the war-for-freedom rhetoric, they should at least stop supporting the worst dictators on the planet.

Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.

[ArcticCelt (660351)]

Completely wrong. Canada used to have nuclear weapons but realised that the nuclear arm race was an insane business. In 1978, Canada Prime Minister Trudeau stated, at the U.N., that Canada was the "the first nuclear armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons. USA never asked Canada to stop. In fact USA was very pissed off because Canada did not continue to build more weapons with them.

Re:canadian forces?

[ebbomega (410207)]

Right.

Canada has had dick all to do with any military action in the last 100 years.

Learn your history before you start criticising.

You want us to take up arms? How about that time you guys tried to invade us and we burnt your White House down?

Or how about that time that we were busy bombing the crap out of the Nazis while the US was happily being isolationist for 2 years while he tried to take over the world?

Or how about the time that we organized the UN to intervene at the Suez Canal despite England's Security Council veto?

Or how about how we've supplied troops to just about every single UN mission since its inception?

Or wait. Of course none of that happened. It wasn't in the US papers, so it's pretty obvious that Canada doesn't have a military.

I knew a good number of Doctors from my hometown alone (a rather small town in British Columbia) who were working at the MASH units in the first Persian Gulf war who were risking their lives trying to keep UN soldiers alive (including a good number of Americans). But again, it wasn't in any American newspapers so it obviously didn't happen.

Re:canadian forces?

[I am Jack's username (528712)]

ObSatireWire: Canadian warship seizes tanker in... wait... Canada has a warship? [satirewire.com]

Re:some Marijuana stats

[patoco12 (562039)]

Deaths from tobacco cigarettes in the US, 2002: 400,000

Deaths from Marijuana in the US, 2002: 0.00

These numbers mean very little:
1. Both are carcinogens.
2. Most people who smoke marijuana also smoke tobacco; these deaths count as tobacco related deaths.

I agree that the U.S. marijuana laws are a bit ridiculous, but don't argue that it should be legal because it is "safe".

Re:Nifty Numbers

[niola (74324)]

It must be nice to live life with blinders on. Are you totally ignorant of what is going on?

Patriot Act made it so that in many cases law enforcement does not have to go to a judge to get a search order. There is an article in the Constitution against illegal search and seizure. This is one right being trampled.

How about the AMERICAN citizens being held in connection with terrorism and not being told what they are being charged with and not being allowed to contact lawyer or family? That is another right being trampled.

There are many other examples, but it is just too depressing to get into it.

The terrorists have won. The goal of terrorism isn't death or property destruction. That is collateral damage. The MAIN goal of terrorism is to inflict FEAR and POLICY CHANGE. Now we have the media and the war-mongering Bush administration keeping everyone afraid as they slowly strip away our liberties.