babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » PM urged to appoint national security czar

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: PM urged to appoint national security czar
crammo
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 132

posted 24 September 2001 09:54 AM      Profile for crammo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Read the Toronto Star article here.

"Prime Minister Jean Chretien should create a new cabinet position responsible for homeland security to address the rising threat of terrorist attack, analysts say."

Is anyone else concerned with this and the U.S.'s talk of "homeland" security? Kind of dredges up things, well, like the "fatherland", etc...

[ September 24, 2001: Message edited by: crammo ]


From: toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 01:18 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Britain has had a department of Home office that is similar in scope for years. It just allows agencies that never worked together and shared information to do so.

Department of Home office in England


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2001 03:27 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
England is not a great example, Markbo. Under British law, not only does an accused not have a right to remain silent, choosing to remain silent can be inferred as guilt.

I don't think we need that here.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 24 September 2001 03:37 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wingnut, how is one related to the other? We shouldn't have an office for homeland defense because in Britain they don't have the right to remain silent?! They're totally unrelated!

So if a country does something we don't like we can't consider adopting any of their other policies?!

[ September 24, 2001: Message edited by: Kneel before MediaBoy ]


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
StephenGM
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 305

posted 24 September 2001 04:42 PM      Profile for StephenGM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not entirely unrelated, Mediaboy. The question of how much weight civil liberties and human rights are given within a nation, versus national security and law enforcement, is very relevant.

For instance, some of the information-sharing Markbo refers to the British Home Office engaging in might, in fact, be unconstitutional in Canada on the grounds that it, for instance, would be detrimental to fundamental rights like the presumption of innocence and a fair trial.

Please note that I don't know what sort of information is shared; this isn't an argument against the idea itself, just an example of how the issues are related.

If Canada were to establish such a Cabinet-level position I would first want to know exactly what powers were invested in "a person or agency co-ordinating the activities of defence, law enforcement, national security and immigration." I would want to know how much public scrutiny such an office would be subjected to, and how much accountability would be demanded of it.


From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 24 September 2001 04:50 PM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo, somebody on another thread already pointed out that the British office of homeland security handles all kinds of infrastructure stuff which is already provided for by Canadian and US systems. It's not necessarily the same thing as what is being proposed here. But you've gotta keep beating your drum even when you've been disproven, I suppose. We wouldn't expect anything less.

I personally disagree with forming this position. We already have immigration policies etc in place and this sounds to me like changing the way these things are run and organized and putting them all under one umbrella. F**k that. I don't want to set our policy based on what the States decides is good and holy.

Plus it could just as easily become just a personal gestapo for Bush, or for any leader for that matter. Good-bye, freedom. Hello, police state.

[ September 24, 2001: Message edited by: machiavellian ]

[ September 24, 2001: Message edited by: machiavellian ]


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 24 September 2001 04:53 PM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is the quote, MArkbo, posted by skdadl under the topic of "the big speech".

quote:
Markbo, the UK Home Office is a huge, old, umbrella government department of hoariest tradition and respectability: it combines our Customs and Immigration with many other responsibilities that in Canada fall to other levels of government, like policing.
The U.S. already has standard federal departments and agencies for all those things. The "Office of Homeland Security" is a new rough beast, and a puzzle -- one would have thought, given the FBI, that it was a little redundant.

But then one remembers, for instance, the proliferation of such offices and committees in, eg, the 1950s ... HUAAC comes to mind (House Un-American Activities Committee), Senator McCarthy's hearings, etc. In times such as these, everyone's gotta have one, it seems.



From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
crammo
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 132

posted 24 September 2001 05:24 PM      Profile for crammo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it's interesting to note that the "analysts" quoted in the article all come from a "national defence" or military industrial complex perspective:

Alain Pellerin of the Conference of Defence Associations

Art Hanger - Canadian Alliance National Defence critic

Harold Klepak, a terrorism expert at the Royal Military College

John Thompson of Toronto's MacKenzie Institute

Retired general Lewis MacKenzie

Not necessarily the most balanced group of advocates...

[ September 24, 2001: Message edited by: crammo ]


From: toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 24 September 2001 05:32 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the position is more important for the US, but I really don't think Canada faces as big a threat as they. I think we should reform DND, though. I think there should be several divisions within the department. Some would be:

Peacekeeping/making
homeland defence
and natural disaster relief

That wouldn't tear out intelligence, or anything. The Air Force, Navy, Intelligence, etc. etc. would still be part of the military. All I suggest is that we have special "secotrs", if you will, like the ones I listed above. I haven't really given it much thought, so if you like, please build on the original idea.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 24 September 2001 05:41 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

England is not a great example, Markbo. Under British law, not only does an accused not have a right to remain silent, choosing to remain silent can be inferred as guilt.
I don't think we need that here.

Whoever said being silent equals to being guilty? Say anything, and it could be used against a person. If one has a lawyer present, he/she can advise him/her what to say and what not to say.

As for PM Chretien urged to do something, why not give extra $$$ to CSIS? If we do, and has been reported a few years ago by CSIS that there are terrorist cells working within Canada. And yet nobody listened to CSIS back then. Imagine what we could've been spared if someone listened.


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
crammo
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 132

posted 24 September 2001 05:50 PM      Profile for crammo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As for PM Chretien urged to do something, why not give extra $$$ to CSIS? If we do, and has been reported a few years ago by CSIS that there are terrorist cells working within Canada. And yet nobody listened to CSIS back then. Imagine what we could've been spared if someone listened.

Oh please. I'm pretty sure that the FBI and CIA have impressive budgets and all of this still happened.

The issue shouldn't be whether we need to beef up our defence budgets and create some sort of police state homeland security kneejerk reaction to all of this, but how can the feds better coordinate their activities to ensure safety for Canadians?

I don't think I would mind having good domestic security and intelligence services, but how much personal privacy would I be willing to give up? How can we work the balance between security and demonizing groups of people, especially immigrants (you know, the ones who keep building this country)? How likely is it that whatever we might create today, after what has recently happened, will actually be productive and humane?

I mean, the bottom line is that, whether there is a Canadian connection with all of this or not, these people got into the U.S. lived in the U.S. and weren't caught by the so-called best intelligence services on earth. I'm pretty sure beefing up security and demonizing a population will not necessarily decrease terror. It might actually increase it.


From: toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2001 05:55 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Whoever said being silent equals to being guilty? Say anything, and it could be used against a person. If one has a lawyer present, he/she can advise him/her what to say and what not to say.

One great thing about this forum, no need to know what you are talking about. The entire point of remaining silent is that your words are not used against you. People accused under British law have no such right, lawyer or not. Should they fear having their words twisted and refuse to talk, then a jury could be instructed that such refusal is an inference of guilt. In place of a jury, a judge could make the same inference.

Here and in the U.S., becuase (so far anyway) we have a constitution, an accused can remain silent and the silence cannot be used against him/her.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 05:56 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But you've gotta keep beating your drum even when you've been disproven, I suppose. We wouldn't expect anything

Markbo, the UK Home Office is a huge, old, umbrella government department of hoariest tradition and respectability: it combines our Customs and Immigration with many other responsibilities that in Canada fall to other levels of government, like policing.
The U.S. already has standard federal departments and agencies for all those things


What are you people talking about. I gave the website and it explains it's functions very well. THe U.S. standard federal departments for "all those things" are separate and do not share information. Now they will. Big deal.

You are looking for secret agendas in complete transparent announcement.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2001 06:17 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is never anything transparent in the workings of government and intelligence. I am sure someone said the exactly similar when they announced the House Un-American Activities Committee.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 24 September 2001 10:01 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
People accused under British law have no such right, lawyer or not. Should they fear having their words twisted and refuse to talk, then a jury could be instructed that such refusal is an inference of guilt. In place of a jury, a judge could make the same inference.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is a fairly new provision in British law. Formerly people did have the right to remain silent -- not that it was codified, because of course there's no Charter of Rights in Britain. But it was either part of the common law, or else a tradition in criminal law, that silence couldn't be used as evidence.

I believe this change was made under Thatcher, ostensibly to deal with IRA men who'd be silent when arrested, then later produce elaborate alibis that had supposedly been cooked up for them while they were in detention. Something else Her Ladyship has to answer for.

Any legal eagles out there care to comment? :VerbaTim:, maybe?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
crammo
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 132

posted 24 September 2001 11:27 PM      Profile for crammo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You are looking for secret agendas in complete transparent announcement.

Markbo, the thing is that you need only look at the rhetoric to wonder if there are any "secret agendas."

Perhaps more telling is the current literature around "homeland security" floating around the U.S. Visit the links below, compare them to the sunny simplicity of the UK Home Office link, they're not as encouraging as you might like them to be:

The ANSER Institute for Homeland Security

Center for Strategic and International Studies - Homeland Defense

The UK Home Office "tag line" is "Building a safe, just and tolerant society." The ANSER Institute remarks: "Often, this term has been used interchangeably with national missile defense, counter-terrorism, domestic security, 'consequence management' or the after-effects of the use of a weapon of mass destruction, military support to civil authorities, and information warfare. Such mixing of terms has political/legal repercussions because to some, the discussion connotes 'the military' being intimately involved in the country's domestic affairs."

I believe all we're saying is that it's worth thinking about a bit more, no?


From: toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca