POLITICS: US Threatens Canada's Airspace: Ignores International Law

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Bush is pressuring Canada to sign an open-ended agreement for his controversial Star Wars missile defense plan, but refuses to provide any actual information or details about the plan. So Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin opted out this week. US officials like Ambassador Paul Cellucci then claimed Canada had abandoned sovereignty over her airspace. Then, the USA claimed the right to shoot down missiles in Canadian sovereign territory. PM Martin responded, "This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission." International Law is on Canada's side, solid.

 



www.thestar.com
"The decision to opt out of missile defence is an abandonment of some Canadian sovereignty," he writes (Washington military analyst Dwight Mason).

But Martin said today: "We would expect to be consulted.

"This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission."

...the leader of the NDP said the only delusion is in the minds of people imagining scare scenarios of some potential missile attack.

"These are the kind of hypothetical questions that (George) Bush has tried to create in the minds of people to elevate a sense of fear.

"The fact is that if Canada is a part of a program like this, then we become a target."

.......

Legal Divisions of Airspace and Oceans

Aircraft Law: Liability


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Any nation's airspace is sovereign. It's protected by international law. To threaten to invade that airspace is threatening invasion of the nation: Clearly a hostile act.

On top of threatening airspace invasion, it turns out that the USA has never informed Canada what the controversial missile defense system actually entails. Bush is bullying Canada to sign a blank contract.





Canada is still in the dark about everything a ballistic missile defence agreement with the United States would involve, Defence Minister Bill Graham said Friday. ...He said that's part of the reason why Prime Minister Paul Martin announced Thursday that Canada won't sign on.

"One of the problems was, before you could get to an understanding of exactly what was on the table, you had to sign the memorandum of understanding, which they provided," Mr. Graham told this newspaper's editorial board.

"In other words, you had to sign on to missile defence before you could find out what you were likely to get."

Mr. Graham, who was in Halifax as part of a post-budget tour, said it didn't make sense to sign on in those circumstances.

"Why would we sign on first and find out what we were going to get later?"


U.S. mum on missile details





So what's really happening here? Why would anyone sign a blank contract? Or expect someone else to do it?

Well, Bush is used to getting his way. He's a bully. No other word for it. He got away with invading Iran's airspace, now he thinks he can do it anywhere.

Last week, he got his butt kicked in Europe. When he came home, he kicked over his neighbor's fence in a typical class act of juvenile retaliation, instead of taking a time out.

Seems Bush doesn't get it: His bullying days are over. The world has spoken. The word is, "Enough."

Unfortunately, Bush created a war-based corporate economy and predictably, it's failing fast.

The US National Debt is over $7.7 trillion dollars, rising by over $2.2 billion every day in interest payments. New terms and rates need to be negotiated and judging by Bush's mood, it looks like they will be harsh. Even without another spending spree, the current debt is spiraling out of control on interest rates alone.

Bush has usurped states' political powers, while offloading financial responsibilities. As a result, states are threatened with bankruptcy.

High on the list of new fiscal burdens: A health care system that is the most expensive in the world, set to eat up 50% of the GDP. Why? Because instead of putting patients needs first, it funnels tax dollars straight into international corporations' bank accounts. Much like the war effort.

US Health Care Tab Ready to Explode



Bush's economic "strategy" is standard venture marketing bull - keep borrowing, lying and denying.

Bottom line: Bush is unreliable and irresponsible. He routinely breaks international laws and treaties, but when he gets nailed for it, he weasels on technicalities or lies outright. When his employees implement his policies and get in trouble for it, he doesn't stand behind them. When his policies threaten his nation's economic stability, and world peace to boot, he denies it.

Bush has destroyed the USA economically and socially. He has driven this once beautiful nation straight into the ground. God willing, he won't do the same to the rest of the world.



Can the USA be Repossessed?

Democracy Quest: Europe

Collapse of the American Empire

U.S. Military Denies Spy Flights Over Iran


Related News Links:
www.herald.ns.ca
www.cbc.ca
www.elitestv.com
www.reuters.ca

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
US Uses Drones to Spy on Iran (from ATSNN)
NEWS: Iran threatens to shoot down US UAVs
Unidentified Drone Crashes at Arak Nuclear Site in Central Iran (from ATSNN)
UFO Hysteria In Iran

[edit on 26-2-2005 by soficrow]

[edit on 26-2-2005 by soficrow]

[edit on 26-2-2005 by soficrow]




posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I look at it this way.

Lets say a nuclear missile is launced from Russia or wherever for whatever reason, it comes in over Canada. The U.S. is under no obligation to allow it to come into its airspace before destroying it. By allowing the missile to fly through its own airspace Canada would be culpable itself by not stopping them.

Kind of like if a country allowed another countries airplanes to fly through their airspace en route to another country to attack it. Once its in Canadas airspace its Canadas problem. The U.S. can and will, being a sovereign nation itself has the right to defend itself.

If that means blowing up the missile over Canadian airspace before it reaches U.S. airspace because Canada didn't want to be part of a system that may have allowed it to be shot down before it entered its own airspace then so be it.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Great piece Soficrow


Just who does Bush think will shoot missiles that far and at the United States? Better yet, what reason does he invisage nations wanting to fire missiles at the USA?

Its only by the grace of God that Star Wars is a lame duck and is only used to funnel tax dollars into defence contractors pockets.

We've seen how Bush acts whilst theorhetically under the threat of retaliation from any country. Can you just imagine how the bastard would act safe in the knowledge that theres not a god damn thing any one can do about it (militarily)?


Skibum, you have a point but theres also the rule of law. You cant interfere with a nations sovereignty, period. Unless you declare war. The US would be the first to cry foul if the shoe was on the other foot.

Do you honestly think the US would allow Canadian fighter jets to penetrate US air space to intercept any threat to Canada the Canadians percieved? Let me answer, NOT A CHANCE.

[edit on 26/2/05 by subz]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
I look at it this way.




Doesn't matter how you look at it. It's not a matter of opinion. The situation is covered by International Law.

If the US continues to break International Laws and treaties, there will be repercussions. ...No, they will not be military - only cowboys use guns. Everybody else uses economic sanctions.

...The US already is in deep debt and has a humungous trade deficit. Right now it feels like a pinch. Soon the grief will be undeniable.



.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
By allowing the missile to fly through its own airspace Canada would be culpable itself by not stopping them.


It depends how you look at the omission, I dont know much about the international laws on this, but, the general principle of law in the UK, is that one is not libel for failing to act in most situations, in France however, you do have a duty to act. So in internation law, does Canada have a duty to act if a missle enters their airspace headed for america, and they choose not to shoot it down?

Or does international law oblige them to shoot it down, an omission leading to punishment.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Complete economic sanctions on the US are never going to arise. Wounded animals lash out and tend not to be descriminate as to who they maul. The US would be no exception and would easily justify military action on those who harm it.

Military action on the sactioners (the World at large) would have total popular support amongst Americans once they see their way of life change drastically.

Ishes, the Canadians (or anyone for that matter) doesnt have the capabilities to shoot down ICBMs so how could it be held accountable for not shooting it down if it ever occured?

Its akin to arresting some one for not snatching bullets from the air with their hands to stop some one being shot.

[edit on 26/2/05 by subz]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
When the interception happens over our heads, you're kinda forgetting about the radioactive debris that's going to be falling into Canada, aren't you? But, that shouldn't worry an American...after all, Canada is nothing but igloos and moose to you.

Canada is not the U.S.A. and we'll make up our own minds about these things which have an impact on our land. I may not agree with the government here, but i DO back up our sovereignty.

The whole idea of a missile defense shield is a red herring anyway...the best method for surviving a nuclear exchange is to go to the hole in the Arctic and getting an apartment in Shambala...in other words, when the missiles start to fly, you can kiss your *** goodbye.


[edit on 26-2-2005 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I don't give a damn about international law. No one seems to care when other nations break international law. No one cares when France supports genocide, or steal money with Saddam.

Canada owes us a little something right now. I don't think it's asking much to be able to shoot down a missile over their airspace. Aren't they supposed to be our god damn ally?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Great Soficrow.



Will this man ever get it? How long is the bullying going to last before even our neighbors get mad and take action?


Cant wait to see the "rights" take on this one.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I don't give a damn about international law. No one seems to care when other nations break international law. No one cares when France supports genocide, or steal money with Saddam.

Bush would be extremely proud of you. What are you, 11 years old?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I don't give a damn about international law. No one seems to care when other nations break international law. No one cares when France supports genocide, or steal money with Saddam.

Canada owes us a little something right now. I don't think it's asking much to be able to shoot down a missile over their airspace. Aren't they supposed to be our god damn ally?


What, specifically, do we owe you?

[edit on 26-2-2005 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   


What, specifically, do we owe you?


Absolutely nothing. However, if, and that is a big if, the missiles were to fly, it boils down to one decision your destruction or not. I would imagine that the U.S. would rather deal with violating international law than to be totally destroyed. Its a no brainer in my book. After all if you hold international law above your own well being then you are no longer a sovereign nation.

[edit on 26/2/05 by Skibum]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ishes

Originally posted by Skibum
By allowing the missile to fly through its own airspace Canada would be culpable itself by not stopping them.


I dont know much about the international laws on this, but, the general principle of law in the UK, is that one is not libel for failing to act in most situations, in France however, you do have a duty to act. So in internation law, does Canada have a duty to act if a missle enters their airspace headed for america, and they choose not to shoot it down?

Or does international law oblige them to shoot it down, an omission leading to punishment.




Good questions and points Ishes.

FYI - the relevant laws are different in each nation because potentially overlapping jursidiction and responsibilities are resolved in advance by international legal agreements - not by force. Force and bullying are acts of hostility or war. Civilized nations (and people) negotiate and make agreements.

International Law: U of V


Also of interest:

Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Legal Issues for Ships and Aircraft

Sovereignty and Protective Zones in Space



PS. Thanks subz and dgtempe.

.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
soficrow, I thought we hashed this out last night?
Now your simply politicizing it here? Oh, brother.

Soficrow, your Canadian airspace is yours. Your Canadian airspace is protected by International Law.

The problem is that when it comes down to multiple ICBMs/missiles being launched and targeted on US soil/cities AND will or has to take a trajectory flight path that goes through Canadian airspace, guess what? The US will act accordingly, and if acting accordingly means intercepting those ICBMs/missiles within Canadian airspace, that is covered, sanctioned, and recognized by International Law, before they hit their intended US targets, neither Canadian or International Law will prevent the US from doing so. You see, when the time comes that a nation feels the need to launch nuclear ICBMs/missiles, International Law goes virtually out the _

As such, whether you like it, whether the majority or minority of Canadians like it, or whether Mr. Martin (trying to save his arse and get re-elected) likes it, the US will attempt to intercept those incoming ICBMs/missiles travelling through Candian airspace and within Canadian airspace. Till then, Canadian airspace is your own. What all this requires is simple logic and knowledge of how interceptions work when applied to ICBMs/missiles. If the roles were reversed, Canada would act accordingly and as the US is now, whether you or anyone else wants to admit such. Its merely simple and logical action.

So viva la Canadian airspace. Its yours. International Law recognizes and backs this. Obviously, this is all good and well till such an event occurs. If you wish to expand this into the ring of "bullying," then be my guest. Its your agenda, not mine. What I do find ironic though, is that there are Canadians that will and are agreeing with the US on this and are raising this before Mr. Martin. At the time that such an event occurs, Canada has basically given the US authority over its airspace. Till then, viva la Canadian airspace.


Please let the debate continue here within ATS and in Canada.
Canada Has Given Up Control of its Airspace: U.S. Ambassador





seekerof

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
After all if you hold international law above your own well being then you are no longer a sovereign nation.

Its International Law that's the biggest deterent to other countries invading and killing at will. So its actually International Law thats the best safe guard to our own well being. When youre meant to be Gods oppointed bastion of Freedom and all thats right in the World and you start flauting international law you open the gates for others to do so.

We're all pretty much screwed now any way and the US flauts International Law pretty much on a daily basis so this is only an addition to a long list of US illegal actions.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
What, specifically, do we owe you?


Well, for starters:



The exact impact of tourism on the Canadian economy is difficult to ascertain, but it is estimated that it generates between 3.5 and 4.0 percent of jobs and about 5 percent of the GDP.

Americans were the most frequent foreign tourists, making 80 percent of overnight trips in 1995; following them are the British at 4.5 percent and the Japanese at 4.1 percent.

www.countriesquest.com...










[edit on 26-2-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
subz, International Law will prevail till such an event occurs. When that event occurs, International Law, as with Mr. Martin's wishes, will be over-ruled by those Canadian officers that are within NORAD, for it is they and not Mr. Martin that will be communicated with.
Norad role could be altered


OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government's decision to opt out of the contentious U.S. missile defence program will freeze Canada out of critical decision-making in its own defence, says Norad's former deputy chief.

But retired lieutenant-general George MacDonald says while Canada's role in the North American Air Defence Command might ultimately change, it won't end.

"Canadians will not have any participation in the actual decision-making or the rules of engagement or anything to do with ballistic missile defence," the former vice-chief of defence staff and now a consultant says.

--snip--

At some point, MacDonald says, the U.S. might want to lop off Norad's role in the warning element of missile defence, thereby completely excluding Canada from the process.







seekerof

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Bush would be extremely proud of you. What are you, 11 years old?


Do I even need to point out the hypocracy here?


What, specifically, do we owe you?


I don't know. Maybe the fact that we're neighbors, and supposed to be close allies should be enough. This missile shield costs Canada nothing. We're asking for very little.


Its International Law that's the biggest deterent to other countries invading and killing at will. So its actually International Law thats the best safe guard to our own well being. When youre meant to be Gods oppointed bastion of Freedom and all thats right in the World and you start flauting international law you open the gates for others to do so.


Even if America disregarded interational law more than anyone else (which is laughable), we actually have the power to do so. Other nations don't get away with it because America is the world's top dog.

Don't like it? Tough. America could be a whole lot worse. We could just tell Canada to shut-up or we'll invade. We don't have to play by your rules at all. Nothing actually restricts America but the limitations it puts on itself.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
BTW, soficrow, subz, and others concerned with this: ABM intercepts normally happen in space, not in airspace. It becomes a matter of sovereign airspace when or if whats left of that ICBM/missiles warhead(s) falls into a nations airspace. In this applied case, if a/an ICBM/missile is intercepted in space and then falls into Canadian airspace, whose problem is it then?





seekerof



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Everyone has so far made a good case for the Canadains control over their own airspace. What in the hell is Bush trying to do? He is just about to get on my last good nerve. I do not blame Canada whatsoever for declining use of their airspace especially without any firm answers about the defunct "Missle Sheild'. Hell, a condom would provide more defense than this overpriced system that has already been proved beyond a shadow of doubt to me that it is incapable of living up to what it's been"sold" to us as. Speaking from the position of an overtaxed and pissed off American, it may just be time for Canada to impose Econ. sanctions against the U.S. Someone needs to get Bush's head out of his a.. and put him in his place. I honestly think even then, Bush would still be stubborn and find a way to get his way. Someone has to show him that he cannot keep projecting his agenda without impunity towards any of our neighbors.Period.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join