U.S says Canada cares too much about liberties!

[Senbei Norimaki]

:p Check out the article here. Canada civil liberties (http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=78a2260b-4770-4682-BE60-E6FE1D3B8144)

[RZetlin]

Yeah, those bloody Canadians and their love for civil liberties.

I think it's time to sic the military state of America on them! ;)

[Clayface]

Here's (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/) the actual report they're referring to if anyone's interested.

More specifically, here (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19987.htm) is the part discussing Canada (scroll down to almost the bottom). If you read it, you'll see that for most of the report Canada is actually praised for their support in the war on terror and for their measures, and no where does it use the term "Canada cares too much about civil liberties". That's a nice slant on the story based on some reporter's personal interpretation of the statements. A very nice example of bias in the media - instead of just printing the statements, they added in a negative US spin in the article title.

[Psilon]

I thought canada.com is closely linked to the Canwest Corporation, who are very closely related to the national post.

[Sailor Chibi Otaku]

canada.com IS owned by Canwest.

It figures that there'd be conflicting remarks about us. For one, it ticks me off so much when American reporters print a story/broadcast a story about us and not know what the hell they're talking about. If they'd do some research to back up their "facts", we wouldn't be harping on you guys so often.

Secondly, people believe what our PM has to say. He has bags full of loaded crap. We DID have troops over in Iraq, over 1000, when reporters said that Canada has none over there, BUT THE PM KNEW DAMN WELL THAT WE HAD TROOPS ALREADY HELPING THE AMERICANS AND THE BRITISH!!

I'm not gonna rant here because I have a LONG one. I didn't agree with Bush about going to war, but what's done is done, and I supported your troops.

Just so you know, we don't have any money for our military. :(

[TimTwoFace]

*ROLLS EYES* I'm getting a wee bit sick of all the articles out there from BOTH sides of the border that paint the relationship between the US and Canada as being sour. Yeah, the US was mighty pissed at us for not joining in the war against Iraq, and I, for one, am glad Canada stayed out of it. Canada isn't a fighting country - look at our military. We're a diplomatic country, first and foremost, and the world regards us as a friendly neighbour and one of the most peaceful (and powerful) nations in the world. That's why Canada immediately volunteered aid and peacekeepers to the Iraq region as soon as that war was over.

And to all those that think Canada is against the war on Terrorism and not a good friend to the US, think again. Canada was there during the first Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, the Balkan conflicts, the Afghanistan conflict - hell, on 9/11 Canada was the first and only country to shut down its airspace along with the US to keep the skies safe that day. In houses across the country, citizens let weary travellers bunk with them when houses were full. All the aid we offered to NYC almost immediately.

Admittedly, Canada's immigration policies are a little weak, especially with those seeking refugee status. I'd like to see immigration tightened up - especially at our seaports - to keep this country safe. By the same token, though, you have to remember that when the American media blames Canada for letting terrorists into North America, they should be looking at themselves, for these same suspected terrorists went through American customs, as well. Canada and the US have proudly shared the longest undefended border in the world for over 130 years now, and should be able to keep it that way with the proper measures.

I'd like to see Canada and the US to work together to make this entire continent safer. That means we both have similar immigration policies, and military defense that would protect both nations (and the rest of North America, like Mexico, the Carribbean, etc) from any potential attacks. That also means that both countries would be allowed to have full access to all the resources the other country has to offer - the FBI, CIA, CSIS, and RCMP would all work together. No inter-office politics.

And that's about all I have to say, as my brain hurts. :p

-Tim

[Senbei Norimaki]

I actually praise Canada for not joining the war. It took a lot of guts to stand up to the Bush administration. There is nothing wrong about worrying about your civil liberties.

[gristl24]

"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."

That could be what the Canadian author was talking about when he said "Canada cares too much about civil liberties." Doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me.

[Clayface]

"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."

That could be what the Canadian author was talking about when he said "Canada cares too much about civil liberties." Doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me.


I think the point is, the majority of the section of the document concerning Canada is positive and offers praise. But the author chose to take two sentences - that aren't even intended to criticize Canada but to simply point out one way in which the US's method don't mesh with the Canadians' - and turn it into the hightlight/main thrust of his article. He completely misses the tone and point of the report, and uses one part of it, which is not even intended to be negative toward Canada, to try and put a negative spin on the whole thing.

[Joe Wagner]

Somehow I'm not surprised - after all it is easy for the reporter to completely skew the article to reflect a non-existent slam on Canada. While he claims that the US slammed Canada for their protection of civil rights he also failed to mention how these freedoms have been compromised and even used to support terrorism. One example resulted in the eventual expulsion of Hamas from Canada - even though they had been allowed to operate within Canada because, according to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, they were raising funds for schools and hospitals in the Gaza strip and West Bank while stating that the military wing should be sanctioned. It wasn't until the government came under pressure and was shown it's ties to the military wing that they were placed on the list of recognized terrorist groups. It is these types of organizations that the US has become alarmed about when they are found operating in Canada and of greater concern when the US learns of convicted terrorists entering Canada and not being thoroughly checked out before being allowed into their nation. While the US is currently working on our own border security they are also deeply concerned about these terrorists entering Canada and attacking the US - as demonstrated by the attempted terrorist attack of New Years Eve 2000 where a terrorist cell was stopped with a car full of explosives with the intention of bombing Los Angeles International airport. These threats not only face the US but Canada as well and is the primary reason that the US would mention Canada's privacy laws.

-Joe!

[Psycho Fox]

Somehow I'm not surprised - after all it is easy for the reporter to completely skew the article to reflect a non-existent slam on Canada. While he claims that the US slammed Canada for their protection of civil rights he also failed to mention how these freedoms have been compromised and even used to support terrorism. It is not the laws it is the incompetence of the intelligences agencies on both sides of the border.

The FBI investigations in Yemen was halted to protect foreign relations, investigations that could have stoped the 9/11 attacks. Also the FBI investigations into Bin Laddends relitives that lived in the US were halted (till they skipped the county) to protect foreign relations with Saudi Arabia.

With the keystone cops on both side of the border I don't think any laws should be changed since even keystone cops can abuse their powers and turn the nation into a police state.

[Joe Wagner]

Also the FBI investigations into Bin Laddends relitives that lived in the US were halted (till they skipped the county) to protect foreign relations with Saudi Arabia.

This would be a falsity as an investigation was done into their respective backgrounds and they were completely cleared of any wrong doing before being allowed to leave the country.

-Joe!

[Psycho Fox]

This would be a falsity as an investigation was done into their respective backgrounds and they were completely cleared of any wrong doing before being allowed to leave the country.

-Joe!The CIA and FBI don't think so they still want to question them.