Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Canadian Government Weary of Patriot Act 1238

IllogicalStudent writes "An article on canoe discusses how the Canadian government is moving to counter worries surrounding Canadian citizens' privacy being compromised by the United States' Patriot act. Apparently the FBI currently has the right, through Patriot, to search documents which may contain Canadian information sent to US firms carrying out work under contract. Thankfully, privacy still means something up here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Government Weary of Patriot Act

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:08AM (#11560556)
    US companies with data on citizens of European Union countries have to follow the European Privacy laws. So, the situation is more complex than just the US extending its law internationally, othe countries do so as well.
  • by seifried ( 12921 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:36AM (#11560664) Homepage
    That is a false media meme that has become truth simply because it has been repeated so often.

    To quote:

    This is not the first time that Canada has been falsely accused of harboring terrorists and allowing its space to be used as a launching pad for a potential attack on the United States. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, media reports flashed around the world stating that several (and in some reports, all) of the 19 hijackers entered the United States from the northern border. We now know that all of the terrorists entered the United States directly from overseas with US-issued documents. None of the terrorists came from Canada.

    http://www.canadianembassy.org/ambassador/030116 -e n.asp?format=print
  • Privacy Details (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:37AM (#11560668)
    If anyone is interested, the Canadian Privacy Commissioner's website can be found here: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/index_e.asp [privcom.gc.ca] The privacy laws here generally fall under PIPEDA - Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Passed just a few years ago, it has made it very easy for the individual to take the upper hand in privacy disputes with corporations as the act greatly favours the little guy.
  • by bug ( 8519 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:46AM (#11560697)
    Let's get some perspective on this. Other countries are not exactly the bastion of privacy that they are made out to be on Slashdot. It is common in Europe that you need to present identification when checking into a hotel. For foreigners, they usually make a copy of your passport. This information is then kept for later use or forwarded to the police so that they can then (you guessed it) track you.
  • Re:s/Weary/Wary/ (Score:5, Informative)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:53AM (#11560724) Homepage Journal
    If you think that a functioning welfare state providing a safety net for the poor constitutes state socialism, and think that having to register gun ownership is an infringement of your basic human rights ... I recommend that you move to the USA.
  • by will_die ( 586523 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:57AM (#11560740) Homepage
    The main thing they are complaining about is that an American company could be ordered by a US court to supply info that they owned and was stored in Canada and that a US company that was storing infomation for a Canadian company could also be ordered by a court to provide infomation on a person.
    This is no different then was going on before the patriot act, so no big change, it just looks better to the mass idiots if include the words US Patriot act in the headlines.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:58AM (#11560743)
    This looks good on paper and from an utopia view of the world... but lacks the following realities...

    1 - The opposition is not seeking peace nor compromise.

    2 - You can't negotiate with evil. (of course to understand this one must agree that there is such a thing as evil)

    3 - Iran is a very current example of where working "towards a more peaceful world through understanding and compromise" will not work... how has the EU done so far with IRAN? With IRAN knowing EU won't lift a finger (militarily) and knowing that the EU may well sympathize with IRAN and again oppose America if America or Israel decides to lift a finger... why should IRAN change there ways... I doubt the EU will even allow a UN resolution on IRAN that has any teeth after what happened as a result of resolutions on IRAQ... IRAN is playing EU for their fool...

    4 - If Canada wants to have that kind of foreign policy (that undermines that of the US, giving aid and comfort to its advisories). then get (and pay for) your own military to protect your own country and stop relying on the evil war mongering US as part of you defense plans. Your principles should demand that... You think socialized heath care is expensive, try funding a real military...
  • Re:s/Weary/Wary/ (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03, 2005 @08:35AM (#11560896)
    You probably don't want to hear it, but you're probably best off in the US with your stated priorities.

    Canada: Even after the last few years, the US has much stronger free speech protections than Canada (and if anything the gap is growing). You're also already aware of their gun laws. Not sure what the school system is like.

    Australia: Gun laws would probably rule it out for you (makes Canada look like the Wild West). Otherwise fairly free, and a decent school system.

    New Zealand: If you're considering Canada, consider NZ. Better civil liberties, similar gun laws, decent school system (especially at a secondary level, rather less so at university level).

    Britain: Uh, no. The gun laws of Australia, the free speech issues of Canada, an odd mania for CCTV cameras in public places, and some nasty security laws for bonus points. Plus some nice structural issues - the details of how the recent fox hunting ban was passed are depressing. Oh, and the educational system is decrepit and bankrupt. Lovely.

    US: Good gun laws. Very strong civil liberties. Awful secondary education system. *shrug* 2/3 ain't bad. (And as for the draft - dude, seriously, there's this great new interweb thingy you should check out. Start with google.)
  • Re:s/Weary/Wary/ (Score:4, Informative)

    by packeteer ( 566398 ) <packeteer AT subdimension DOT com> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @08:45AM (#11560946)
    Well keeping your guns is less of an actual deterant to an oppressive government and more of an indicator of when one is happening. A million armed people trying to start an uprising can be put down with far less disinformation and media control than fighting them back. This doesn't mean that guns should be banne either becuase obviously once the bill of rights starts getting overturned thats a sign as i said before. So basically keep your guns but please stop acting as if they will really do anything. As for the grandparent if oyu really want to keep your kids safe you might have to give up those guns. Sounds pretty lame but it sounds like what your facing.
  • Not 100% bad (Score:3, Informative)

    by ari_j ( 90255 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @08:48AM (#11560962)
    Do you know what the Patriot Act covers? It has provisions that are clearly unconstitutional, and some of which have been ruled as such by the Courts of Appeals already.

    But it also has provisions which are designed to catch money launderers, and do a reasonably good job of it. I know you haven't considered actually reading the law to find out what it actually does, because that would interfere with your fantasy of America being the most intrusive government in the world, but you really should take a look sometime.
  • by torstenvl ( 769732 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @08:52AM (#11560991)
    ...to share Ann Coulter's views and stupidity with regard to Canada...

    http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove/movies/anncoul terCBC.html [mac.com]
  • by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig.hogger@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:25AM (#11561196) Journal
    This is far from being surprising, given that canadian was sent to Syria by US authorities and tortured there for a year [google.ca], thanks to the "Patriot" "act".
  • Backronym (Score:3, Informative)

    by pjt33 ( 739471 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:27AM (#11561206)
    Backronym [reference.com].
  • by Cryofan ( 194126 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @09:46AM (#11561336) Journal
    from a chart of the top 50 nations for "Revenues per capita" (meaning how much they have in the budget to spend per citizen [nationmaster.com]:
    >>>>>
    27. United States $6702.42 per person
    28. Jersey $6666.22 per person
    29. Man, Isle of $6531.01 per person
    30. Austria $6472.72 per person
    31. Cayman Islands $6324.22 per person
    32. Israel $6294.41 per person
    33. Qatar $6119.56 per person
    34. Singapore $6053.90 per person
    35. Guernsey $5882.62 per person
    36. British Virgin Islands $5591.34 per person
    37. Andorra $5567.60 per person
    38. Canada $5545.35 per person

    >>>>

    OK, now I know you are a "free market" conservative, and everything, but I really think that even YOU can see that $6702 is more than $5545. But since you are what you are (hey, I used to be one myself), I am going to put a real fine point on this for you: the taxes in America, all totalled up and everything, are MORE per person that they are in Canada. Period.

  • Re:Funny... (Score:2, Informative)

    by conteXXt ( 249905 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @10:19AM (#11561605)
    Religion? Check. That allowed.

    Firearms? Check. Them too.

    Differences?

    No religion in Government (would be discriminatory)

    Firearms arent sold in convenience stores and must be licensed.

    These are Rights we dont mind losing.

    but it cool if you dont get it, you keep fighting for your guns and theocrasy.
  • by ShieldWolf ( 20476 ) <jeffrankine@nets[ ]e.net ['cap' in gap]> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @10:42AM (#11561842)
    "...and I was going on about how we shared a border with Russia, and were the country furthest north."

    As a Canadian I need to clarify a couple of points:

    1) Canada DOES NOT share a border with Russia, we only have a border with the USA.

    2) Canada IS NOT the northern most country. That would be Greenland (Denmark).
  • Re:Not necessarily (Score:3, Informative)

    by dago ( 25724 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @11:40AM (#11562479)
    I guess that the OECD [oecd.org] stats should be pretty good as well.

    For taxes + social security, they put both Canada at 25% and USA at 24%. Not a huge difference.

    Same goes for the gross wage, canada is at 32926 US$ and USA at 33456 US$, when balanced with purchasing power & exchange rates.
  • Re:s/Weary/Wary/ (Score:3, Informative)

    by autophile ( 640621 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @11:40AM (#11562486)
    as indicated by the homicide rate in my province (typically around 1 per capita)

    Uh... wouldn't that mean everybody's dead?

    --Rob

  • Re:s/Weary/Wary/ (Score:2, Informative)

    by GaepysPike ( 450123 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @11:45AM (#11562539)
    I really hate to throw more fuel on this "us-versus-you guys" debate, but....

    You mean no one told you about how our economy is doing WAY better than yours!

    This comment is totally bunk. But according to the numbers, the size, producing power, and sheer stability of the U.S. economy is several times that of Cananda (in fact as far as producing power, greater than all of Europe put together). Across all the provinces of Canada, the employment rate is solidly above 7.0, in BC actually up at 8.2. (that's compared to 5.2 in Dec 2004 for the U.S).

    Your personal income tax rates are through the roof (up there with us in fact, which says something), and what do you have to show for it? It certainly isn't helping your failing socialized health-care system you guys love to brag about (it's deep in financial problems, and for what? The quality of care is significantly lower than here in the U.S: Here [angelfire.com].)

    And finally...

    WTF does politics have to with economy

    It's funny that we are the inept ones here... go take an economics course, throw in some poli-sci for good measure, and come back when it finally dawns on you that ALL these issues are intimately connected to politics.
  • Re:s/Weary/Wary/ (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dr.Zong ( 584494 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @11:49AM (#11562592) Journal
    Canada does not have "ridiculous" gun laws. I own six personally. To get a gun you have to go on course, nowadays they call is the "Firearms safety course" it teaches you basic gun safety for all long guns, at the end you write a test, you pass the test - you can buy guns with your new license. The license is renewable without further testing. You want handguns, you stay a little longer in the course for the "Prohibited" weapons part, you write a second test, now you can own handguns.

    To go Hunting, you need to go on a hunting course, it's called "Hunter Safety" and among other things teaches you about different types of wildlife, how to tell them apart from other wildlife, how to protect yourself and how to avoid shooting other people. You pass the course, you get a license. Pretty simple.

    Since we do not allow concealed weapons here in Canada, in order to use your handgun you have to have a range membership and transport is only allowed between your place of residence and the range. That isn't that bad. Up here we use long guns primarily for hunting, and there are no further travel restrictions on those except they have to have trigger locks and be out of sight at all times while travelling. It's not that big of a deal really.

    What people get into a hff about is the new "Registration" for guns. It's a little stupid, you have to pay the gov't $25CDN to buy/register/transfer a gun to your name. They then send you a little paper with the serial number (if it's a serialed gun) and make/model/calibre. You haver to carry this paper at all times in case the feds (not the provincials) decide to stop you and question your ownership... Again, not that bad.

    Now, if you have over 15 guns the RCMP (feds) can show up at your door at any time and ask to inspect the gun store and ammo store and make sure you are doing things correctly. Again, I own six, I do not find this fifteen limit "surprise raid" thing an issue.

    I don't like the feds knowing about each gun I own, but it's not that big of a deal, I use them for hunting, not for causing some armed rebellion.

    If anyone has issues about the information I provided, I can provide links if I have to. But anyone who lives in Canada and actually knows the law, and is affected by it knows what I wrote to be true.

    Anything you need to know can be found here [cfc-ccaf.gc.ca] or here [about.com]. As for freedom of religion, your issues about "Hate Crimes" are blown way out of proporation. The issue you are referring to is basic civil righs and equality for all. Gay bashing is not a sport, and the churches have this issue with it. I myself have no problems with gay marriage - Canada is founded on freedoms for all, not just freedoms for the church - if the church wants to do something, fine - don't let it infringe on another minority's rights. The issue is the heads of church basically defaming the gay population which is against the law and the rights of gays are held in the same light as say, the rights of jewish people, or arabs not to be defamed or whatever by any other group.

    In Canada we protect the rights of everyone, even if some groups like it or not. Seriously, do you think being a Christian gives you the right to bash gays? If you do, you have some predjudices that need to be worked on buddy.
  • by nostriluu ( 138310 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @12:37PM (#11563126) Homepage
    You're right, and in fact the LCBO has a very good selection of liquor offered at good prices due to its consolidated buying power. So its not all bad. I do find it a bit creepy that they are tending towards the upscale in design, but I guess it makes people feel good about being boozehounds, and is a profit centre.

    Of course, other Canadian provinces do allow private stores to sell liquor.
  • Re:Tell me about it. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @01:11PM (#11563526) Homepage Journal
    Columbine happened while Clinton and his "assault weapon ban" was in effect. They killed quite well with 10-round magazines. What's happened since then? Any full-auto school slaughters?

    In the weeks after columbine, a Canadian tried to do copy-cat killing spree. But being Canadian, and apparently an idiot, he didn't have access to firearms, and he tried it with a knife. Result: 6 (IIRC) injured, including the idiot himself, no one killed. Why? Because it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun, and if you come at guy with a knife in a school, you risk getting beaten down with a chair.

    If the Columbine kids had access to better weapons, they would simply have suceeded in killig more people.

    But since they banned every weapon, real AND imagined in schools, and they'll suspend you for simply looking like you're thinking about shooting someone, there hasn't been as many school kid massacres. Just like there haven't been that many "ramming jet planes full of fuel and people into crowded buildings" recently either. I guess attention-seeking assassins want to be original in their murders.

    Oh yeah, in Beslan, Russia -- by terrorists.

    The "cops" did most of the dammage there.
    Nerve gas before that... Man, it sucks being an hostage in or around Russia: the terrorists are doing as much as the government to keep you alive!
  • by Run4yourlives ( 716310 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @01:37PM (#11563857)
    Actually, not a single 9/11 terrorist entered the US through Canada.

    And none were Iraqi either...
  • Re:Sort of... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Frostalicious ( 657235 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @01:53PM (#11564092) Journal
    1. Hearsay evidence is admissable in a CRIMINAL trial (in the states hearsay is only admissible in a civil trial).

    2. Evidence gathered without a search warrent or even probable case is addmissble in a CRIMINAL trial (in the states this is a big no no, it is tossed out period).


    incorrect. [rcmp-learning.org]
  • FLQ Crisis (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03, 2005 @02:10PM (#11564297)
    Before we canucks get sanctimonious, let's look at our own history first. After a spate of "terrorist incidents" (the october crisis was absurdly overblown), our government declared marshall law and cancelled out all civil liberties from coast to coast. This is despite the fact all violence occured in a concentrated area. In our weakest moment we succumbed to our fears. We have no reason to feel superior.

    The War Measures Act led to the arrest of 500 people without warrant. The majority of the people were artists, unionists, intellectuals and individuals who supported Quebec nationalism.

    The War Measures Act was similar in intent to the Patriot Act, but the consequences were far worse. It was later repealed by a conservative government, but no one honestly believes that a new government isn't still capable of bringing it back.
  • by bVork ( 772426 ) <rpantella+slashdot.gmail@com> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @02:57PM (#11564819)
    Pray tell, oh enlightened one, about trade barriers.

    Very well, lets talk about Iraq, and the oil embargo, and how the US ignores barriers whenever it feels like it. Or how America (and other countries, America isn't alone in this) backs such barriers only when it benefits corporations, not consumers or laborers.


    You forgot the softwood lumber tariffs, which both the WTO [www.cbc.ca] and NAFTA [canadaone.com] have ruled are illegal. And the US is considering raising the duty [canada.com]!
  • by fiftyfly ( 516990 ) <mike@edey.org> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @03:26PM (#11565176) Homepage

    If you think China and Russia are some kind of benevolent white knights riding to rescue the world from US oppression

    Hmmm there might be a few people here and there with something to say on the subject. This country was founded by a coalition of the God fearing who felt they had the mandate of said deity to, well, systematically mince the world and reform it in their image. Yum - tastes like McNuggets.

    Native Tribe of Kanatak, Sitka Tribe of Alaska, The Stikine Tribes, Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribe, Cherokee Tribe of Northeast Alabama, The Poarch Band of Creek Indians, United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation, Akimel O'odham Gila River Community, The Hopi Tribe, The Navajo Nation, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation , Agua Caliente Band of Cahullia Indians, Barona Band of Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Costanoan-Ohlone Indians (www.indiancanyon.org), Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe of Chino California, Esselen Tribe of Monterey County, Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe of San Gabriel, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Kashaya Band of Pomo Indians, Konkow Valley Band of Maidu, Kumeyaay Nation, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe, Ohlone/Costanoan Esselen Nation, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Pinoleville Band of Pomo Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Tsnungwe Council, Wiyot Tribe, The Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, , The Golden Hill Indians of the Paugussett Indian Nation, The Mohegan Tribe, Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indian Tribal Nation, The Nanticoke People, The Seminole Tribe of Florida, Coeur d'Alene Indians, Delawares of Idaho, The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Lemhi-Shoshone Indian Community, Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, The Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, United Tribe of Shawnee Indians, Wyandot Nation of Kansas, Sovereign Nation of the Chitimacha, Sovereign Nation of the Coushatta Tribe, Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, The Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point, Pocomoke Indian Nation, Cowasuck Band of the Pennacook-Abenaki People, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Indian Community, The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians , Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Sandy Lake Band of Ojibwe, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Blackfeet Nation of Montana, Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, The Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey, Powhatan Renape Nation, Ramapough Mountain Indians, Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, Pueblo of Sandia, Oneida Indian Nation, The Seneca Nation of Indians, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Lumbee Tribe, , Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Munsee Delaware Indian Nation - USA, Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, The Cherokee Nation, The Chickasaw Nation, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Comanche Nation, Delaware (Lenni Lenape) Tribe of Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, Osage Nation of Oklahoma, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, The Shawnee Tribe, Wichita and Affilliated Tribes, Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuislaw, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community, Confederated Tribes of Siletz, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, The Klamath Tribes, Narragansett Indian Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, Traditional Abenaki of Mazipskwik & Related Bands, Monacan Indian Nation, Wicocomico Indian Nation, The Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis, The Confederated Tribes of the Colvill

  • by Harnish ( 127535 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @03:29PM (#11565216)
    The force that hit Washington was comprised mostly of British Regulars, the 3rd Brigade to be exact, who were, as you mentioned, fresh from the Napoleonic wars, but it also included a lot of British Militia (which would be the Canadians), including around 300 from York (as an aside, York was renamed to Toronto in 1834). The entire attack on Washington was for revenge for destruction the Americans caused to York and Port Dover, Washington itself had no strategic value at all (Baltimore did). To understand exactly why they took revenge though, we have to look at the Battle of York.

    The Americans attacked York on the 27th of April, 1813. Their goal was to attack Kingston and disrupt British supply lines by destroying the naval yards there, but Major-General Henry Dearborn had been informed that an unspecified number of re-enforcements had arrived at Kingston and fearing he was now out-numbered, diverted to a secondary target, York, the capital of Upper Canada. York was defended by only 700 men, more than half of them militia, and had it also had a naval shipyard with two frigates, the Isaac Brock and the Duke of Gloucester, under construction. The Americans had 2700 men and 14 naval vessels, which Dearborn correctly assumed would be sufficent to take York. Dearborn, though, is grossly overweight and in no condition to lead his men into combat, so he places Brigadier-General Zebulon Pike in charge.

    Realizing that his forces were insufficient to defend York, General Shaeffe ordered his forces to withdraw to Kingston shortly after the Americans establish a beach head. He also ordered some men to scuttle the Isaac Brock (the Duke of Gloucester had completed construction the day before and sailed to Kingston) in the yards and to blow the powder magazine. Even though the British withdraw, they left the British flag flying over the fort in the hopes that the Americans would be tricked into thinking the fort was still occupied.

    Whether or not Pike was fooled, the American forces did advance on the fort. Unfortunately for York, they did so at the same time the powder magazine exploded. It killed 28 American soldiers outright and left over 200 wounded, including Brigadier-General Zebulon Pike who would eventually die of his wounds.

    The situation in York degenerates quickly after this. Without any enemy soldiers to take the blame, the American troops avenge their losses on York itself. Private property is vandalised and looted, public buildings are destroyed and burned, and private homes are torched as well. Dearborn is either unwilling or unable to stop his soldiers and by the time the Americans withdraw five days later, York has burned to the ground. When the news reached the militia of the events in York, they wanted blood.

    Compare this to the amusing story of Rear Admiral Cockburn (yes, we all know the jokes one can make with that name, and it is the basis of this story) in Washington. There was an anti-british newspaper by the name of the National Intelligencer that has essentially been making fun of him so he went to their offices, fully intending to burn it to the ground. When he gets there, several women from the neighbourhood beg him not to burn the building since the fire would spread to their homes. Cockburn agreed that burning the building was not necessary and had the printing equipment dragged into the street and ordered it burned. He then informed his soldiers to "make sure that all the C's are destroyed, so that the rascals can have no further means of abusing my name."

    The major difference seems to be that General Ross and Rear Admiral Cockburn were able to retain control of their men, including the militia that was lusting for blood. This resulted in the destruction in Washington was limited primarily to government buildings.
  • by wk633 ( 442820 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @04:17PM (#11565765)
    To be fair, there was one attempted border crossing. The guy who was stopped in Port Angeles, on his way to blow up LAX for Y2K.

    But ya, in general, foreign terrorists get into the US on visitor or student visas. A lot of people incorrectly associate the idea of 'illegal alien' with 'terrorist'. Illegal aliens are the people who do the jobs none of the citizens want to do.
  • by Ced_Ex ( 789138 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @04:59PM (#11566251)
    So now it's intent that makes something wrong? By your reasoning, if none of us participated in WWII, the death of millions of Jews would be perfectly okay because we didn't intend to cause it. Even though we would have been complicit in our inaction. This type of thinking is why the UN is a useless body.

    Yes, 'intent' is that thing that makes something wrong. Sort of like the difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder. The US never killed Jews, nor did they intend to, which makes that example rather moot. Just so you know, the genocide of Jews occurred after the war started when Hitler decided to take over Europe. And another thing, if you say the UN is a useless body, Jews were getting exterminated by the millions long before the US got involved. If it weren't for the Japanese, the US would have just sat back and watched. Otherwise, why else would WWII have started in 1941 according to your history, a full 2 years later than when it really did?

    if one must intend to cause death for it to be wrong, then the US military is exonerated. Accidents cannot be intentional.

    I hardly call dropping bombs an acccident.

    Again, just showing your ignorance. One of the main planks of the pro-war stance was "freedom for the Iraqi people". WMDs were just the clincher

    My ignorance? Surely you jest. Here's a timeline [infoplease.com] with all the associated White House Press releases. But in case you're to proud to read, the first several lines include statements from your leader's State of the Union Address, President Bush calls Iraq part of an "axis of evil," and vows that the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." No where do I see "free the opressed".

    Then explain what the huge fuss was about Weapon Inspectors? Sure, they were UN, but they didn't find anything, nor did your military after the invasion. The focus was to find these WMDs to justify your war. Now, spinsters worked their magic, and you all think it's for Iraqi freedom. What next? Iranian freedom? North Korean? Hell, North Korea even blatanly said they have nukes. No need for weapon inspectors, why not just march your collective freedom providing army over there? The likely reason why GWB hasn't done so is because North Korea would hand your asses back on a nuke missile plate, and because North Korea has fuck all in terms of oil. No business there. Check out all the contracts US companies have received from Iraq... Haliburton? Explain that one genius.

    Don't get me started on Blair. He's just a damn "yes-man" kissing GWB's ass. It's no surprise the British don't like him. I'm just happy that they don't have the military might to cause more problems.

    As for the first Gulf War, I didn't forget, I just didn't see the problem there. You had Iraq invade a foreign country, Kuwait needed help, US provided it. The coalition won, that's that. Don't need to annihilate a country to show them their defeated.

    For peacekeeping in those said nations of Cyprus, Bosnia, etc. What do you propose? At least our solution does not involved using weapons to destroy. I never said it was a perfect science, but according to you, getting involved without using violence is not a solution. So go ahead big shot, tell us what you would do? Ignore it? Bomb them? What? You got a better plan?

    Certainly trying to stop a war is much better than actively starting one with a sovereign nation.

    You're stating this as an absolute? So we never should have declared war on Germany or Japan during WWII? Or perhaps you admit that this is a matter for situational ethics, and a much more complicated issue than your hippie beliefs will allow you to admit?


    Of course it's an absolute. Why is war a good thing? People DIE. The reason why war was declared on Germany and Japan was because they were actively killing and invadin
  • by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:25PM (#11567780) Journal
    I agree, the U.S. should have ceded control a long time ago. Are you happy?

    Yes, I am happy. But you missed the point of that. You (assuming you're the same AC) said US occupation of Panama was "news", so I posted several links for you to peruse to show that its "old news". I'm glad you found credibility problems with one or two of my links, it means the time I spent looking for three was worthwhile.

    And so what if Iraq had a democracy 50 years ago.

    It makes your original statement about voting for the first time wrong, assuming you can find a 65 year old Iraqi. Thats all.

    HOW YOU FEEL SUPERCEDES THE FEELING OF THOSE IRAQIS VOTING IN IRAQ.

    Thanks for the caps, I had no idea that my feelings superceded the feelings of those in Iraq. I know that for the most part they're happy, and at this point in time all I can do is hope Bush's experiment works and that Iraq becomes a peaceful secular democracy.

    You mention that the U.S. is going to slap Iraq with a bill.

    Aww, you got me there. Bush promised it would come from Iraqi oil money. [commondreams.org] Then he "retracted" that promise. Of course, Bush has other ways [treas.gov] of getting money out of Iraq.

    Here's to hoping that History will prove me wrong and I am missing the signs, and we won't be doomed to repeat it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03, 2005 @10:22PM (#11568975)
    "The Nazis had no policies that could be called socialist"

    See my other post on this matter. You'll discover Adolf Hitler and Jack Layton only opposed each other on baking Jews and buidling military strength, and agree on practically all other matters.
  • Re:FLQ Crisis (Score:3, Informative)

    by ablair ( 318858 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @03:59AM (#11570217)
    The War Measures Act was only very reluctantly used during the FLQ Crisis because there were no other 'intermediary' laws available at the time with more limited scope to handle such a crisis. Remember, at the time the new provincial government in Québec suddenly had mail bombs going off, threats, kidnappings of high-ranking officials, and the assassination of the minister of labour. This inexperienced government had no idea how large or organized a group they faced (the terrorists certainly seemed to be organized and have great reach) and had to bunker the entire cabinet down under heavy guard for fear of their lives. The atmosphere was highly charged and not only the locked-down cabinet, but the mayor of Montréal and the police in Québec all called for the invocation of the Act by the federal government before Trudeau reluctantly agreed.

    And to correct your history, the War Measures Act was halted by the same Liberal government that invoked it, less than one month later (November 1970). It was replaced as soon as possible by the more reasonable Public Order Temporary Measures Act of 1970, which lasted less than a few months. While many innocent people were detained for up to a month under the War Measures Act by over-zealous police forces, none were deported for torture or jailed indefinietly without charge. This is significantly different than the situation with the Patriot Act.

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...