End of Nations: Canada, the US and the "Security Perimeter"

reply to post by Selyatek


Let me help you with this one, since I am sure Xcath is tired from putting you boys through a "clinic"

Law Enforcement: A law enforcement officer is a government employee who is responsible for the prevention, investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws, including an employee engaged in this activity who is transferred to a supervisory or administrative position; or serving as a probation or pretrial services officer.

Military: mil·i·tar·y
  adjective
1.of, for, or pertaining to the army or armed forces, often as distinguished from the navy: from civilian to military life.
2.of, for, or pertaining to war: military preparedness.
3.of or pertaining to soldiers.
4.befitting, characteristic of, or noting a soldier
5.NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT

Now if you were to read the WHOLE article and not just the fear mongering, flash word headline you would have read the part about law enforcement...

Originally posted by Jerisa
reply to post by nexile

 

Unfortunately, we Canadians do not have the "Right to bare arms"....

Actually yes we do.

You can have arms. And not just hunting rifles. I know I do. It's all legal.

reply to post by SunnyDee


INDEED TO THE MAX . . . though the slow motion is also speeding up somewhat. Sigh.

Folks need to know what they believe;

what their ultimate priorities are;

have their food, water etc. taken care of for extended periods . . . etc.

Above all . . . be ready to meet Jesus The Christ.

reply to post by Unity_99


That might be grand . . . however, not going to happen until

The King of Kings returns and arrests/obliterates the last of them at Armageddon.

It seems clear to me from Biblical prophecy that the Marxist/globalist satanists WILL BE in charge for at least 3.5-7 years overtly. They've been covertly in charge a long time.

Thankfully, God has some big surprises in store for them.

reply to post by ALEXANDROS69


Well i think you should read the WHOLE article...It is clearly agaisnt the project.

It is from the article the OP did provide.

Meanwhile, the military merger of Canada and the US has proceeded in its own series of mutual agreements, beginning with the creation of NORTHCOM, the United States Northern Command, in 2002, which charged the US military with the protection of the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Mexico and Canada.

And i will be clear, you are living in a police state with increasing control. I don't want it here.

The security agreement uses the threat of terrorism, crime and health securities to announce an increasing merger of the two countries’ border security, including an integrated entry-exit system that will involve full sharing of individuals’ biometric details between the two governments by 2014 and even the creation of integrated cross-border law enforcement teams with authority to collect intelligence and conduct criminal investigations on either side of the border.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Let me say, I am not a fear monger but that is your opinion.

I asked two simple questions:

My question to you at ATS is this, how will your new NDAA policy work in this situation? Will the USA and Canada jointly use the military to control the people of both nations?

Since part of the agreement is military, let me re-iterate my question: How/will NDAA affect Canadians? It is a simple question sir and since you seem to be so well versed on this topic, please enlighten us all.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Sounds like the beginning of the New World Order...

About time. I welcome it.

edit on 26-12-2011 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)

"Welcome it"???????
Have you read that book pictured in your avatar or is reading too "old school"? Is it just a fashionably "cool" picure like a cheap chinese made che' T-shirt? If you had you would NOT welcome any human-spirit killing; citizen monitoring ("ingsoc")controlled totalitarian nwo society

Originally posted by Jerisa
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Let me say, I am not a fear monger but that is your opinion.

I asked two simple questions:

My question to you at ATS is this, how will your new NDAA policy work in this situation? Will the USA and Canada jointly use the military to control the people of both nations?

Since part of the agreement is military, let me re-iterate my question: How/will NDAA affect Canadians? It is a simple question sir and since you seem to be so well versed on this topic, please enlighten us all.

The agreements between the US and Canadian military will continue without interruption, and nothing in the NDAA changes that. The section people are fearmongering about is the portion that allows the US or Canadian military to respond inside each others territory in response to a disaster, only at the request of the appropriate chain of command on either side, and only under certain conditions (namely the need for immediate assistance when the general welfare of the people are in extreme danger). As with every other agreement, while operating on each others soil we are subservient to the chain of command for the area, including applicable laws.

Nothing in this agreement changes that portion. What the agreement does is allow for the military of the US or Canada be able to be requested by State / Provincial government and to be used to assist. Since we have one of the longest and undefended borders on the planet, and since the border regions don't always have large cities present for either side to draw assistance from, this seemed logical.

To help put some fears to rest, Federal US Military units are not capable of performing civilian law enforcement functions. State guard units, contrary to all the fear mongering, are not subservient to the Federal US Military. They are a unit of the state they are from, their Commander in Chief is the Governor of the State and then the Adjutant General of the State Militia. Contrary to popular belief the Federal Government can't just usurp authority and begin issuing orders unless its under specific conditions set forth in law.

Since those conditions only apply to Americans, the concerns of a "coup" in Canada again are based on paranoia and ignorance. As with Law Enforcement, any action taken by US law Enforcement, or Military upon request, places those people under Canadian Authority, not American.

Specifically Law Enforcement, where the agreements are extremely specific. Law Enforcement on either side must go through the equivalent training if they are going to qualify tom operate on both sides of the border. As with The Coast Guard and RCMP programs, once a border is crossed, for instance American Police operating in Canadian sovereign territory, they are operating as Canadian Law Enforcement, subject to all laws and requirements any Canadian Law Enforcement Officer is required to operate under.

If a Canadian Officer crosses into the US, they are required to operate as American Law Enforcement, and are equally subject to all laws, local state and federal, that govern American Law Enforcement.

What this DOES NOT DO - is allow a US officer or Canadian officer to cross into each others countries while conducting routine patrol. It specifically spells out under what conditions an officer of either country may cross the border. Its specifically requires ALL law enforcement be cross trained before being allowed to do so. It requires law enforcement on both sides to understand and acknowledge than when operating in a cross border situation that they are under the local / provincial / federal laws of Canada / local / state / federals laws of the United States and authority of the reciprocating agency, including chain of command.

All the info I provided answers the question you are asking, and the short answer is it changes absolutely nothing, on EITHER side of the border. No sovereignty is ceded to either side, nor does it allow law enforcement of either country to be dominant in a lopsided manner, nor does it allow the laws of the US to be applied in Canada or vice versa.

The same holds true for the military agreement. The intent behind that was to have more resources available to either nation by sharing what we have, and to allow those resources the ability to be requested at lower levels of government, who will know what the problem is and what the needs are before the Federal level will know.

None of these agreements allow for the enforcement of laws from one country inside the sovereign territory of the other. A US Police Officer cannot drive into Canada, knock on your front door, and arrest you for a violation of US law, and then drag you across the border.

It does not permit it, nor does it over-ride any laws / agreements in place dealing with cross border charges and extradition. The exact same standards are in place for the Military portion as well.

As far as the fear mongering comment goes - No its not my opinion. Fear mongering is EXACTLY what people are doing on this topic because they are either scared of it because they didn't bother to read it, or they are to lazy to understand it and all that it requires - thereby fear mongering.

Even the choice of your question language is fear mongering. It deals with both sides of the border, yet you ask only about the affects on Canada. The reason for that is to insinuate there wont be a Canadian affect on the US side, because the US affect will overshadow Canadian laws and perceptions.

So yes, you are fear mongering because you don't understand the agreements or how they operate. Let me help both sides answer the question. It wont affect either side because on the God awful chance it occurs, they would be operating under the laws that have been in place and used on both sides of the border since their inception, with NO CHANGES IN HOW THINGS ARE DONE. Something you and others would already know if you took the time to read and less time fear mongering.

I believe you'd be wrong on a few major points:

Friday, January 12, 2007
Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard
By Kavan Peterson, Staff Writer

Comments Write the editor Print this story

A little-noticed change in federal law packs an important change in who is in charge the next time a state is devastated by a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.

To the dismay of the nation’s governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor’s head and call up National Guard troops to aid a state in time of natural disasters or other public emergencies. Up to now, governors were the sole commanders in chief of citizen soldiers in local Guard units during emergencies within the state.

A conflict over who should control Guard units arose in the days after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. President Bush sought to federalize control of Guardsmen in Louisiana in the chaos after the hurricane, but Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) refused to relinquish command.

Over objections from all 50 governors, Congress in October tweaked the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to empower the hand of the president in future stateside emergencies. In a letter to Congress, the governors called the change "a dramatic expansion of federal authority during natural disasters that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National Guard and interfere with states' ability to respond to natural disasters within their borders."

The change adds to tensions between governors and the White House after more than four years of heavy federal deployment of state-based Guard forces to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, four out of five guardsmen have been sent overseas in the largest deployment of the National Guard since World War II. Shortage of the Guard’s military equipment – such as helicopters to drop hay to snow-stranded cattle in Colorado – also is a nagging issue as much of units’ heavy equipment is left overseas and unavailable in case of a natural disaster at home.

A bipartisan majority of both chambers of Congress adopted the change as part of the 439-page, $538 billion 2007 Defense Authorization Bill signed into law last October.

The nation's governors through the National Governors Association (NGA) successfully lobbied to defeat a broader proposal to give the president power to federalize Guard troops without invoking the Insurrection Act. But the passage that became law also "disappointed" governors because it expands federal power and could cause confusion between state and federal authorities trying to respond to an emergency situation, said David Quam, an NGA homeland security advisor.

"Governors need to be focused on assisting their citizens during an emergency instead of looking over their shoulders to see if the federal government is going to step in," Quam said.

Under the U.S. Constitution, each state's National Guard unit is controlled by the governor in time of peace but can be called up for federal duty by the president. The National Guard employs 444,000 part-time soldiers between its two branches: the Army and Air National Guards.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids U.S. troops from being deployed on American soil for law enforcement. The one exception is provided by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which lets the president use the military only for the purpose of putting down rebellions or enforcing constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so. Under that law, the president can declare an insurrection and call in the armed forces. The act has been invoked only a handful of times in the past 50 years, including in 1957 to desegregate schools and in 1992 during riots in south central Los Angeles after the acquittal of police accused of beating Rodney King.

Congress changed the Insurrection Act to list "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident" as conditions under which the president can deploy U.S. armed forces and federalize state Guard troops if he determines that "authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order."

Backers of the new rules, including U.S. Sens. John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said the changes were needed to clarify the role of the armed forces in responding to serious domestic emergencies.
Mark Smith, spokesperson for the Louisiana Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, said local and state emergency responders know what their communities need during a crisis better than officials in Washington.
"The president should not be able to step in and take control of the National Guard without a governor's consent. The Guard belongs to the states, has always belonged to the states and should remain a function of the states," Smith said.

www.stateline.org...

reply to post by Xcathdra


I was intrested that you asked this and more intersted that no one had replied to you. So i did a little digging and found A PDF file that explaines it very well. here is a small list of rights that are declared in the bill of rights that Americans are now bieng denied in suspicion of "terrorism investigation"

www.nyclu.org...

Hope you enjoy. It is an eye opener.

reply to post by 46ACE


Please follow through and continue to see how that legislation ended up.

The use of military for domestic law enforcement was never written into law when our country was founded. They did make it a point to note they cant house soldiers though.

Posse Commitatus came into being after the civil war for obvious reasons at the time. The Federal Law is just that, and can be changed / revoked by Congress at any point.

The use of state military units under state command are NOT covered by Posse Commitatus. The dilemma using Federal Military for State action revolved around the Federal Government trampling over the rights of the states.

Katrina is a prime example of how the system didn't work because of the incompetence of the state, not the feds.

reply to post by Jerisa


Bear, not bare.

You all are jumping to conclusions, especially the poster that compared this to the Fourth Reich. What I'm reading is more cooperation in pursuing suspected U.S citizens when they hop the border. I'm not sure how that's a bad thing?

I will say that I don't like that I can't go to Canada without an enhanced license or passport.

Originally posted by Livaleos
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I was intrested that you asked this and more intersted that no one had replied to you. So i did a little digging and found A PDF file that explaines it very well. here is a small list of rights that are declared in the bill of rights that Americans are now bieng denied in suspicion of "terrorism investigation"

www.nyclu.org...

Hope you enjoy. It is an eye opener.

Please spend some time either following up on the claims in the PDF file you linked, or feel free to search this site, where the same PDF has been brought up time and again, and then shot down time and again. I dont want to derail this thread, but if people are interested in the counter argument to your link I will be more than happy to not only provide you with it, but the links to either legislation or court cases that counters every single claim made.

Don't get me wrong. People should be all about keeping tabs on the government, at all levels, as well as minding what the police do. At the same time though people should be responsible enough to follow through if they are going to make claims about a persons rights being taken away.

I find this so alarming. We cannot have US military and US police partners and joined at the hip with ours. We have to stop being passive and just listening to all this bad news. What do we do? OWS type thing? How to wake more up? Tshirt campaign against them? Banners on our cars? Signs on our properties? People are graphic, and to warm them up to more info its best to catch them with short graphics. Or what? Local online free radio stations I thought of that before.

reply to post by Jerisa


Yes Canada will become the 51 state.
And from then on Canadian bacon shall be called northerner bacon, and not considered true bacon. And all Canadians shall be required to speak English..... eh.

But no really most of it is just a money making scam's for the elites, and corp's, you know the deal, its been done before...All your resources are belong to us, for very cheep, it's all just steps and processes leading to that.

Consolidating laws, processes and proxies basically.

Originally posted by Unity_99
I find this so alarming. We cannot have US military and US police partners and joined at the hip with ours. We have to stop being passive and just listening to all this bad news. What do we do? OWS type thing? How to wake more up? Tshirt campaign against them? Banners on our cars? Signs on our properties? People are graphic, and to warm them up to more info its best to catch them with short graphics. Or what? Local online free radio stations I thought of that before.

Waking people up will not stop the inevitable.... embrace this.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Treason and not going to happen. Mr. Harper an Mr. Obama require long prison sentences. And like they did in Germany all the documents seized, declared crimes against humanity and the signatures confessions.

That is what happened in the Nuremberg Trials. We need to raise public awareness and get out going on the arrests part of this whole NWO. We have to arrest all of these Fascists, and the Rothcilds, Rockefellers, Kissingers, Royal Family, a whole lot more.

edit on 26-12-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

the russians, chinese and iranians will hold those trials after they "liberate" us from the clutches of evil imperialism.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Harper is Bilderberg. He has had the a** reaming initiation,with a fat check.
Need I say more? This too shall pass like a prune enema.

reply to post by 46ACE


Maybe he thinks he will get a cushy job in charge of everything...

reply to post by Unity_99


Belize sounds nice...