Welcome to the American Police State

[mikey_the_redneck]

^^ Exactly. I agree 100%

I have no doubt that if/when an internet security bill passes in the U.S. and/or Canada, it will also be used in a broad manner to shut down the airing of the governments dirty laundry.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Itse

Just a quick comment on this:

This line of thinking is in my opinion stupid, ignorant of history and as such extremely dangerous. (Unfortunately it's also common.)

First of all, you can never know what the intentions of others are. History is full of examples where deals or laws were made supposedly without Intent X, and immediately or soon after used exactly and specifically for X.

As an example, an internet censorship law was recently passed here in Finland. It was sold on the premise of fighting child pornography in the internet, in a truly classical "think of the children" tactic. Those for the law were adamant that the law was not intended to be used to suppress uncomfortable criticism or censor legal material.

Yet it was immediately used to shut down websites that critiqued the actions of the Finnish central police, plus numerous gay sites.

Not to de-rail the topic, but I'm a bit curious about this. Was it Lex Karpela you're referring to? I don't read a speck of Finnish, so I can't understand the written law (and sites don't seem to provide enough information on it), but what's the parralel between this and the US created SOPA possibilities?

I know SOPA seems to state you require a court order (allowing for human interpretation of the spirit of the law as oppose to loose writing, capable of multiple interpretations) and is very specific in what it can target (sites under American juristiction, which distribute streaming or other illegal spreading of copyrighted materials), and at what limit of estimated losses it would begin to pursue at...but it seems to be read much differently by most people. Did Lex Karpela (or whatever act you were referring to...I'm assuming here) have court required intervention first to ensure the spirit, not letter, was followed? Also, did it have very, very specific writings, or was it very loose in interpretation? The link on Wikipedia has very vague descriptions of both catagoies.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Homeland Security is law enforcement.

We are already sharing our private information with Homeland Security under the Secure Flight Program.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=24274

"In November of 2007, the Conservative government expressed concerns over privacy implications associated with the U.S. Secure Flight Program and filed objections with the Department of Homeland Security. They were urging an exemption on a measure that would require Canadian airlines to turn over information on passengers flying over the U.S. en route to other destinations. Despite their grievances being dismissed, they eventually caved in to U.S. demands. In a move to further bring Canada in line with American air travel security rules, Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act was introduced in Parliament on June 17 of last year. With little media attention, it passed through the House of Commons on March 2, 2011, by a vote of 246 to 34. On March 23, it received royal assent and became law. Under Bill C-42, Canadian airlines are required to send traveler information through the Secure Flight Program 72 hours before departure. The Transportation Security Administration checks the data against security watch lists which could result in passengers receiving extra screening or even being barred from boarding their flight."


Haha ...you think the Liberals/NDP wouldn't go along with it??

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/sp...ch-110914.html

"As you discussed earlier today, the creation of “NextGen” teams of cross-designated officers would allow us to more effectively identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime."
-A.G. Eric Holder (aka the gun smuggler)

You said...

They stated that American "law enforcement" (Homeland Security) can operate on either side of the border under the excuse of international terrorism I suppose.

...which implies that Homeland Security agents can operate in Canada. They don't. Sharing intelligence is a BIG difference from allowing the US government to allow intelligence agencies to openly operate in Canada.

The sharing of information has been going on since 9/11. It is one of the major reasons no terrorist attacks have happened. The agreement just makes it official.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Azure

...which implies that Homeland Security agents can operate in Canada. They don't. Sharing intelligence is a BIG difference from allowing the US government to allow intelligence agencies to openly operate in Canada.

The sharing of information has been going on since 9/11. It is one of the major reasons no terrorist attacks have happened. The agreement just makes it official.

I edited my post #157.

"As you discussed earlier today, the creation of “NextGen” teams of cross-designated officers would allow us to more effectively identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime."
-A.G. Eric Holder (aka the gun smuggler)

From the D.O.J. website.

[Azure]

Except that has nothing to do with actual Homeland Security agents just be allowed to freely operate in Canada. Cross-designated officers already exist. There are a bunch of Canadian military members that work in Colorado at NORAD. Obviously this is something like that.

See where you can easily manipulate information and start fear-mongering?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Except that has nothing to do with actual Homeland Security agents just be allowed to freely operate in Canada. Cross-designated officers already exist. There are a bunch of Canadian military members that work in Colorado at NORAD. Obviously this is something like that.

See where you can easily manipulate information and start fear-mongering?

Don't forget about the Canadian Officers stationed at the Pentagon. The training Cadre down at Bragg.

Canada and the U.S. have been running exchange programs and shared billets since the end of the second World War.

Prior to that Canadian Troops served in integrated units such as the First Special Services Brigade.

Meanwhile American officers and soldiers serve on Canadian Forces bases to carry out assignments based on Norad and Nato requirements. Plus American's regularly send up regular forces formations to take part in joint excercises.

Canadian and American Intelligence gather where it concerns terrorist threats have been intertwinned for some time now, and has a history going back to the Cold War.

As much as people have a fantasy of evil Amercian and Canadian soldiers shooting innocent civilian in the streets on both sides of the border, I believe that unless there is a true disaster in the States for example that our Parliment which has to provide approval would not allow that to happen. Plus, most troops would view the application of brute force against a civilian base as an unlawful order and would refuse to follow it.


But Canadian Troops have been used in the States for both airspace coverage over American Cities in 9/11, and to assist with disaster relief after Katrina.

Reading through this information again, to me it just represents a formalization of informal military links and intelligent links.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

You said...



...which implies that Homeland Security agents can operate in Canada. They don't. Sharing intelligence is a BIG difference from allowing the US government to allow intelligence agencies to openly operate in Canada.

The sharing of information has been going on since 9/11. It is one of the major reasons no terrorist attacks have happened. The agreement just makes it official.

For what it's worth, both the DEA and Homeland security have offices in the Vancouver US Consulate.

[V]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

As much as people have a fantasy of evil Amercian and Canadian soldiers shooting innocent civilian in the streets on both sides of the border, I believe that unless there is a true disaster in the States for example that our Parliment which has to provide approval would not allow that to happen. Plus, most troops would view the application of brute force against a civilian base as an unlawful order and would refuse to follow it.

Yeah, but...

[missdpuck]

The USPS recently added a rule that we (PO employees) are not allowed to speak against the PO in online forums, public meetings, the press, etc.

This guy http://ryancbradford.com the "mailman meme"was fired for a few things apparently, but one was saying his job was "slave labor"--he was one of the lower paid new hires.

He did a photo essay on his blog called All Dogs Want to Kill Me. There are copies of his letter of dismissal there too. The PO really is a corrupt freak show anyway.

Sometimes I think we should just privatize it.

And we continue to bash the place on various sites. Pfft.