RabidMongoose
Lifer
How is the US a police state, but Canada is not?
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Canada Police bust group with three tons of ammonium nitrate
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
How is the US a police state, but Canada is not?
I realize it sounds cliche, but I think our best bet (in absolute terms, not just in terms of protecting civil liberties) is for our intelligence and police agencies to work smarter, not harder. The problems they had leading up to 9/11 were not due to not having enough power, the problems stemmed from how they used that power. Changing the powers they have is not going to solve the problem, changing HOW that power is used will help keep us safer.
What specifically do I mean? Well, just as an example, I think information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement could use a LOT of work. The current system came about during the cold war, when intelligence was focused on an enemy that we were potentially going to fight a war with. That naturally led to a tight coupling between defense and intelligence, leaving the police with less of a role, except maybe for rounding up the odd spy every once in a while. Today, while there is still a military aspect to fighting terrorists, it is a much about law enforcement as it is about military action. Yet while the intelligence community is still closely linked with defense, the police are still cut out of a lot of it. It is the rare policeman (even among agents in the FBI) who has the kind of clearance necessary to see important intelligence information, and the process of translating classified information to a lower classification level is not a smooth process. The 9/11 commission pointed this out in great detail. The government has tried to solve this with more laws, but they are missing the point, you can't foster good working relationships with laws...it's an organizational thing that needs to (but doesn't) happen.
The DNI position is a good idea on paper for solving the communication issues, but in practice it's just another layer of red tape that leaves out anyone outside of the intel community already, not exactly solving the problem I was talking about.
Just look at what happend the last important time they had domestic terrorists in their midst during the October Crisis. They used the same act used for concentration camps in WWI and WWII to invalidate civil liberties. Canada looked like a police state with soldiers in battle gear raiding homes, tanks on the streets, etc. And that was with a Liberal government!
These men were arrested under the Anti-Terrorism Act which was shortly passed after 9/11.
The debate isn't whether the US or Canada has the better record. It is about the curbing of civil liberties. Like you said, "granting ever increasing power to the police and intelligence services" is the issue.
I guess I was talking not so much about laws as about attitudes. Again, maybe I just don't pay as much attention to Canada, but here in the US, people say a lot of very disturbing things with regards to civil liberties. "You can't use civil liberties if you are dead" and "if you didn't do anything wrong, what are you worried about?" are two fairly popular attitudes making the rounds here in the US, even among politicians who really should know better. I haven't heard crap like that from Canada...
RabidMongoose
Lifer
No, because the motivation for the violence in this case was essentially religously based. People that use their religion as the motivation for violence should be labelled with the very motivation for their violence.
If the militia in your previous post carries out attacks as a Christian group acting under some sort of perceived Christian guideline, then they should be labelled as Christian terrorists.
RabidMongoose
Lifer
That's because Canadians don't even realize what their government has even done to them. 99% of the Canadians on this forum never even knew about their own Patriot Act like legislation when I was talking about it a year or two ago.
And if they ever knew, more of them would agree with their government's actions than we are seeing in the US.
Thank you for making my point. I see very little evidence to suggest this, or any other planned or carried out terrorist attack, is "essentially religiously based". Many terrorists are self-described religious people, but there is certainly more motivation to their attacks than their religious views.
Actually, my analogy with violent videogames seems particularly apt, just like with that topic, the media does a horrible job in giving us some insight into the motivations of the bad guys. With videogames, all the other factors are ignored, and it becomes kids shoot up school because of Grand Theft Auto. With Islam, all other factors are ignore, and it becomes terrorists blow up stuff because of Islam. The fact that you can't seem to see that their religion isn't the primary motivation is proof enough of this. If you think we're dealing with a global terrorism problem because these random guys think Islam tells them to kill everybody, you seriously haven't been paying attention.
RabidMongoose
Lifer
From the information that we currently have, it certainly seems to be a religiously linked plan. In addition, if an organization is religously named, has released religious statements in reponse to their behavior, and so forth, then it's clear that they are heavily religiously based.
I think that you need to research the released statements, background, and meaning of several terrorist organizations if you have seen 'very little evidence' of religiously based behavior.
Again, you have failed to see my point. Islam may not be telling them to blow up buildings and such, but it is the primary source of their motivation as seen with organizations with religious roots, religious messages, and so forth. In the end, it's appropriate to claim these individuals as Muslim terrorists if their religion was an important factor in their behavior. If a single theme is a general bond between a group and a source of inspiration (however they have perverted it), then it is clear to label such a group with that theme.
Hmm, I suppose you're right, but it's more the unspoken argument being made that I don't like rather than the words themselves. You say "Muslim terrorists", and while all that might imply is terrorists who happen to view themselves as Muslim, many other people say "Muslim terrorists" and imply that there is a cause/effect relationship at work. Again, like the videogame thing. Making a special effort to point out their religious beliefs is not usually as innocent as you claim. Maybe it is for you, but you'd be in the minority.
I think that it's appropriate to call it a Muslim terror plot. From what we have so far, they are:
1) upset at the supposed oppression of Muslims, a religious group
2) inspired by al-Qaeda, a fundamentalist religious organization which was created to establish an Islamic state
3) dislike Western values (against their religious values?)
This is just based on the news as of right now.
John Allen Muhammad (the beltway sniper) is not branded a Muslim terrorist by most.
RabidMongoose
Lifer
Maybe I am in the minority - I'm not sure. However, to me, saying Muslim Terrorists means that the terrorists had a religious reason for their attack. If a group who happens to be composed largely of Muslims or anything else performs an attack, but under a non-religious motivation, then they shouldn't be labelled as Muslim terrorists.
Future Shock
Senior member
Rattlesnakes exist too...and if I step on one while walking through the woods it will bite me. I don't step on it, it don't bite me.
nuff said
Future Shock
Future Shock
Senior member
Sorry to break with you Rainsford, but on this I think you are mistaken. This IS and HAS BEEN a religious war. It is essentially a continuation of a religious war that goes back to the Crusades, if not before.
The sticker here, as 1prophet pointed out so well in his first post, is that fundamentalist Islam makes no divide between religious life and political life. America, and indeed much of the West, has come to believe that they are seperate (evengelical Christians and a few others notwithstanding). So we have a very difficult time - one one hand, we open anyone of any religion, for that is our history. On the other hand, we are now faced with a group that CANNOT seperate their religion from their politics, which is the anathema of the secular religious principles that allowed them to come here as a minority in the first place. And of course, this is made much harder by the near total lack of understanding amonst most Christian Westerners in Islamic culture and religion - we can't distinguish easily between those that can and do seperate their religion and politics, those that don't, and those that might just tell us what we want to hear.
As an American living here in the UK, I find it fascinating at how few Europeans really get the evangelical Christian movement (having lived in the heart of the Midwest for 10 years I will claim I do understand a bit of it). And yet, most of the Europeans that I talk to are nominally Christian. So if we can't cross that gulf of understanding between two Christian sects, imagine how hamstrung we are trying to understand Islamic sects and differences.
For anyone in the US hoping that radical Islam will simply go away if we defeat it on the battlefield - look to your own country for evidence that it simply won't. The rise of Evengelical Christian churches parallels in many, many ways the rise of radical Islam. It IS funny that they both have popped up in roughly the same decades, isn't it? In my opinion, that isn't a co-incidence, that is a natural result of societal factors in both religions. Both are being sqeezed in their "moderate" viewpoints by secular advances, so as a result both have gone fundamentalist.
This cannot be reversed by military victory. The religious leaders that planned this strategy have only seen their prominence rise by the adversity they have faced (and that includes evengelical leaders here in the US, as well - how many scandals have they weathered?).
I don't have any answers, but I just draw this out to back my point - this IS a religious war, part of a series of religious wars, and the battle lines are very fluid and difficult to define. To try and pretend that it is anything BUT a religious war - a war on "terrorism" for example, a commonplace "crime", etc. is doing us no favors - because you must look at the organizing principles if we are to defeat it. And papering over what it is just makes that impossible...
Future Shock
sdifox
No Lifer
I would say they are misguided. The recruiter/inciter are the ones we really want. Until you get rid of the recruiters, there will be more of the incited. And I really detest the media circus around this whole thing. Ban the Amerikinsky reporters! OK, to be fair, ban the whole media circus.
On another note, I don't really agree with the labeling of terrorists as muslim or christians or what have you not. They may think they are religious, but the fact that they are plotting these acts violate all religious teaching. And it is the inciters that somehow justify it so.
Uhhh no our Anti-Terrorism laws haven't changed since they were drafted by OUR LIBERAL government under Jean Chretien. We can detain suspects but must offer them there civil liberties (right of an attorney). We are not Right-Wing monsters... but we're moving that way.
Credit for this arrest actually goes to our previous Liberal government.. this operation has been taking place for over 2 years. Stephen Harper and his Neo-Cons did nothing. but they're now being praised for it. Our RCMP and CSIS has had to deal with 12 terrorist plots so far this year. Everyone one of them has been delt with swiftly. We don't listen in on phone calls either. We do more with less money and less infringements on our constitution and civil rights.
Your Democrats would do the same thing... Bush and his band of Neo-Cons are just trying to ensure Republican control of the country for decades to come.
ExpertNovice
Senior member
Where is the link? Where did you learn this? It is completely different that what I have read and heard. Here is one link and excerpt for you to peruse. Perhaps your link will prove that this Canadian Newspaper is lying or perhaps it will prove that your sources are lying. Let us know which.
Alleged Canadian terror plot has worldwide links
There are more civil liberties than just the right of an attorney. Like I said before, the last time Canada became a police state with no regards to civil liberties was under a liberal government.
Of course Canada listens in on phone calls. There are broad wiretap and electronic surveillance powers set there.
sandorski
No Lifer
Canada has one of the best Eavesdropping systems in the world in the EIS(IIRC-Electronic Intelligence Service). It has been suggested, but not confirmed that this service may have been involved. Phone Tapping laws are similar with the US, being that Domestic calls are not regularly monitored and that a special oversight by the Courts is required to monitor Domestic communications.
Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
Stolen from another forum 😉
Powermoloch
Lifer
whoa, way to go canadians 🙂 !
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
