It echoes in here. ;~D

I have to inform Ottawa Command! Somebody saw trough our plan to enslave american citizen while on your side of your border, and take them in our maple syrup mines!


Funny you don't care much about American Troops illegaly within Canadian borders?

Actually Cikomyr, I'm against the illegal use of troops of either country on either side of the border. 

Kind of sappy. ;~D

ParaTed,

I gotta say that I do admire your concern and attention for the constitution of your fine country. Saddly, I believe there are not enough folks like yourself who scrutinize these kinds of things... allow me to 'splain.

First off, and to add a little perspective, our countries have had intertwined defense since the end of WW2 as I'm sure you know. I do believe it was actually a Canadian officer on watch in Norad on 9/11. And up where I live there's a lot of DEW line sites that were built as a joint US/Can venture and are jointly staffed. The U.S has somewhere on the order of 800 bases in foreign countries/territories around the world- there are 0 bases of foreigners on your soil. In regards to Posse Commitatus, it's already been subverted a couple of different ways...

I will find the exact piece of legislation that was enacted in your country last year, but it was an emergency powers act (or something along those lines) that basically states that your president can call up the military, including the national guard of whichever state he wants, if he deems the situation to be an emergency. The question then becomes, what constitutes an emergency? Well, the wording is pretty vague. So vague in fact that if the president says it's an emergency, it's an emergency and he can do what he wants. This effectively subverts the whole "can't use the military for law enforcement"

The other loophole is thanks to the wonders of capitalism, and it's called... Blackwater!
During hurricane Katrina blackwater deployed hundreds of heavily armed soldiers into the disaster area. From a legal standpoint, they are mercenaries, a private army. They do not have the legal training of law enforcement officers or are bound to a code of conduct or the constitution (or even a recognized uniform, as is required by the geneva conventions) They are a big legal grey area. In international law, specifically the GC, the use of mercenaries is a HUGE no no, but that didn't stop the deployment of tens of thousands of them in Iraq. Did you know that there are more mercenaries in Iraq than the entire British contingent? Technical term isn't mercenary though, it's "civilian contractor". Anywho, during Katrina Blackwater charged the U.S gov something close to 1000.00 dollars per day per soldier- big money to be made. Many of those deployed were back fresh from Iraq.

After the smashing success of Katrina, Blackwater now has a domestic division. Imagine the L.A riots or even the seattle WTO incident repeating today... only now there WILL be heavily armed civillian contractors deployed, most likely not wearing any uniform or having taken any oath of service as army regulars have to do.

In my mind it's this privatized army concept that you have much more to worry about than the recognized uniformed forces of an allied nation deployed on your soil... your thoughts?

Artysim: I know there are joint operations between Canadian and U.S. troops.  I've participated in a few of these myself.  However, they were training operations only and were the result of legal agreements between those in authority to make treaties and international agreements. 

As far as Blackwater and Iraq.  There have been private security workers protecting civilian government employees and private contractors in almost all our wars, at least as far back as WWII.   Private security companies have guards on a lot of America's military bases.  In New Orleans, Blackwater was contracted because the police force of the city of New Orleans mostly exists on paper.  Most of the people listed as members of the police force didn't exist.  Furthermore, the police that do exist refused to respond to calls.

I'll give you one guess who was president when Blackwater was first contracted for security work for the federal government.. hint... his name doesn't start with a B.

They do wear uniforms and are strictly controlled by the terms of their contract.

That being said, no armed civilian contractors with the ability to cross the line isn't good either.  I'm not defending Blackwater, I'm merely pointing out the facts.

Besides, how does accusations of past problems exuse future ones.

~~~~~

The point is though, this agreement has no Constitutional basis, nor has it been presented to the senate.  Until it is, it is illegal and unconstitutional.