Canada Rejects Anti-Terror Laws

Coryoth writes "The Canadian parliament has voted against renewing anti-terror laws that had been introduced after September 11, 2001. The rejected laws included provisions to hold terror suspects indefinitely, and to compel witnesses to testify, and were in some sense Canada's version fo the Patriot Act. The laws were voted down in the face of claims from the minority Conservative government that the Liberal Party was soft on terror, and despite the fact that Canada has faced active terrorist cells in their own country. The anti-terror laws have never been used, and it was viewed that they are neither relevant, nor needed, in dealing with terrorist plots. Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion."

Think of the children (of the terrorists)

[by Anonymous Coward]

Remember that in Canada, 9/11 is actually 11/9, since they use a different date format system up there, eh?

Re:Unbiased news posts

[StikyPad (445176)]

Here's the reference, but unfortunately it says "The first, second, and third most centrist outlets are respectively Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN's Newsnight with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America. [ucla.edu]"

It goes on to say, "The fourth and fifth most centrist outlets are the Drudge Report and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume." Nonetheless, the scale was 0-100, with 100 being most liberal and 50.1 being centrist. Brit Hume's score was 39.7, making it clearly conservative.

And finally, "Our method only measures the degree to which media is liberal or conservative, relative to Congress," ergo even FOX's most centrist show is more conservative than Congress.

Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[jusDfaqs (997794)]

Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion.

Yea, like this one, US!

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[IceDiver (321368)]

I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work."

I would argue that, since the laws have never been used, they were unneeded, not untested. Furthermore, key provisions of the laws were recently struck down as unconstitutional by the Canadian courts.

So, not only were the laws not necessary, they contravened the highest law of the land. It's no wonder Parliament voted them down! I'm just surprised that the same hasn't happened yet to the blatantly unconstitutional laws that have been enacted since 9/11 south of the Canadian border!

Mod parent UP!

[IgLou (732042)]

What irritated me about this was that people somehow think that these unproven laws are needed? WHY?? Let's review, to protect you Joe Canadian we are going to strip away a fundamental right or two and then remove the need for due-process or accountability. RIIIGHT. I agree with you completely these laws are unneeded, unconsitituional and unnecessary.

What makes matters worst is Mr. Harpers response to the opposition and declaring that they don't have Canada's security in mind. Talk about spreading FUD; our PM is good at it.

I feel for anyone who lost a loved one in 9/11 but this legislation was never a solution just a stop-gap knee-jerk response.

Post-disaster legislation

[AlHunt (982887)]

Yeah, really - there almost ought to be a law against passing any new laws for 30 days after a disaster. Politicians always want to jump n some kind of bandwagon after something like 9/11, pass garbage legislation and then we live with it forever (except in Canada, apparently).

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Onan (25162)]

Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.

Oh, that's an easy one. Those two positions are not contradictory at all.

Invasive, authoritarian laws like the PATRIOT Act do greatly increase the risk of terrorism (in addition to having many more deleterious effects). But terrorism is a trivial problem in the first place: something that happens with negligible frequency, and harms (on a national scale) a miniscule number of people.

So, yes, the Bush administration is actively working to destroy the Bill of Rights in order to make a trivial problem slightly worse. I do have kind of a problem with that.

They don't have to!

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.

Well the last attack by foreign terrorists on US soil before 9/11 was in 1993, so eight years. Clearly the policies initiated after 9/11 were not necessary to provide 8 years of no attacks. Arguing that 5 years of no attacks since in any way validates those policies is the most falacious of reasoning.

And why have attacks not been more frequent? Well first there is the planning involved -- again, 8 years between the failed WTC bombing and 9/11. And more importantly, since 9/11 there has been no need to attack the US on its own soil!

Let me make this as clear as possible: Afghanistan and Iraq have caused more harm to the United States that a hundred attacks like 9/11. In response to 9/11, the U.S. did to itself more than al Qaeda could ever dream of doing just on its own capacities. Not only in material costs but in the all-important propaganda war. The credibility the US has lost in the last 5 years is a huge boon to our enemies. Our status as world leader is

It's a classic strategy, and the same one used by Hezbollah against Israel. You can't effectively attack the giant on its home turf, so you poke at it to enrage it and lure it into your home turf where the giant is at a disadvantage. In their attempts to stomp you out, the giant innevitably stomps on the innocent and thus further increases resentment of the giant. Two wins, military and PR, from one strategy.

The whole purpose of terrorism is to make your enemy crazy-stupid with fear. The U.S. is still behaving crazy-stupid, and paying for it. Why attack again? It would be a waste of resources; they are still getting everything from the one attack 5 years ago that they could hope to get from a new one. If we ever get our heads out of our asses, if we ever get people to think longer than "well no attacks it the last 5 years, so USAPATRIOT must work!", THEN maybe they'll see a need to attack us again.

Re:They don't have to!

[Chris Burke (6130)]

I believe the point of attacking America isn't to kill Americans. It is to change our way of life. They have done that by attacking us on our own soil.

Yes, they turned us into the frightened hateful warmongers that all their propaganda said we were. Again, the reason they don't have to attack us again is because we gave them exactly what they wanted.

As for no need to attack the US directly since we have made it so easy to attack us abroad, isn't that a good thing? Keep the battle off our soil?

Uh, I wouldn't call one one attack every eight years a "battle". This is exactly the kind of crazy-stupid illogical thinking that led us to attack Iraq as part of the War on Terror. What, you think that if we didn't invade Iraq, that we'd be facing exactly the same degree of warfare over here? Are you really that crazy-stupid?

We have created a net increase in the amount of battle going on in the world. Some would consider that a bad thing. If the tradeoff was attacks in the U.S. that killed between 6 and 3,000 people every 8 years (average: 375/yr) then I'd say that was a good idea.

The analogy that we are the giant lured from our own land is totally rediculous.

That's a weird way to spell "apt". But hey, let's just keep getting beat up in Iraq, a land we don't understand and can't blend into so we're constantly harrassed by insurgents, losing people, money, and influence every day. It isn't an analogy, it's a strategy, and it's working perfectly for our enemies.

As for killing innocents, that is only a rule that the US and Israel must follow, or apologize to hell for should someone "innocent" die. Terrorists kill innocents the majority of the time. They TARGET innocents.

WRONG! It is not a rule the US must follow, it is a REALITY that the US thinks it can absolve itself from. Everyone knows that when you kill innocents, the survivors will hate you. Al Qaeda knows they're fucking hated by every Shia (and many Sunni) in Iraq, but they don't care. Pratical countries like Israel or Russia just deal with the fact. The U.S. is the only one who thinks that the survivors should love us even though we killed innocents, because we're the good guys! The U.S. is the one who thought that the people of Iraq would thank us for bombing them! It's insane.

You really want to prove how morally superior the U.S. is? Do you believe that we are? Well I do to, but the only thing that can possibly show this is actions. So how about this: When terrorists kill innocents, we don't kill any innocents in return. I know it sounds crazy -- what, don't lash out randomly in a blind rage when someone hurts you? -- but I think it would work.

But that's ok, cause if we stick our heads in the sand maybe it won't be us that gets attacked. Unfortunately for you, it was us.

You aren't paying attention. If you follow what I'm saying, I'm saying that if we ignored the terrorists, if we stopped invading Arab nations in the name of terror, then we WOULD be attacked again. If we stopped giving the terrorists exactly what they wanted in response to 9/11, then it would be worth their while to attempt to do it again and get the crazy-stupid behavior that we've been showing for the last 5 years.

So when that happens, you have to ask yourself: Are you going to give the terrorists what they want? Are you going to dance to their tune? Are you going to become, once again, that which they say you are?

And the blame for all our actions, right or wrong, is the fault of the terrorists.

Well, you could certainly call the invasion of Iraq an effect of the terrorists' actions, for sure. Yet I don't think you're going to win any hearts and minds in Sadr City by telling them that soldiers are shooting at them because of Osama bin Laden.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[flyingsquid (813711)]

Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.

There are three answers:

(1)They don't have to strike on our home territory to hurt us- in fact, they can hurt us a lot more easily, and more effectively, by attacking us abroad. If I were a fanatical Saudi Arabian suicide bomber, I could bomb a Starbucks in Topeka, but it would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to plan, and it would have a low probability of succeeding. On the other hand, I could just head to Iraq. It's a lot easier to get across the unsecured Iraqi border than through American customs, and once I'm there I look like everyone else and speak the local language, so it's much easier to operate and blend in. And the Americans have done me the favor of shipping to my front door- at the cost of billions of dollars- their young men and women. Praise Allah!

(2) They are busy attacking our allies -as they did in Madrid and London- to isolate us. And quite effectively. Notice how small the "coalition of the willing" is these days?

(3) America is pretty good at integrating its immigrants, so Al Qaeda has very few sympathizers in the United States. Muslim immigrants to the United States tend to like America, identify as Americans, and to pick up our values, and their kids are very well integrated into the culture. They may not like the government but they like the country. However, Muslims in Europe much more often end up isolated, economically disenfranchised, and pissed off at their host countries. That makes them more likely to look to radical Islam and hatch bomb plots, as in London. The way we treat our immigrants, and not the Patriot Act, is probably our strongest defense against domestic terrorism.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[kinglink (195330)]

Let's ignore the attacks on the USS Cole, and the bombing of the Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania, those don't count because they were under the Clinton Administration? Or are we just forgetting them because they happened more then 6 years ago? Terrorism has always been a problem in the world yet now we are looking for it and it's just not there.

The fact is we have had terrorism all along, just because it's dropped off after 9/11 doesn't mean there wasn't attacks before. And from the sound of their own recordings they'd like nothing more to strike us again on American soil. So if it is so easy to get across the borders like everyone says... what gives? Apparently Homeland security IS working at some level.

The simple answer is to claim the lions rock idea, which does make sense, but you probably don't live next door to a zoo, do you? Statistically you can predict that we should have been attacked in the last six years if we took no precaution, so that means in all likely hood the DHS works.

Allow me to make an alternate example. Assume I live in a city with another person called Joe. Joe is a murderer and a thief. I own a lot of expensive items, however I also am careful and carry a handgun on me at all time, and have a security system at home that can't be broken into. So one day after 10 years of peaceful living, I think to myself, well I've never been murdered or robbed, why don't I get rid of my gun and security system? Joe finds this out. Do you think I'm going to be safe the next day?

This doesn't mean I SHOULD have a gun and a security system, or that it's the best way to handle this. However it was effective in avoiding the problems with Joe, just as the DHS is one solution to solving terrorism.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Let's ignore the attacks on the USS Cole, and the bombing of the Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania, those don't count because they were under the Clinton Administration?

No, they don't count because they didn't happen on U.S. soil. You'd have to be insane to claim that there are fewer terrorist attacks on U.S. interests abroad today.

But the whole argument is that they'd be attacking us here if they weren't attacking us there. Clearly that isn't the case.

The simple answer is to claim the lions rock idea, which does make sense, but you probably don't live next door to a zoo, do you? Statistically you can predict that we should have been attacked in the last six years if we took no precaution, so that means in all likely hood the DHS works.

Statistically the last attack before 9/11 on U.S. soil was in 1993, so no you wouldn't necessarily expect there to have been an attack by now, and the lack of such an attack is completely inconclusive regarding the efficacy of DHS.

So one day after 10 years of peaceful living, I think to myself, well I've never been murdered or robbed, why don't I get rid of my gun and security system? Joe finds this out. Do you think I'm going to be safe the next day?

Well you were safe from Joe for the 10 years before you got the gun and security system, so yeah, I'd think it's safe to say that you overstated the threat of Joe, and really the gun and security system did nothing.

But that's not really the case. Before, you weren't without a security system, it was just a modest and practical one. Then one day Joe broke in, actually walked in by posing as a repair man which is actually his job, and you got all paranoid and decided you needed a gun and a super invasive security system that checked the bodily orfices of everyone that came into your house. Even though none of the security systems you implemented would have prevented Joe's attack, you still maintain that it is necessary. All it does is piss of your family and guests, though.

We fought terrorism before 9/11. We don't need USAPATRIOT or DHS to do it now.

"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?"

[Baby Duck (176251)]

I can finally Blame Canada ... for starting something Good.

Once again showing

[teamhasnoi (554944)]

that the U.S. is Canada's Mexico.

Re:Once again showing

[LunaticTippy (872397)]

So what? Every country is somebody's Mexico.

Except Santa's Workshop. North Pole, bitches!

Re:Once again showing

[Brickwall (985910)]

The leader of the Liberal Party, Stephane Dion, has integrity and fights for what he believes in.

Funniest comment ever. This guy was minister of the environment for four years, and didn't do a thing to curb carbon emissions. Now that he is in opposition, he's Mr. Greenjeans. He's a hypocrite and an opportunist; integrity is one thing he doesn't have.

Oh Canada!

[deadhammer (576762)]

I'd like to say that, as a full red-blooded, maple syrup-sweating, moose riding Canuck, I've never been prouder of my country. These sorts of laws always seem good in the panic moments when they're pushed through, but cooler heads will prevail. We've said no to bad, kneejerk legislation, and I'm proud to be a voter.

Re:Oh Canada!

[mdielmann (514750)]

As another Canadian, I entirely agree with you. While I'm generally a supporter of the conservative party (parties in some places), once again I'm vindicated in my opinion that minority governments are best for the average citizen.

<rant>
My theory goes something like this. No matter what you do, it's most often politicians and not visionaries who get voted into office, if for no other reason than they lie better. This leaves you with leaders who are more concerned with their best interest rather than the people's, which results in a corrupt government. Also, majority governments can ram through just about whatever they want, whereas minority governments have to negotiate and compromise. Another way to say this is majority governments are effective, while minority governments are ineffective. So given the two likeliest choices of a corrupt effective government and a corrupt ineffective government, I'll choose the latter. At least they have a harder time shafting us.
</rant>

Hey, if you can't rant about politics, what can you rant about?

Re:Oh Canada!

[Coryoth (254751)]

If you think minority governments can be a good thing (and indeed they can be), then support proportional representation for Canada. I'm a New Zealander now living in Canada, so I've seen how proportional representation effected politics in NZ (with both pros and cons) and realistically I believe it would be a significant step forward for Canada.

Re:Oh Canada!

[Original Replica (908688)]

Oh sure. Show off your functioning democracy, with your multiple opposition parties, and your voter confidence. Wanna buy some Diebold black boxes?

And Now an election

[mandelbr0t (1015855)]

That's it for Stephen Harper, I think. It is possible to follow-up this vote with a vote of non-confidence. That should provoke the Spring election that many Canadians were expecting. It doesn't mean he won't win again, though...

Gotta love Canadian politics :)

Coyne brings up an interesting point

[twilight30 (84644)]

Generally, I don't agree with Coyne, but, he is pretty sensible for a Conservative, and I respect his opinions. Today's Post column [andrewcoyne.com] brings up a good point:

It is a sign of the oddly disembodied nature of the debate that most of the points advanced could have been made by either side -- could and were. The sunsetted provisions, it was pointed out, one allowing police to arrest suspects without warrant and hold them for up to 72 hours, the other empowering judges to compel evidence at special investigative hearings, have never been used. Ha, says one side, so they're unnecessary! Ho, says the other, so they've hardly been abused, have they?

In our knee-jerk anti-Tory attitude we often forget that the Liberals were the ones who proposed -- and passed -- this legislation in the first place.

Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[jmagar.com (67146)]

The sunset clause kicked in and it has rightfully expired. But what amazes, and impresses, me most is that a number of MPs chose not to vote. Abstained. Their reasoning [www.cbc.ca]: The provisions have not been used, and thus can be argued to be not needed. But the conflicting position is that since they were not used, they were not abused. The environment that existed to warrant the creation of these provisions has not gone away, and since we have not abused the provisions, then we should keep them... just in case.

Both are sane positions, but I favor the one where civil rights are not taken away. A good day for all Canadians.

Re:

[DoofusOfDeath (636671)]

A good day for all Canadians.

Heh... true in a funny way. A good day for law-abiding Canadians who don't want to let the terrorists win by tricking them out of their civil liberties. And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada. Both groups win by their own measures of success.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[natophonic (103088)]

And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada.

If the powers granted by the legislation were never used, and terrorist cells in Canada were disrupted and dismantled during the five years this legislation was in effect, then that's a pretty shallow victory for the terrorists.

Hold the phone...

[micromuncher (171881)]

The anti-terror legislation was TEMPORARY to be evaluated every 5 years. So its 5 years was up, and the majority of opposition (not just liberal) voted against renewing the measures. These measures are CONTRARY to our charter of rights an freedoms, specifically to detain and search ANYONE WITHOUT EVIDENCE on SUSPICION of terrorist activity. And the caption here is WRONG. There are at least 5 individuals (I know of, not personally, just through the CBC) here in Canada that were placed in jail without arrest because of this legislation. SO...

Its a good thing this abhorent measure is gone, because it was a crutch to avoid the due dilligence in proving guilt before innocence.

Re:Hold the phone...

[fishboy (81833)]

The five individuals you speak of have been held on security certificates, an aspect of Canadian law that was not part of the Anti-terrorism act that will sunset tomorrow. Certain aspects of those security certificates, however, were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court of Canada last week in a 9-0 ruling, giving the government one year to come up with provisions for adequate defence for the accused and a means for the dealing of evidence that is deemed essential to national security.

The anti-terrorism act was largely a means by which the government of the day dealt with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, both to appease the public that something was being done about terrorism, but mostly to head off accusations from the Bush administration that Canada was soft on terrorism. They were never used because Canadian law already possessed draconian measures to detain suspects indefinitely without charge, the ability to try them without ever revealing the charges, and to use evidence that they and their lawyers are not allowed to see.

Well, only active because of the Mounties

[wwwrench (464274)]

Canada has faced active terrorist cells in their own country.

Well, just to put this in context...

The Mounties, scared the hell out of Canadians by announcing that these people acquired three tons of ammonium nitrate, and were quoted in their press conference as saying "To put this in context, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people took one ton of ammonium nitrate."

Only later did it come out that it was undercover Mounties who sold them fake ammonium nitrate, and even encouraged them to buy the stuff.

Not all the anti-terrorist laws

[Bullfish (858648)]

The anti-terrorism act is still there. Just a portion of the laws are being allowed to expire. Frankly, I never saw the point of the laws in the first place. If there ever was a real terrorist issue, we have enough criminals laws to deal with them. That is what they are... criminals. Sometimes they are better armed and organized than the average bear, but they can also be three kooks with an ax to grind.

If the threat was more widespread, we always have the emergencies act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act [wikipedia.org] ) which replaced the war measures act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Measures_Act [wikipedia.org] ).

Article ignores politican context

[cowwoc2001 (976892)]

Virtually every Canadian news agency that covered this event highlighted how the law was voted down purely for political reasons, not for morale ones. The law was originally introduced by the Liberal party which is the exact same party that voted against it this time. The Liberal party is simply trying to bring up the minority Conservative government for obvious political reasons. This has absolutely nothing to do with moral objection, as many Liberal members broke rank from their party and actually voted *for* the bill. You can be sure this bill will come back in one form or another introduced by the Liberals if not by the Conservatives. You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist and those advocating such an approach are ignorant in my view.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408)]

You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist

We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist!

Re:

[ArcherB (796902)]

We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist!

Just curious. What liberties have you lost due to anti-terror legislation in whatever country you are living in?

I ask because I keep hearing about how the US has become a police state. Well, I'm in the US and as far as I can tell, this new Bush police state look

Re:Article ignores politican context

[CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408)]

Where to begin? For one we've all lost the right of habeas corpus along with many others. You may not realize it but you have also lost this guarenteed right. If you wait until the loss of that right actually personally effects you ... well, it'll be too late. You'll be locked up some where and you won't even be able to complain about it on /.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Malakusen (961638)]

One should not be allowed to abuse Freedom of Speech to spread hate literature

Yes, they should. And everyone else is free to spread anti-hate literature that points out the small-minded flaws of the hate literature. It's a good thing for hateful people to make known the extent of their insanity, so that the rest of us can guard against it. Make it illegal, and they go underground, and they feel that their rights are being oppressed, and they are more likely to become violent. Picture a water balloon, with the balloon being the hater and the water being the hate. Leave it alone, and nothing is likely to happen. Squeeze it, and it'll pop.

Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act...

[AJWM (19027)]

... when you can invoke the War Measures Act [wikipedia.org]?

That's how Canada dealt with (domestic) terrorists the last time. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act...

[Idarubicin (579475)]

... when you can invoke the War Measures Act?

It's a good thing that they can't invoke the War Measures Act, then. It was replaced by the Emergencies Act [wikipedia.org] in 1988, no doubt in large part because the provisions of the War Measures Act would have been deemed unconstitutional under the Canadian Constitution (in particular, the terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [wikipedia.org], adopted in 1982).

The Emergencies Act is more circumscribed in the powers which it grants. Declaration of a 'state of emergency' is subject to a review and vote by Parliament. Uses of the Act's powers are subject to judicial review, under reasonably strict constitutional tests.

Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act...

[Jerry Rivers (881171)]

Yes Canada did invoke the War Measures Act in 1970 to deal with a serious (and murderous) terrorist insurrection. Most Canadians outside of Quebec hardly noticed. It may have been akin to squashing a fly with a sledgehammer but it was nevertheless very effective and, dare I say, supported by the majority of Canadians (even those in Québec) who had little sympathy for what amounted to a relatively small band of self-serving pseudo-intellectual thugs who resorted to kidnapping and murder to try and strong-arm their way into power. The leader who invoked the Act is today seen as one of the greatest leaders the Country has ever known, even by those who still disagree with many of his economic and social policies. He was also the man who was the driving force behind the repatriation of the Constitution and its embedded Bill of Rights.

ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year.

[mikelieman (35628)]

If it's IMPORTANT it'll get renewed. If it's NOT IMPORTANT it'll just go away.

I don't see a downside. Anyone?

The laws were used

[flyingfsck (986395)]

Some blokes were in jail for a long time without ever hearing why. It is through their court action that it got struck down.

Re:

[Zeebs (577100)]

Negative, the cell that was arrested intended to attack Toronto.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[Phisbut (761268)]

In that case, are the terrorists stupid? I thought the US was the Great Satan, with Great Britain as our sniveling lackey and Israel as the evil demon sitting on our shoulder. Guess they didn't get the memo (or are REALLY bad with maps).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US import most of its oil from Canada. Hitting Canada would have a dramatic effect on the US.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[TubeSteak (669689)]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US import most of its oil from Canada. Hitting Canada would have a dramatic effect on the US.

The U.S. imports about 19% of its crude oil from Canada
The next runner up is Saudi Arabia with 15.4%

Honestly though, the oil market is so tight & unstable that serious disruptions in any large country's output would have a dramatic effect on the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Consider that Canada's total (not just crude) oil production is ~64% of Iran's.

Oil pipelines?

[Erioll (229536)]

How about the fact that Canada is the USA's #1 supplier of Oil? This information [gravmag.com] is at least two years out of date, but that's not very far out of date at all. If somebody has a more recent link, great, but it won't have changed a whole lot.

Lots of targets up here that WILL hurt you.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[Coryoth (254751)]

I mean, really - is anything in Canada a true target? My understanding that the "cells" in Canada were in place for attacks on targets in the US.

The plan was to bomb major buildings in downtown Toronto, so yes there were significant targets, and yes they were Canadian targets. As to cells being in place to attack US targets - well that implies or assumes some sort of overall governing strategy which simply doesn't seem to be the case. The Canadian terrorist plot that was foiled was, much like the London bombings, a case of home grown terrorists who were simply "inspired by", but had absolutely no links to, Al Qaeda. The claim that there is some worldwide terrorist network that is out to get the US seems to be more a phantom created by certain US politicians than anything. The reality seems to be unconnected groups who, inspired by the publicity given to "global terrorism", decide that terrorism seems to be a way to take out their personal (and often local an homegrown) frustrations. There is no terrorist mastermind behind it all. And that's one of the reasons why local law enforcement is already sufficiently empowered to deal with such groups without any special provisions for "terrorists". We need to stop treating "terrorists" as anything significant and start treating them like the common criminals they are.

Re:Free reign

[koreth (409849)]

Yeah, because without anti-terror laws, I'm sure it's perfectly legal to plot to behead a public official in Canada. How could they possibly have let that gaping hole in the criminal code reopen?!?

Re:Fundamental difference

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

The PATRIOT ACT (please use it in caps, as it is an acronym)

And don't forget to capitalize it for Canada's proposed law as well, the MOUNTIE (Marshalling Our Unified Nation against Terrorism Immediately, Eh?) Act.

Re:Fundamental difference

[bberens (965711)]

You're right, it doesn't make sense but not for the reason you're likely professing. Terrorism is not a threat. People need to see that in print more. Terrorism is not a threat. More people die from the use of non-prescription anti-inflammatory drugs such as Aspirin every year in the U.S. than have EVER died from terrorism on U.S. soil. Seriously, think about that for a minute: Aspirin kills more people than terrorism in this country. If the government has more powers to go after drug cartels than terrorists then the solution should be to trim the powers available to go after drug cartels, not grant more powers to after some other random type of criminal.

/Yes, I know that the drug cartels you were referring to have nothing to do with Aspirin. I merely used them as an example because Aspirin is generally considered 'harmless' by most people.

Re:Fundamental difference

[Eric Damron (553630)]

The PATRIOT Act (Please don't upper case "act") did amend various laws but in doing so it also altered those laws giving the government powers that it never had before.

Sectons 505 and 805 for example have already been struck down as unconstitutional. I expect more to follow.

Re:Fundamental difference

[Red Flayer (890720)]

The PATRIOT ACT (please use it in caps, as it is an acronym) simply applied certain powers the US Government already had to potential terrorists. It did not make sense for us to have more power against drug cartels than terrorist cells, which is the reason why PATRIOT ACT will not be completely voided anytime soon.

Umm, no. That's a line of propaganda you've taken hook, line, and sinker.

The PATRIOT Act (FYI, 'Act' should not be in all caps, since it is not part of the acronym) removes restricitons on apprehension of suspected terrorists that remain for drug & RICO suspects. The PATRIOT Act is a wish-list from law-enforcement agencies (including unconstitutional provisions) that was rushed through on the pretext of preventing terrorism -- it's all the the things they wished they could do, but couldn't (even under RICO) prior to 9/11.

Re:Thanks for visiting?

[Coryoth (254751)]

"a cold molson"?
A real Canadian would use the term "beers".

Come now, I think calling Molson "beer" is being a bit generous. Sure, it has less resemblance to water than the mainstream US brands (Budweiser, Millers, etc.), but calling it "beer" is just taking things a bit too far.