Uniformed Soldier Shot at War Memorial in Ottawa-R.I.P. Cpl. Cirillo

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Titan

Why would they not be loaded, or at least have a clip handy?

It would seem to me that a guard, ceremonial or not, should be able to guard, particularly at Parliament Hill, which I would consider a likely target?

Just seems odd to me.

The rifles are not loaded because there is no requirement for them to be loaded.

Parliament Hill, the National War Memorial and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier are not military installations; they belong to the NCR. Thus, the hard security for them falls upon the civilian police, whether that be the RCMP or Ottawa police.

For soldiers to carry live ammunition on Canadian soil outside of a CFB requires higher (ie, Ministerial) authority in support of a domestic emergency.

You will see the same thing in Calgary on Remembrance Day at various ceremonies. Sentries will be at Cenotaphs with unloaded rifles.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

The rifles are not loaded because there is no requirement for them to be loaded.

Parliament Hill, the National War Memorial and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier are not military installations; they belong to the NCR. Thus, the hard security for them falls upon the civilian police, whether that be the RCMP or Ottawa police.

For soldiers to carry live ammunition on Canadian soil outside of a CFB requires higher (ie, Ministerial) authority in support of a domestic emergency.

You will see the same thing in Calgary on Remembrance Day at various ceremonies. Sentries will be at Cenotaphs with unloaded rifles.

I don't think it soley is a domestic emergency or Ministerial authority.

We routinely carried loaded 9mm while transporting ammunition around the province.


Bang on on the rest.

[Madman]

Statement from Kevin Vickers.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think US military members would be carrying loaded rifles either in similar circumstances.

I don't really think that they would want them participating in something that civillian agencies are suppossed to do. Ie protecting parliment and exhanging fire with terrorists.

In the US its not really legal as long as Posse Comitatus which doesn't allow the US to use the Military to enforce laws, with the exception of the national guard and the coast guard.

That's why you don't see the military involved in domestic terror investigations.

Canada doesn't really have Posse Comotatus, however if the government wants the military to participate in civilian law enforcement that has to be amended by the government.

However like the U.S. the military can provide its own armed security at its own facilities and at government facilities at the request of the Federal Government. Canada can also use the Military to protect persons on the request of the government.

But the Military isn't going to put an armed guard at a war memorial or any other public sector unless something like the War Measures Act is enacted.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I don't think it soley is a domestic emergency or Ministerial authority.

We routinely carried loaded 9mm while transporting ammunition around the province.


Bang on on the rest.

I would bet that you have standing authority from either the ministry or the RCMP in those cases to be armed due to the nature of what you are transporting.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

CBC today getting a lot of praise from South of Border. They have forgotten what real news looks like.

some links

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...e?src=soc_twtr

http://m.motherjones.com/mixed-media...ampaign=buffer

http://mic.com/articles/102116/canad...ver-a-shooting

Gotta chime in here and say that people impressed by CBC's coverage and Mansbridge should be aware that everything else that ISN'T that is not news.

It's no surprise that people enjoyed it and thought it was fresh, real journalism is all but dead in north america.

CNN is Entertainment Tonight when compared with actual journalism, and the same goes for CTV, Global, etc etc.

Entertainment magazines masquerading as news outlets.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Gotta chime in here and say that people impressed by CBC's coverage and Mansbridge should be aware that everything else that ISN'T that is not news.

It's no surprise that people enjoyed it and thought it was fresh, real journalism is all but dead in north america.

CNN is Entertainment Tonight when compared with actual journalism, and the same goes for CTV, Global, etc etc.

Entertainment magazines masquerading as news outlets.

As do comedy shows.

People believe that Jon Stewart is a "news" program......

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

As do comedy shows.

People believe that Jon Stewart is a "news" program......

I say this with complete sincerity:

John Stewart's Daily Show, the Colbert Report and now John Oliver's Last Week Tonight are all far and way superior news programs than the vast, vast, vast majority of cable and major network news shows.

They provide more information about relevant newsworthy topics than any of the aforementioned and they do it in significantly less time. It may be hard to believe, but interviews account for more airtime on CNN/MSNBC etc than they do on those shows. Half of CNNs airtime is devoted to interview segments, the flimsiest of flimsy journalism.

The closest any 'news channel' gets to reporting actual news is during election coverage, which is why when you see what CBC offers, it's such a stark contrast to the usual garbage.

When you see someone take the bare essentials of journalism and illustrate them on TV, I.E. waiting for confirmation from independent sources for information like in the unfortunate death of the victim here, it's like it's something to be lauded instead of saying "why doesn't every other person and station that calls themselves a journalist do that?"

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I don't think it soley is a domestic emergency or Ministerial authority.

We routinely carried loaded 9mm while transporting ammunition around the province.


Bang on on the rest.

There will always be exceptions, such as military police and those soldiers who are guarding ammo/weapons that are in transit. To be honest, though, the rules of engagement for the latter scenario are so muddled, no one bothers anymore. We inform the military police and they conduct a threat assessment and we go from there.

Steps (that I can't divulge but should be easily enough determined) are taken to ensure that weapons/ammo are transported IAW all civilian and military regulations.

[Language]

This is slightly off topic and I hope it doesn't derail the thread.

With the events of the past week and these two radicalized (appears as such) individuals who carried out these heinous attacks in Ottawa and Quebec, it came to light that their passports were revoked as they tried to travel abroad purportedly to join extremist elements.

Clearly, revoking their passport and limiting their ability to travel simply led to them harming Canadian soldiers on Canadian soil. It's also come to light that there are ~90 or so individuals in Canada under the same conditions. It was touched on earlier in this thread that the authorities may not have the authority to round these guys up and throw them in jail (rightfully so, in my honest opinion...that would open up a whole new can of worms relating to rights). However, it's also not feasible to do surveillance on them 24/7 going forward.

Which leads me to my main point - if these guys are so hell bent on going abroad, why not let them? Send them on their merry way and immediately revoke their Canadian citizenship, so they can never return to Canadian soil. I know this opens up other issues such as whether Canada is willfully allowing potential extremists access to other countries, however, there must be some way that international authorities from different countries can work together on this issue.

Mods - I don't mean to turn this into a foreign policy discussion on this issue (nor to take away from this thread on the tragedy that has occurred here), so feel free to move this to a new thread if you feel it belongs in one.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I say this with complete sincerity:

John Stewart's Daily Show, the Colbert Report and now John Oliver's Last Week Tonight are all far and way superior news programs than the vast, vast, vast majority of cable and major network news shows.

They provide more information about relevant newsworthy topics than any of the aforementioned and they do it in significantly less time. It may be hard to believe, but interviews account for more airtime on CNN/MSNBC etc than they do on those shows. Half of CNNs airtime is devoted to interview segments, the flimsiest of flimsy journalism.

The closest any 'news channel' gets to reporting actual news is during election coverage, which is why when you see what CBC offers, it's such a stark contrast to the usual garbage.

When you see someone take the bare essentials of journalism and illustrate them on TV, I.E. waiting for confirmation from independent sources for information like in the unfortunate death of the victim here, it's like it's something to be lauded instead of saying "why doesn't every other person and station that calls themselves a journalist do that?"

I won't derail this thread, but those shows are not "news" shows. They are shows that cherry pick stories and events to provide maximum value entertainment purposes.

They do not provide "news" they provide a commentary on "news".

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Language

Which leads me to my main point - if these guys are so hell bent on going abroad, why not let them? Send them on their merry way and immediately revoke their Canadian citizenship, so they can never return to Canadian soil. I know this opens up other issues such as whether Canada is willfully allowing potential extremists access to other countries, however, there must be some way that international authorities from different countries can work together on this issue.

Can you revoke canadian citizenship from a canadian born in Canada?

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I say this with complete sincerity:

John Stewart's Daily Show, the Colbert Report and now John Oliver's Last Week Tonight are all far and way superior news programs than the vast, vast, vast majority of cable and major network news shows.

if you ever miss "the enws" during the week, you can always catch up on it on saturday night with weekend update

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ok, I know what your trying to do here.

However lets look at this. The first killer was a pretty active supporter of ISIS, it was all over his face book page, it was all over his twitter account.

He had his passport revoked because his intention was to travel over to join them.

With the killer yesterday, while information is still being dug up. He had his passport seized as his intention was to go over seas and join the fight.

Your forcing your theory based around an obsolete concept. ISIS isn't setting up chapters here or Australia or the UK or anywhere, they're building supporters, they're not sending them cheques, or giving them missions. They're recruiting them to a radical form of Islam, stirring them up and then giving them suggestions through their media (Run people over with your car, kill Soldiers, etc)

There is no International Brotherhood of ISIS members, there are nut cases who are inspired by ISIS and its message of violent Jihad and hatred and intolerance and that binds into their twisted world view and they act on it.

There's no membership cards, or secret handshake, or secret meetings in a bomb assembly warehouse. Its Joe Convert grabbing his car keys or a rifle or whatever and executing on a website message.

But just because they're individuals it doesn't make them any less dangerous and it doesn't remove them from the definition of a terrorist.

I assume that most if not all this information flows via websites, blogs and other internet communications tools.

Why not build up our cyberwarfare capabilities and simply spam the living crap out of these sites...if it makes getting the information more difficult and expensive it might keep vulnerable people from being recruited.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Can you revoke canadian citizenship from a canadian born in Canada?

You can't leave someone stateless. I am positive that I read that when researching citizenship requirements when my father had some issues with his citizenship.

[Nehkara]

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

You can't leave someone stateless. I am positive that I read that when researching citizenship requirements when my father had some issues with his citizenship.

They have to have somewhere to go.

You can't revoke someone's citizenship if they're born here, the only way that can happen is if the person willingly renounces it.

Heck I think its even fairly tough to arrest someone who is returning who has fought with ISIS. You can probably detain them for a short period of time but I don't know what they would arrest them under. That could change now that Canada has joined the fight, maybe there's something under treason.

I like the idea of tagging them before they leave. And have that tag frequency linked to the CF-18's over there so that we can reach out and give them the Canadian personal care that they deserve.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I assume that most if not all this information flows via websites, blogs and other internet communications tools.

Why not build up our cyberwarfare capabilities and simply spam the living crap out of these sites...if it makes getting the information more difficult and expensive it might keep vulnerable people from being recruited.

There is a individual that's out there talking to these people and recruiting them. I'm sure he's not giving them specific operational orders, but I'm sure that he's telling some to get over seas, and for some to hide in the belly of the beast.

But he's not giving them specific operations probably beyond, when the time is right get a gun or get in your car and kill someone.

Its those recruiters that we really need to find, take into the bush and push a bullet into their brains.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Can you revoke canadian citizenship from a canadian born in Canada?

Rex Murphy did a piece on this about a month ago. In it he says there is a need for a discussion on whether there are certain acts so heinous against Canadian values that a person can lose their citizenship.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...an-terrorists/

From the article:



...

Priests are defrocked; medals from honour societies have been imperiously stripped from their holders; soldiers are court-marshalled and drummed out in disgrace; lawyers disbarred, judges swept from the bench, Senators tossed from caucuses, and even Presidents impeached.

The soldier who flees in combat and exposes his fellows to danger is seen as not worthy of being a solider. The judge who has oiled his palm with a bribe is seen as not worthy of being a judge. Treason and excommunication are long-standing responses to ultimate disfealties — and they are surely a kind of cancellation of status, one by the death penalty, the other by exclusion from the community of believers and the possibilities of salvation.

To my mind, these are all of an inferior enormity to the case of a citizen who abandons the country in which he was born, or to which he gave the oath of citizenship, who then pledges his fealty to a murderous band professing a murderous creed.

...
The denial of passports is a stage toward the denial of citizenship. But the denial or witholding of passports is not a sufficient signal of the detestation a country and its people hold for those who so contemptuously forsake the gifts of loyalty and respect that a country rightfully commands from real citizens.

[_Q_]

So here's a question.

Let's say someone like Bibeau, a born and raised Canadian is stripped of his citizenship, where does he go? What happens to him? Does he suddenly become a permanent resident? In that case what was accomplished with stripping his citizenship.

And a follow up to that. What kind of crimes should warrant the removal of someone's citizenship? Where do we draw the line?