U.S. pushes Canada to exploit terror laws

[Judi Lynn]

U.S. pushes Canada to exploit terror laws

Enforcement powers expanded in 2001 haven't been used, State Department says

By BARRIE McKENNA
Friday, April 30, 2004 - Page A10



WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has faulted Ottawa for not fully exploiting its legal powers against known terrorist groups, including Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda and an array of regional groups.

In its annual report card on global counterterrorism efforts, the U.S. State Department notes that Canada's 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act has not been used against any of the 34 terrorist groups now banned under the law.

"Although they are subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code of Canada, the law is untested since no prosecutions have taken place," the department says bluntly in its report, released on the eve of today's meeting between Prime Minister Paul Martin and U.S. President George W. Bush, at which security and terrorism issues will be front and centre.
(snip)

The report notes, for example, that Canadian criminal procedures are "more favourable to the defendant than in the United States."
(snip/...)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040430/TERRORLAW30/TPNational/TopStories

[Spazito]

1. Yeah, how dare Canada adhere to it's belief that one has to...

have proof first, believes that one is innocent until proven guilty, doesn't send suspects to concentration camps like Gitmo, damn us anyway, eh!

[Minstrel Boy]

2. Next stop: limited sovereignty!

Time to apply "the Iraq solution."

[David__77]

3. The sheer arrogance!

Canada must reject this interference in its internal affairs--the US has no right.

[BattyDem]

4. So ...

How many terrorist attacks has Canada had recently? It seems to me that they're doing just fine without Bushco's Gestapo tactics - further proof that you don't have to destroy civil liberties in order to protect the country.

[Tommy_Douglas]

5. Fuck you Bush...

and your SS gestapo tactics.

We're not going to seize people and their property and deport them just because their skin is brown or hail from the Middle East.

[Spazito]

6. Arrogance like this is exactly why 80% of Canadians despise...

bush and his lackeys! We are NOT anti-American we ARE anti-bush!

80 percent of Canadians dislike Bush: poll

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040430/pl_afp/canada_us_poll_040430142928

[iverglas]

7. eh?

"Although they are subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code of Canada, the law is untested since no prosecutions have taken place," the department says bluntly in its report ...

Well gosh -- the first thing that springs to my mind is that it's probably hard for prosecutions to take place unless there is some evidence that offences have been committed.

The Globe article doesn't make it plain exactly what the US State Department's beef is here, and Google doesn't find me the report itself. You tracked it down at all, Judilyn?

.

[ConcernedCanuk]

8. I say tell Boosh & gang to come to Canada - we'll test them laws alright!

.
.
.

For the curious, here's a few excerpts, and the link for the MORE curious.
___________________________________________________________

Canada's Crimes Against Humanity
and War Crimes Program

The following Canadian statutes authorize enforcement action against alleged war criminals or persons who have committed crimes against humanity:

The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act:

* provides for the prosecution of any individual present in Canada for any offence stated in the Act regardless of where the offence occurred;
* creates new offences of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and breach of responsibility by military commanders and civilian superiors;





Now I'm not sure if that would include the pResident as head of state, but it would certainly cover the rest of his gang,

and the boy king should be deposed soon if the US voters wake up!

only trouble is, we DO require evidence of some sort, not just "well we THOUGHT so"

One comfort for those that may come under this legislation.

They WILL get representation, and formal charges if held for more than 48 hours I believe it is.

No formal charges, they walk.

Silly law we know, but that's just us Canuks for ya!

Oh, just my personal caveat:

We don't accept the "word" of US officials as making something "fact".

[Nambe]

9. Hi JudliLin, NICE POST.

Nice work! We miss having time to post.

Nambe

[Judi Lynn]

10. Hi, Nambe! Great to see your name here!

Hope maybe you'll be looking in again as the elections get nearer.

If we can make projections based on actual tradition, it's quite possible another candidate's plane's going down. We could use yours and your father's aeronautic expertise in any critical "conversation" at that time, you can be sure.

Very good to see you again. :hi: :hi: