It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
This administration we are under now doesn't know what "international" laws mean unless somebody else comes and violate ours.

Never have truer words been spoken!

Right to defend yourselves? OK then the Iraqi insurgents have every right to defend themselves from the US occupation of their country. What makes it different?

Right to defend yourselves? OK then the Iranians have every right to build what ever missiles they like. They can back out of ANY international agreements when ever they choose, such as the NPT. No other World entity has the right to inpinge on Iranian Soveriegnty!

Sound familiar? ABM treaty for starters.


From the actual ABM Treaty the USA signed
In the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems the United States and the Soviet Union agree that each may have only two ABM deployment areas,1 so restricted and so located that they cannot provide a nationwide ABM defense or become the basis for developing one. Each country thus leaves unchallenged the penetration capability of the others retaliatory missile forces.

ABM Treaty

Ehm, the US signed up to this but scrapped it to pursue the Missile Shield. Why cant Iran back out of its obligations under the NPT?


President George W. Bush
"I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks," Bush announced in the White House Rose Garden.

Bush Announces US Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty

So the Americans can back out of any treaty they wish but the Iranians cannot? Is that how it works?


Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Now I agree that the Patriot Act is a crappy thing,

My friend you have the gift of understatement!
Are you sure youre not British?

The Patriot Act directly contradicts your constitution and thats crappy? I think us handing over UK sovereignty to the EU is crazy but atleast our values are upheld. The whole foundation of the US way of life has been butchered but the reaction of the US public has been nonexistant. Thats the power of fear for you.

What the Patriot Act contradicts:

First Amendment - Freedom of religion, speech, assembly,and the press.
Patriot Act allows - Section 411, in tandem with section 802, expands the power of government to designate a group a "foreign terrorist organization." Any group which endorses so-called "terrorist activity," which under 802 may be otherwise lawful protest activity, can be designated a terrorist organization.

Section 802 creates the crime of "domestic terrorism." This criminalizes acts that "appear to be intended" to "influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion" or to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population." This section would make just about any act of civil disobedience in protest against government policies into an act of domestic terrorism.

Fourth Amendment - Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Patriot Act allows - Section 213 of the PATRIOT ACT allows the government to enter and search your home, without ever informing you. The government can also delay notifying you of the search indefinitely. The person whose home is searched cannot view the warrant to make sure the address is correct or to make sure that the agent adheres to the warrant's description of what is to be searched. The U.S. Constitution requires not only probable cause to search, but that you be notified of the search

Fifth Amendment - No person to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
Patriot Act allows - Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act permits the government to arrest and detain immigrants indefinitely for nothing more than a visa violation.

Sixth Amendment - Right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, right to be informed of the facts of the accusation, right to confront witnesses and have the assistance of counsel.
Patriot Act allows - Section 412 above

Fourteenth Amendment - All persons (citizens and noncitizens) within the US are entitled to due process and the equal protection of the laws.
Patriot Act allows - Section 412 above
Taken from ACLU.org
Specific PATRIOT Act Sections


Originally posted by Broadsword20068
OF COURSE FRANCE AND GERMANY WERE AGAINST INVADING IRAQ FOR REAL, BECAUSE IRAQ IS ONE OF THE BIG BUYERS OF FRENCH AND GERMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT. Also, it was French and German oil companies that had interests in those oil fields there. When the U.S. came through and took out Saddam, those oil companies lost any power and influence they had on those fields, and they can't do crap about it, so they are furious right now.

The US was in that cozy situation with that tyrant Saddam Hussein right up to the late 1980's. Its only because of his invasion of Kuwait that the US turned on their friend, it had nothing to do with him being a tyrant. Maybe if Saddam invaded Kuwait and agreed to give US oil companies access to the oil fields Saddam might have a statue in Washington DC.

The US is currently in bed with the Saudis who are real nice people who dont even allow women to vote. Wheres the invasion of Saudi Arabia? Or even mildly negative comment? Oh yeah human rights comes a very distant second to that all important US national interest.


Originally posted by Broadsword20068
People also seem to forget that the U.S. has a different mindset than Europe. European nations are quickly turning over their national sovereignty to the European Union. The United States does not believe in doing any such thing. We are a sovereign nation and will not get drawn into deals that force us to give up such freedoms just because it is what the "majority of the world wants."

But thats exactly what the US is forcing Canada and Mexico to do with NORTHCOM! It wants those countries to hand over their sovereignty and borders to the US Military with or without their consent. You've got your own EU situation happening now but atleast we were given the chance of a referendum to decide whether we joined.

The Kyoto Agreement is a prime example of the US doing what it wants to regardless of what the World at large thinks. Bringing the worlds pollution levels down to 1990 levels can only be a good thing. To deny that is to claim pollution is a good thing, not even Bush is that stupid. But the US refuses to partake in what the whole World wants (except Australia which has cut its emissions below what Kyoto would demand any way) and continues to contribute 25% of the Worlds pollution!

The CIA world book even states that:


the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels; water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers

The only reason the USA wont partake in the Kyoto Protocol is because it will hinder the American economy and big business.

Now you must be able to see why the US is currently the target of hate around the World.

If the World at large or even one country demanded the US stop contravening human rights at Guantanamo and to repeal the Draconian Patriot Act otherwise face sanctions/military action what would the US response be? You'd tell us that the US has the intrinsic right over its own sovereignty and that we have no right whatsoever to meddle in US affairs. Am I wrong?

I agree that most Governments are corrupt and as hypocritical as the US but for one big difference. The US is a superpower with a vast, advanced Army that has invaded 2 countries in the last 4 years. Including a President that has the audacity to claim he's on Gods mission to spread Democracy to the World.

Find me another Government that fits that criteria and you'd find the US wouldnt be the only target of everyones fears and anger any more.

[edit on 1/3/05 by subz]




posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   
the war of 1812 was a really good history to go look up.when north america was really british north america and when america deicided to invade canada.one man stands out Major General Robert Ross.for he defended canada and burnt washington capital to the ground.amazing what happens when canada defends hershelf.this why canada is its own country.we are a peaceful nation and our policies will never faulter from this. we are the true peace keepers the usa will always have something they would like to take from canada.the history there look it up.for we should have respect of those people who have come before us and died for both countires.thats my take of history........



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Great post subz. Informative, good info.

flukemol - interesting commentary. Good stuff.

...Even though I'm an anarchist at heart, I do believe we need our international laws and treaties. They help us to create a civilized world. I don't think they should be thrown out or stomped on. ...and thousands of Americans died to bring us these laws. They are our inheritance - we should respect and protect them.


.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Great post subz. Informative, good info.


I second that, how can US push other countries to abide by laws when the administration doesn't respect or recognized them.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I agree, the Patriot Act is very crappy and I am highly against it, but that is still turning freedoms over ot the gov't itself. The Clinton Administration tried to turn over freedoms to the United Nations, which is a little bit different.

And no, the United States should NOT have joined the Kyoto Treaty. Sheesh, China makes a ton of pollution too, no one seems to pester them. The Kyoto Treaty would have given the United Nations the right to tell America how to utilize its forms of energy, and essentially infringe on a national sovereignty there. The U.S. will work out its pollution on its own, NOT be bossed around on the subject by the rest of the world.

And what is wrong with not entering something if it will inhibit the U.S. economy AND turn over certain sovereignty to the UN? Especially when that very treaty is only theoretical; there is no proof that the Kyoto Treaty even would have accomplished what it intended to do had the U.S. entered it. The idea of the Kyoto Treaty was good, but HOW it was to be accomplished (allowing UN nations to observe laws and fuel uses in the U.S. and control those in a sense) were bad.

I agree on the Patriot Act though, it butchers the Constitution. And I agree that Canada and Mexico should be allowed to keep their borders and remain sovereign, HOWEVER, Mexico needs to stop with all of this bringing immigrants into the U.S. And the U.S. needs to stop allowing it.

Yes, you're right, the Bush administration was very cozy with Saddam back in the 80s, but you have to make friends with certain people in certain areas, or you can't remain secure enough. As they say, nations have no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. If one of your interests in national security, you have to sometimes side with the wrong side. Look at Vietnam. The U.S. sided with Pol Pot (I believe; could have it mixed up), a ruthless dictator. But that was because the Russians and Vietnamese were sided, and the U.S. needed someone to help with exerting influence in that region.

The U.S. can be the target of hatred from other nations all they want, but it looks out for itself the most (even though it sends huge amounts of aid around the world--even to North Korea). It has to. That is just the way of the world. I agree completely though about Bush mentioning he's on a "mission from God" and the likes, and I guess many folk around the world get scared because they don't understand how the U.S. gov't really works. They probably think of Bush as having the powers of a king and thus being able to go whereever he wants.

You folks claiming that the U.S. needs to try to become "less of a target" need to wake up to the real world. The real world is violent and you cannot make "peace." The only thing you can make is a state of non-violence, which is accomplished by having overwheliming power over your enemy.

If the U.S. were to ignore space weapons and missile defense and such, all that would happen is some other country, first the Soviets, but now China, would have gotten the head start.

You need to realize that no matter how "good" and "peaceful" you want to seem, there are always other countries that are going to be militaristic. If the U.S. were to try to be all friendly and appeasing to the world the wya Clinton was, we'd be too weak if attacked.

As for Iraq and the Afghanistan, those two nations were instabilities to those regions, which contain a great deal of oil, and thus the U.S. had to knock them out of power a good deal to keep everything under control.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068

I agree on the Patriot Act though, it butchers the Constitution. And I agree that Canada and Mexico should be allowed to keep their borders and remain sovereign, HOWEVER, Mexico needs to stop with all of this bringing immigrants into the U.S. And the U.S. needs to stop allowing it.





....We've got a couple of "continental" plans on the table - NAFTA super-sized and NORTHCOM work together, and create a kind of 'over-government' that applies to all of North America.

The new NAFTA is about expanding the 'trade' agreement to harmonize various laws and regulations - and it's not restricted to goods and services. ...Our politicians are looking at immigration, security, the whole ball of wax.

...Just as Canadians don't want to adopt certain laws and values that the US has - Americans will not want certain laws that Canada and Mexico have. ...But it will happen.

Historically, the USA had the best civil liberties in the world. Canada did not even get a Bill of Rights until Trudeau crafted one in the 1970's - and it was a woosie compromise. Mexico, well.

....What we see happening here is that US civil liberties are being "harmonized" downward to be more in line with Canada and Mexico.







posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Yeah, and that is all a very bad thing in my opinion. I would not necessarily say it "will" happen though, as no one knows for sure. You can't just unite Canada and Mexico and the U.S. just like that, especially if the people do not want such a thing.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Canada to impose Econ. sanctions against the U.S.




Keep laughing...maybe you can use all that hot air coming out of your mouth to heat your home. I guess you don't know that Canada is the top supplier of oil to your country...yes...even ahead of Saudia Arabia.

How juvenile are you? Wait, let me guess...

We're each other's largest trading partner...but I guess you don't hear things like that on Fox, right?








posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I didn't say the US should declare war on Canada, I said that maybe Canada should declare war on the US, since everyone up there is so hostile to the US. Personally, before I got to ATS and started dealing with computer and internet customer service reps from Canada, I thought y'all were our friends.

Canadians might look like us, but as soon as you speak, it's all over.

[edit on 05/2/26 by GradyPhilpott]


See, that's the difference between us. WE don't go to war unless its absolutely necessary...its the very last resort.

And same as you, the more Americaspeak I read on ATS, the more I realize that we are different.

And by the way, friends that bully us and piss over our fence aren't friends really are they?



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068

You can't just unite Canada and Mexico and the U.S. just like that, especially if the people do not want such a thing.




Its a done deal guy. ...Follow the links and read the material. NORTHCOM is US military oversight over all of North America - NAFTA is for trade in goods and services, soon to be expanded oto include immigration and more....

We don't most of the stuff that's being negotiated or on the table - it's "confidential" - but what we do have tells us all we need to know.



.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
And no, the United States should NOT have joined the Kyoto Treaty. Sheesh, China makes a ton of pollution too, no one seems to pester them. The Kyoto Treaty would have given the United Nations the right to tell America how to utilize its forms of energy, and essentially infringe on a national sovereignty there. The U.S. will work out its pollution on its own, NOT be bossed around on the subject by the rest of the world.

Thats the kind of mentality the rest of the World seemed to get over when they all signed the treaty.

Its apparent that single countries are incapable of limiting their pollution levels because corporations are so influential and powerful.

When the United States contributes 25% of the gases that are destroying THE PLANET then it stops becoming the United States problem and becomes everyones problem. Enter Kyoto, where the entire Globe works together to fairly limit pollution levels. That the United States is not a party to this treaty, to me, constitutes the US's willing continuation of the destruction of the Globe and the use of WMDs on a Global scale. How else can it be described when one single country with 4% of the World population contribues 25% of the gases and pollution that are wrecking the planet? A country that refuses to do anything about it.

Did you know that your President overturned legislation that would of reduced arsenic levels in your countries drinking water? Do you really expect a Government that could do that to reign in corporations for the good of the environment? Dont be so naieve



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
.
.
Here's the scoop on what's really happening, how it all works together - and why our governments don't want anyone to know what's going on behind the scenes.

In the USA, the Patriot Act works in concert with NAFTA and NORTHCOM. NAFTA and NORTHCOM are "continental" plans - and create a kind of "over-government" that applies to all of North America. The Patriot Act is the "open door" allowing the security component of these plans to be implemented in the USA.

Patriot Act II


NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement. In its original form, this agreement broke through the traditional boundaries and redefined 'trade' - for the first time, information and services were defined as trade items and controlled by trade laws created and written by international corporations. By NAFTA's terms, our governments must negotiate directly with corporations, and the corporations are calling the shots.

NAFTA is about to be expanded - the expansion was scheduled as part of the original agreement. The original NAFTA agreement demanded a "harmonization" of laws and regulation in the USA, Canada and Mexico - meaning that each country's laws had to be modified and made the same so as not to interfere with business or cut into profits. For example, immigration and security will be defined as trade items under the new NAFTA. The final harmonization deadline is coming up.

Before the "leftist takeover" of South America, NAFTA's architects were planning to create the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and expand NAFTA over the whole northern hemisphere. Now the focus is on North America and finalizing the last stages of all the agreements, negotiations and plans.





"Combining these two powers into one agreement will give unequalled new rights to the transnational corporations of the hemisphere to compete for and even challenge every publicly funded service of its governments, including health care, education, social security, culture and environmental protection."

NAFTA, GATTS and the Free Trade Area of the Americas


Also see: North American Security and Prosperity

Security v/s Sovereignty: The Evolution of Public Opinion After 9/11 (pdf)

THE FUTURE OF SECURITY AND DEFENCE COOPERATION IN NORTH AMERICA

A Blueprint for NAFTA (pdf)

The Tug-of-War: The Sovereignty/Security Dilemma (pdf)





NORTHCOM is the US military command for North America. In the event of any national emergency - like an epidemic or terrorist attack - NORTHCOM will assume military command over all US agencies like FEMA and the FBI, plus civil authorities and policing. Under emergency conditions, NORTHCOM's first priority likely will be to ensure NAFTA's continued smooth functioning - to protect international corporations operating in North America.





NORTHCOM. U.S. Northern Command – new combatant command assigned to defend the United States and support military assistance to civil authorities.

www.defenselink.mil...

..............

"On April 17, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the formation of the Northern Command, or NorthCom...

Secretary Rumsfeld stated that NorthCom will "…help the department better deal with natural disasters, attacks on U.S. soil, or other civil difficulties. It will provide for a more coordinated military support to civil authorities such as FBI, FEMA and state and local governments." "

www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/ si/may02/homeland.asp





The Patriot Act "harmonizes" US civil liberties downward to be in line with Mexico's. (Canada has her own problems.)

The public rationale for establishing a military police state in North America is "combating the terrorist threat" - and/or dealing with "natural disasters" and "other civil difficulties." Basically, they've covered all the angles.

The current scare-monerging with its focus on international terrorism is a standard diversionary tactic designed to keep America's eyes off the home front. The added benefit is that "the terrorist threat" also can serve as a publicly acceptable reason to implement military command over civil authorities, and establish a police state in the USA.


.....This "missile kafuffle," the arm wrestling over beef imports and Mad Cow, everything that's going on publicly - is just posturing and smoke and mirrors - partly ironing out the final negotiation details, partly distrracting the public.



...In the words of a famous American, "You ain't seen nothin yet."



.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
The people who keep saying ridiculous things like 'other countries will put sanctions on the US' are technically legally insane. To put sanctions on the US would not only hurt the other countries economy, it would also earn itself a powerful enemy. And the US would place sanction on that country 10 fold.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by flukemol
the war of 1812 was a really good history to go look up.when north america was really british north america and when america deicided to invade canada.one man stands out Major General Robert Ross.for he defended canada and burnt washington capital to the ground.amazing what happens when canada defends hershelf.this why canada is its own country.we are a peaceful nation and our policies will never faulter from this. we are the true peace keepers the usa will always have something they would like to take from canada.the history there look it up.for we should have respect of those people who have come before us and died for both countires.thats my take of history........


There was no Cana'duh in 1812. Get over yourselves, it was Britain back then.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
The US Abassador to Canada Cellucci bit the dust in terms of his job.
Could'nt be his comments stating Canada has given up its airspace to US air defense - could it. Bye-bye Cellucci !

Dallas



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Ignore international law, and protect the World's #1 economy. Or be weaklings, and wait for the bright flash...



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
If you want to protect the USA as the worlds #1 economy, you,d better hurry...China is going gangbusters.
Actually, I think the statement to 'ignore' international agreements is a very slippery slope. The world is not antiAmerican, as some would tell you...but such a mindset could very well do just that.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
The people who keep saying ridiculous things like 'other countries will put sanctions on the US' are technically legally insane. To put sanctions on the US would not only hurt the other countries economy, it would also earn itself a powerful enemy. And the US would place sanction on that country 10 fold.




Don't think anyone said anything about sanctions - just raising the interest rates on the US national debt. FYI - the US national debt is currently at $7.7 trillion dollars - and Asia holds most of the paper. ...The way I read it, the US is over a barrel, and it's getting worse.

This airspace soveriegnty thing is part of the NAFTA expansion package - and IMO, Bush is trying to drag Canada and Mexico into the debt-pit he's created. Mexico might bite - but it looks like Canadians won't let it happen - just like Brazil, Venezuela et al killed the FTAA.

.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I didn't vote for him. Don't blame me. Heheh... but I doubt Kerry would have done much better... he didn't seem too bright either. However it's a wonder he ever got reelected considering all of the stuff he's done wrong in his first term... democracy can be so cruel. How did we let this get so far out of hand?

I heard an interview with Bush today on the radio. Arizona has started a "Minute Man" project to protect the border against illegal immigrants. They patrol the border and then call the real Border Patrol to investigate any suscpicious activity. Bush said "I don't believe in vigilantism. It's the border patrols job to take care of those crossing the border illegally and they do a fine job".

He also wants to give them legal work opportunities in the hopes that, by turning all of the illegal immigrants into legal immigrants, the problem will just go away. He claims that illegal immigrants only take jobs that Americans don't want. Tell that to Maine. I've done aweful jobs at minimum wage before. Trust me, there are no jobs that American WON'T do. Besides that, we've got a good enough number of cheap laborers to be getting along with anyway.

I must sound really right wing right now, and it's true. This is one of the right wing stances I take. While I think that immigration is philosphically and morally ok, I wonder where we should draw the line? At what point are we supporting so many poor immigrants that this place isn't any better than the place they left? California has 42 percent of the country's illegal population. We can't support them... we're just too broke. In the past two years, tuition at the city college I attend has tripled and it's showing signs going up again. I'm a poor, starving college student... where should I immigrate to?

Anywho, the point is that George Bush has once again taken the exact opposite side of an issue that has an easy and simple resolution. Our economy will suffer once we open the borders wider than they are. Not to mention the possible influx of terrorists (though I've never been afraid of them, strictly speaking).

What is Bush's deal with foriegn policy? It's like he's trying to upset the world on purpose. And he's not even lying well. I mean, our past presidents at least respected us enough to tell us somewhat believable lies... but Bush isn't even trying.

Here's a list of other things we can stick to the president. I don't understand... if ANY other president had commited anything HALF as controversial as Bush, they would have been crucified on the lawn of the White House. *cough, cough* Clinton! *cough* I swear, knock down a couple of towers and the masses will do anything.

This This new weapons policy that's making Canadian officials so upset is just a drop in the sea, my friends. Personally, I think that it's because 40% of our taxes goes to the military and they just don't know what else to do with the money (give it back, I need it!). Who's going to stop him? Canada, I love you but Bush holds the world by its bean sack and short of invading the country, your cries fall on deaf (or apathetic) ears. As was said many times in this thread, if Bush can invade countries for no good reason (and I'm still not exactly sure what we're doing in Iraq), he can do anything. Bully.

Bush is no Wee Bruiser though... he can't have done all this on his own. Who's pulling his strings? Cheney? Now there's a smart business man.
-S



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join