Slashdot Mirror


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."

95 of 507 comments (clear)

  1. Think of the children (of the terrorists) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:Think of the children (of the terrorists) by rjshields · · Score: 2, Funny

      What kind of fucking crack are you smoking? The date system here is the exact same. The only people who choose DD/MM/YYYY are the French.
      That's what I love about /., the bounty of well-thought out, balanced, calm, rational argument.
      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    2. Re:Think of the children (of the terrorists) by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, I speak french and don't even know it then?

      Let me try a sentence then "Lik mijn reet!"

      Nope, still dutch

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    3. Re:Think of the children (of the terrorists) by Skrynesaver · · Score: 2, Informative

      What kind of fucking crack are you smoking? The date system here is the exact same. The only people who choose DD/MM/YYYY are the French.

      We need an "-1 Uninformed insular idiot" mod. All European countries use the more rational DD/MM/[YY]YY format though the ISO YYYY-MM-DD is obviously the best, alphabetic sorting is equivalent to chronological and all that.

      The frankly bizarre [M]M/[D}D/[YY]YY format is a PITA to deal with.

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
  2. Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by jusDfaqs · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion.
    Yea, like this one, US!
    --
    There are only two steps in the gathering of ultimate knowledge. Open your eyes and, RTFM!
    1. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't get too excited, even after the supreme court struck down certain portions of the TERROR! bill, the conservative prime minister Stephen Harper said they would ignore the ruling..
       
       
      OTTAWA - Only days after the Supreme Court struck down parts of the security-certificate regime as unconstitutional, Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed to "sustain" the system used to detain non-citizens believed to pose a national-security threat.

      The Supreme Court ruled Friday that withholding evidence from individuals detained on security certificates violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
       
       

      What the fuck is the problem with these red-neck politicians from oil rich states & provinces?

    2. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by kinglink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The anti-terror laws have never been used"

      I love when someone claims that a policy doesn't work. 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."

      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.

    3. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by IceDiver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!


    4. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by Onan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by DiscoLizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the US suffered huge amounts of terrorist attacks before the PATRIOT act and the Homeland Security bureaucracy came into being.

      I've never been attacked by lions, I guess it's because I have this lucky anti-lion rock in my backyard.

    6. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by Proofof.+Chaos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love when someone claims that a policy doesn't work. 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." RTFSynopsis: "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." The government didn't renew the laws because they decided that they weren't needed. If you're cleaning your house and find something you bought five years ago and have never used, what do you do with it.
    7. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    8. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by kinglink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by Jehosephat2k · · Score: 2, Interesting
    10. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by iocat · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah, except the worst element of the PATRIOT Act is they can get librarians to say what books you checked out, without a warrant. The Canadian law allowed compelling witnesses to testify (banned under our fifth amendment) and indefinite detention (banned under some other amendments). The Canadian law was SIGNIFICANTLY more authortarian than the PATRIOT Act.

      Although I guess how much people freaked out about the PATRIOT Act, shows just how jealously Americans really do regard their freedom. (Although I suspect most of the people who rail against the PATRIOT act have never read it, and wouldn't have protested nearly as vigorously against it if a Democrat was in the White House.)

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    11. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by ragefan · · Score: 2, Informative
      Here is a list of Terrorist attacks within the United States or against Americans abroad.

      I count only 4 attacks on U.S. soil before Sept. 11, 2001 since 1920, 2 (possibly 3) of which were by Americans citizens. The attacks outside of our country are much harder to prevent without going outside our jurisdiction.

      There were no attacks from 1995 (OK. City until 2001) and the indication is that the potential for the attack on 9/11 was known but ignored. Since that time the first world trade center bombing in 1993 all we get is reactive measures, and very little proactive measures to security. Only now when some detail comes out about a potential threat, everyone freaks out, and there is a larger knee-jerk reaction, and then everything goes back to the way it was 6 months ago. For example, after the attempt with shoe bomb, we had months of taking shoes off before boarding planes, then there was the "explosives" in water bottles, no carry-on containers.

      I think the problem is administration wants to be seen to do something, so does the things that affects us the most directly and therefore most visible, rather than the things that prevent then from happening.

    12. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by DerangedAlchemist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "policies that dont work get revoked"

      They don't work? Was there a terrorist act in Canada that the laws failed to prevent?
      No. We prevented the terrorist act without using laws that destroy freedom.
    13. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  3. "He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?" by Baby+Duck · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

  4. Once again showing by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Once again showing by LunaticTippy · · Score: 5, Funny

      So what? Every country is somebody's Mexico.

      Except Santa's Workshop. North Pole, bitches!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    2. Re:Once again showing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I totally disagree. The leader of the Liberal Party, Stephane Dion, has integrity and fights for what he believes in. Also, the terrorist act goes against our cultural grain - we have a very strong belief in human rights, and the current (minority) government does not represent what the majority feel about this situation.

      "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Eliot Trudeau, 1969.

    3. Re:Once again showing by JM78 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That Canadians are more American than most Americans (I'm American which makes me ignorant by association and therefor an expert on the subject).

      --
      I am Jack's smirking revenge.
    4. Re:Once again showing by Brickwall · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    5. Re:Once again showing by ArtDent · · Score: 2, Informative

      4 years? Try 19 months. July 2004 to February 2006.

      Not incidentally, that's just 6 months longer than the current Conservative government has been in power. How much progress do you think they will make by September?

      In his 19 months, Dion created a plan. The Conservatives cancelled it. What did you expect would happen?

  5. Fundamental difference by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 2, Informative

    This Canadian legislation gave new powers to the government that did not prior exist.

    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.

    1. Re:Fundamental difference by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Fundamental difference by bberens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    3. Re:Fundamental difference by Eric+Damron · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    4. Re:Fundamental difference by Yez70 · · Score: 2, Informative
    5. Re:Fundamental difference by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:Fundamental difference by Sciros · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heh, well don't go ahead making up differences between you and me. I think the U.S.'s entire approach to combating terrorism is pathetic and ridiculous. Capturing data on citizens, as you put it, is a tremendous waste of energy and needless invasion of privacy. We know where terrorists are funded from, we know where they go for training. And instead of acting on that knowledge, our government agencies spy on us. WTF. When all we're left to deal with is secrets, then I can maybe understand doing some more snooping around. But we are a LONG way from resorting to anything of the sort.

      The War on Drugs is also dumb as heck, I totally agree. I think your point is really about how wasteful our government is, yeah?

      As for the Aspirin comment ... well, Aspirin may be "more deadly" than terrorism but that's a bit of a skewed way to look at things. Hippos might be "more deadly" than terrorism for all I know, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING because surely no-one is going to send U.S. troops into the Nile river to bring about democracy to hippos and/or kill them good. You know, whatever awesome strategy our government would come up with :-) The point is, it's in my personal power to prevent death by hippo/Aspirin, but it can't do anything about terrorism. That's where the government (and our troops) comes in. I just wish they'd be more competent and focus on some better solutions.

      I once made a comment.. maybe on Slashdot but I forget: if terrorists really want to piss us off, all they have to do is "leak" a "plot" to blow up an airplane using explosive undergarments. Instantly we'd all have to fly "commando" for the next couple of months. Yay for security personnel being too rubbish to do their job and instead trying to cover their asses.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
  6. Oh Canada! by deadhammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
    1. Re:Oh Canada! by mdielmann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    2. Re:Oh Canada! by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Oh Canada! by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      We are all just people.
    4. Re:Oh Canada! by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, this was an expression of the fact that increasing centralized control erodes freedoms of the individual but empowers the state, and there are emergencies that can arise where that is in everyones enlightened self interest.

      It had an inherent recognition built in that the emergency is a transient state and the measures are not intended to extend beyond that. The reaction wasn't "knee-jerk" at all, it was very wisely implemented.

      The attempt by the Conservatives to exploit this emergency measure in a grab for more power over the citizenry wasn't knee-jerk either.

      I think the idea of all laws being required to be re-ratified on a regular basis has a great deal of appeal, personally.

      They all ought to come with a specification of what societal problems they were originally intended to compensate for.

      Really, the very existence of a law represents a problem in society. In an ideal system, there would be no motivation to behave in an anti-social fashion in the first place, because it would be so well designed that there wouldn't be a person in it who felt they'd be better off going it alone than participating.

      Not to suggest that we're ever going to live in an ideal world, build an ideal system or get rid of laws, but it's a useful yardstick nevertheless.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  7. Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! by Zeebs · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --

    Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
  8. And Now an election by mandelbr0t · · Score: 3, Funny

    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 :)

    --
    "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
  9. Makes me proud to be Canadian. by jmagar.com · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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: 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.

    1. Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian. by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian. by natophonic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian. by why-is-it · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Once your knee has finished jerking around, perhaps you should read a bit about what really happened.

      There are plenty of laws on the books to combat crime. I don't believe for a moment that the police need to detain people for any significant length of time without charging them. If someone has committed (or is planning to commit) a crime, let the state press the appropriate charges and make the case for a conviction in a court of law.

      Honestly, if the war on terror needs gulags and kangaroo courts, we deserve to lose because our values of peace, order and good government are less than worthless platitudes.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  10. Hold the phone... by micromuncher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    /\/\icro/\/\uncher
    1. Re:Hold the phone... by fishboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  11. Well, only active because of the Mounties by wwwrench · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --

    Deconstruct the State
  12. Not all the anti-terrorist laws by Bullfish · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 ) which replaced the war measures act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Measures_Act ).

  13. Re:Free reign by koreth · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?!?

  14. Article ignores politican context by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Article ignores politican context by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    2. Re:Article ignores politican context by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Funny

      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 looks exactly as it did under Clinton, except the economy is better. I think it is only fair that I stand with my fellow Americans and suffer as they have, but before I do that, I need to know what it is I'm missing.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Article ignores politican context by Malakusen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
      --
      Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
    4. Re:Article ignores politican context by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 /.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    5. Re:Article ignores politican context by Froster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also significant in the political context is that the Liberal Party is deeply divided by this issue. I am sad to say that it is also largely along linguistic and ethnic lines. Senior Liberals in English Canada such as former ministers like John Manley and Anne McLellan, as well as current members such as Bob Rae argue that this legislation was necessary, while a large number of French civil libertarian MPs as well as minority MPs representing ethnic communities argued against it. To resolve this imbalance, Dion used the sledgehammer of Liberal party discipline and invoked a 'three line whip' which basically means that Liberals voting with the gov't on this bill would be subject to harsh party discipline up to expulsion from caucus, expulsion from the party, or refusal of the leader (Dion) to sign nomination papers. This virtually means that any Liberal MP voting against this would basically be ending their career as a Liberal MP. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives played politics on this, and I dislike it about both of them, but for the Liberals to force their members to vote in this way is undemocratic in my opinion. They make a big stink about protecting civil liberties by striking down a law that passed constitutional review by the Supreme Court, and act in an undemocratic way to do this, violating other civil liberty principles.

    6. Re:Article ignores politican context by kabocox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 looks exactly as it did under Clinton, except the economy is better. I think it is only fair that I stand with my fellow Americans and suffer as they have, but before I do that, I need to know what it is I'm missing.


      You missed the memo. We are living in a near Nazish, police state that started a religious crusade only because a Republican is a president and that Democrats didn't control congress at the time. If Gore were President, the same or similiar laws would have been passed. He'd would have been declared a Nazish forcing us into a police state by all the republicans, but you wouldn't hear that on slashdot though because of our liberal bias. We'd declare a Democrat's anti-terror measures to be protective for the general citizenry similiar on how network admins need to implement policies to restrict users access to most resources for their own good.

      If Gore didn't "do something" after 9/11, then he'd have been impeached since both the Democrats and Republicans would have been forced to nail him for their own political good. Of course, Gore would have "done something" to really hit the entire middle east by spending $100+ billion on sustainable non-foreign based power plants instead of the war on terror. I could easily have seen a campign "Let's not spend a penny on foreign oil!" under Gore that would have had more drastic short and long term changes for the US and the globe as the US virtually stopped buying any middle east oil. The public anger would have taken much longer to work out of our system, but we'd all be feeling like we were indirectly hurting them rather than directly hurting them.

    7. Re:Article ignores politican context by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your attitude is the root of fascism. -- If people are not competent to take care of themselves, the state must do it.

      At least you are consistent in your beliefs, just don't start pretending you put any value on personal freedom.

  15. Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act... by AJWM · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    That's how Canada dealt with (domestic) terrorists the last time.

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act... by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
    2. Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act... by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... 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 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, 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.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  16. Oil pipelines? by Erioll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about the fact that Canada is the USA's #1 supplier of Oil? This information 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.

  17. Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! by Phisbut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
    - The Tao of Programming
  18. Best News all Day... Well, Sorta... by Plekto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course, it's *not* happening in the U.S. - so... same old crud here as usual. Sigh.

    Sometimes I really wonder how long this country has at the rate we are going. Just take a look at Democracy Now or any alternative site - or better yet, just go to news.yahoo.ca/ for a slightly less baised mainstream news look at the U.S.(far less filtering than the stuf we get from Reuters/CNN/Fox/etc main newsfeeds). The sad thing is that it's the working class what will take the brunt of any retaliation for what we are doing - be it military, terrorist, economic, or otherwise.

  19. Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  20. Coyne brings up an interesting point by twilight30 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Generally, I don't agree with Coyne, but, he is pretty sensible for a Conservative, and I respect his opinions. Today's Post column 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.

    --
    ========================================
    Death will come, and will have your eyes
    -- Pavese
    1. Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point by hooded_fang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah the Liberals proposed and passed the legislation but it was never meant to last forever. Most people agreed that it was needed at the time but due to the haste in which it was made law it was obvious that it would need to be changed. I really dont dig the fear politics that Harper likes to use. What scares me is the possibility of losing my freedoms and rights so that a perceived security can be achieved. What security is that where most of the laws can actually be used detrimentally to the people they are trying to protect. Yes anti-terror measures need to be in effect but we have the time now to look at the original provisions and make the necessary changes. I dont think that noone has abused them in the past is a good reason for keeping them as is. Harper's been busy changing the system to politicize it (ie: police having influence on judges/how is that fair if the police have been abusing the citizens) and even though things may not have been abused in the past, this doesnt mean that they won't in the future. I live in a city that was recently branded as having the worst police in North America (yay another badge of pride for Vancouver) and it chills me to think that people like that should influence my rights. What happens if a power hungry cop takes out someone cause he can't control himself. It happened to a guy who happened to be walking by a police action during a riot in Vancouver a few years back. A police officer who was a bit too amped decided to broadside a guy in the mouth for being nowhere near the action. The guy lost his teeth and the cop got suspended without pay. If you give the cops an influence of the way the courts run then the cop stands the chance of having no punishment. I for one would rather relook our rules than slip further into a police state. If we just say "it's to punish terrorists" when will those rules be changed to come after other unworthies? After all its easier to be a conservative in a liberal society than a liberal in a conservative society.

    2. Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point by fishboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Liberal Party of the day enacted the legislation largely to appease the Bush administration during a time when no one was really sure of the extent of global terrorism. They also sought provisions that would ease the minds of the Canadian public. Wisely, the inserted a sunset clause that called for renewal every five years.

      Considering that the provisions have never been used, you can hardly fault the same Liberal party, five years, three prime ministers and two leaders later, for allowing the legislation to expire in a world where global terror events have actually fallen since 9/11. Also, bear in mind that the ruling Conservatives voted for the legislation, along with the other opposition parties at the time, passing it 190-47, hardly what I would call a 'divisive' piece of legislation.

    3. Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point by xnderxnder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      So what? It was also the Liberals who defined this legislation with a sunset clause - specifically because it was not envisioned to be needed forever.

      The correct "anti-Tory" tack to take here is that the Conservatives are so gung-ho for law and order that they're insane enough to strip Canadians of civil rights over trumped up fears.

      --
      hooked up funny
    4. Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point by donweel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also don't forget it was the liberals who invoked the "War Measures Act" which invoked military law to deal with the FLQ a French Canadian Separatist group accused of kidnaping a british diplomat in the 70's. http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-162-429-11/on_this _day/conflict_war/

      --
      Many a long talk since then I have had with the man in the moon; he had my confidence on the voyage. Joshua Slocum
  21. Re:Thanks for visiting? by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.
  22. ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year. by mikelieman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  23. The laws were used by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:The laws were used by fishboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some blokes were in jail for a long time without ever hearing why. It is through their court action that it got struck down.
      That is a seperate issue, the five individuals of which you speak were being held on security certificates, which has nothing to do with the Anti-terrorism Act and its sunset clause. 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.
  24. Well... by powerpants · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's aboot time!

  25. Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  26. Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! by jdevivre · · Score: 2, Informative

    Negative, the cell that was arrested intended to attack Toronto.
    For our globally-challenged American readers: Toronto does not have (many?) sugar maple sugarbushes. Picture L.A. with a small fraction of the following: "marine layer", vanity, and racial tension (just the lingering reflection of the racist crap promoted by American entertainment and media). Lived in both. Same traffic. Less guns.

    In your face, PM Harper. Face it, you don't even look American...
  27. funny by cybrthng · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They have been like that for decades, yet we have had president after president support them. Why change now? I guess when you create turmoil it creates inflated prices from products that come from the region and thus we artificially pay more for oil than what we should because of the risk involved.

    Really, terrorists only mean something when you choose to give them that much credit. Your giving them power by recognizing them as something they're not.

    Christians, Catholics and many other "mainstream" religions have all fought holy wars that killed millions of people. This is simply a situation we are doomed to repeat because it works well for a select few. Its all about power, politics and money and absolutely nothing to do with "terror" or "fear" unless your gullable enough to actually BELIEVE THAT

  28. Looks to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...like all the Canadian Slashdot readers got the mod points today. Anything even slighly mocking Canada is getting modded "Flamebait, Troll, Redundant, Offtopic" Yet anything attesting to the superiority of Canada is getting modded up.

    Seriously folks, the moderation system doesn't contain +1 Agree and -1 Disagree for a reason. Try not to use it as such.

    Heck, you might as well mod this as flamebait, too. I don't care. It's your mod point to waste.

    1. Re:Looks to me... by multisync · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously folks, the moderation system doesn't contain +1 Agree and -1 Disagree for a reason. Try not to use it as such.


      Yeah, cause there's nothing inflammatory or trollish in this post, or this one.

      (Actually, the second one is kinda funny but that's not the point).

      Seriously, quit whining Mr. Coward. There are good mods and bad mods, just like there are good posts and bad posts. Put away your conspiracy theories, dazzle us with your insightful commentary and let the meta-mods do their job.
      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
  29. "Soft on Terror" by SandwhichMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...that the Liberal Party was soft on terror"

    How is it that everyone not willing to give up Civil Liberties is considered "Soft on Terror"? People are cowards if they don't vote for every anti-terrorist bill? If you ask me, the people who will so readily give up their freedoms, and even send a nation's youth to war, are the real cowards.

  30. Mod parent UP! by IgLou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Oops, how did this get here?
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  31. Re:Unbiased news posts by jorgevillalobos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It sure is nice to come to Slashdot and get unbiased news coverage, eh?

    Well, blame the poster, not the editors. I don't think they changed the original post one bit, although I would like to replace("fo", "of"). Spell checkers people, if your browser doesn't have them, well, it sucks.

  32. Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    We've been one of the most active forces in Afghanistan, and were there from the start. And if you believe that terrorists hate freedom/the West/women without veils, then we're obviously as much of a target as the US.

    Oh, and we're a member of the G7, a major resource exporter, and the only country that Osama explicitly threatened that hasn't seen related terrorist bombings.

    In other words, you're overwhelmingly ignorant on the real world.
  33. You have one thing incorrect by Loundry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You either convert -- or die.

    The Koran tells Muslims to give the kufr three choices: submit to Islam, pay the jizya as a dhimmi, or fight. So you don't have to "convert or die." You can, alternatively, live as a oppressed citizen under Islamic law.

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
  34. It matters not by Loundry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Beer contains alcohol and is thus haraam. Hence, your pro-Canadian comments are Islamophobic (pbuh).

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
  35. Re:Thanks for visiting? by Joelfabulous · · Score: 2, Informative

    Also, the formerly Canadian beer companies are now mostly owned by their (mostly) American counterparts...

    So "Molson Canadian" is an oxymoron now, I guess. I hate the marketing too...

    --
    Sometimes I wonder if I think too much.
  36. No, you're wrong. by baboo_jackal · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Where, indeed, to begin, with your statement?
     

    we've all lost the right of habeas corpus along with many others

    1) We "all" haven't lost the "right" of Habeas Corpus. The Nov 13th 2001 Presidential Order made it legal to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. So unless you're a non-citizen suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism, you haven't lost anything.

    2) Habeas Corpus isn't a fundamental right - it's a procedural privilege. (before you respond to this point, make sure you understand what a fundamental right is, and is not, and please read a little about procedural (derived) rights, too.

    3) You (or anyone else, for that matter) hasn't even names "many other" rights that we've lost. So what are they?

  37. Mistake in Summary by FriendOfBagu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The rejected laws included provisions to hold terror suspects indefinitely

    Actually, the law that was voted on only included provisions to hold terror suspects for 72 hours, not indefinitely.

    The law about holding suspects indefinitely which the article mentions (and the article is clear that it's a different law) was struck down by the Supreme Court last week.

    The law that could hold a suspect indefinitely required a "security certificate" to be issued by the government, and it only applied to foreign suspects.

  38. They don't have to! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:They don't have to! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  39. Re:Unbiased news posts by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A UCLA/Stanford media study found Fox News to be the most centrist, so yeah, you would read Fox News. Citation or reference, please.
    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  40. Re:Thanks for visiting? by gobbo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Labatt's is owned by Interbrew, a Belgian transnational.

    The only Canadian beer these days is the regional mid-sized breweries (being scooped up like candy by the transnats) and the microbrews that are springing up everywhere.

  41. Re:Unbiased news posts by abigor · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are probably thinking of this: http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

    If so, you are wrong.

    Key quote:

    "Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

    The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third."

  42. Re:Allah Ackbar! by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 2, Informative

    "...i am glad to see the nutty left are still well represented on slant.!"

    The "nutty left?" You call them that because they have a federally mandated universal health care system? Nevermind that the current minority federal government is Conservative, or that only two of the ten provinces have a socialist government, while four out of ten are Conservative and four are Liberal. I know that for some people anyone left of far right is consider a nutty far-leftist, but really Canada is a moderate country, not a socialist one.

    --
    The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  43. Post-disaster legislation by AlHunt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

    --
    1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
  44. Re:Unbiased news posts by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Informative

    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."

    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.