Canada too friendly to terrorists: U.S. report

The Star ^ | 02/15/04 | JIM BRONSKILL

[Pikamax]

Canada too friendly to terrorists: U.S. report

BY JIM BRONSKILL CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA — Canada has been branded a "favored destination for terrorists and international criminals" by the research arm of the U.S. Congress.

Generous constitutional freedoms, weak law enforcement and lightly patrolled borders have made the country an inviting place for dangerous extremists to set up shop, says a new report by the Library of Congress in Washington.

"Canada has played a significant role as a base for both trans-national criminal activity and terrorist activity," the report says.

The report, titled Nations Hospitable to Organized Crime and Terrorism, was completed in October by the congressional library's federal research division under an arrangement with the Central Intelligence, Crime and Narcotics Center.

The center, staffed by members of various U.S. intelligence agencies, analyses information about illicit drug trafficking.

The authors drew on government studies, police and intelligence reports, media stories, academic articles and "personal communications with regional experts."

The report notes the recent co-operation between Canadian and U.S. officials in fighting terrorism. It also acknowledges Canadian steps to toughen anti-terrorism and immigration laws, but casts doubt on whether they go far enough, saying Canada's "liberal democratic identity" may limit adoption of sterner measures.

The Canadian government has expended great effort to try to dispel a nagging image of the country — particularly in the eyes of some hawkish Americans — as a terrorist haven.

The congressional library report could undermine that effort since the document is intended for politicians, aides, lawyers, and other movers and shakers on Capitol Hill.

Representatives of the Canadian government and public interest groups quickly took issue with the report.

"While we may have areas that we must continue to work on, every country has areas that it must work on in the fight against terrorism," said Alex Swann, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan.

"The issues that we have to deal with are pretty common ones globally."

Janet Dench of the Canadian Council for Refugees questioned the quality of the report's research, calling it one-sided and "laughably amateurish."

She said its themes are "chilling" and "virtually totalitarian" given the study's association of broad civil liberties with the cultivation of terrorism.

Numerous other countries, including leading industrialized nations like Britain, France and Germany, are also critiqued in the 234-page report, along with the likes of Algeria, Indonesia and Russia.

But only a handful of jurisdictions in the Western Hemisphere — Canada, Colombia, Mexico and the notorious tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay — are the focus of attention.

The report claims that terrorists and crime syndicates are increasingly using Canada as an operational base and transit country en route to the United States.

"A generous social-welfare system, lax immigration laws, infrequent prosecutions, light sentencing, and long borders and coastlines offer many points and methods of entry that facilitate movement to and from various countries, particularly to the United States," the report says.

"These factors combine to make Canada a favored destination for terrorists and international crime groups."

The report highlights the case of Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian-born Montrealer caught trying to slip across the border in 1999 to bomb Los Angeles International Airport. While planning the attack, Ressam supplemented his welfare payments by stealing cash and credit cards.

The authors note that until recently there has been no widespread concern Canada could be the victim of a terrorist attack.

"Sensitivity to civil liberties combined with this low threat perception has made both the adoption and enforcement of tougher immigration laws and strong counter-terrorism measures more difficult."

Roch Tasse of the Ottawa-based International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group said U.S. policies seem entirely geared toward policing, protection and wariness of newcomers.

"We should have a very serious second look before we succumb to U.S. pressure to harmonize in their direction," Tasse said.

"Short of becoming a police state, we can hardly respond to what they would expect of us."

Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Canada brought in new anti-terrorism laws, tightened screening of immigrants and refugees and worked out an extensive border-control agreement with its neighbour.

"However, enforcement will be the key," the report says. Success of the laws "will depend in large part on whether a new balance between civil liberties and security concerns will yield effective prevention."

For instance, the report contends the new immigration law would not have prevented Ressam from using Canada as a planning base.

Most of the criminal means by which terrorists raise funds, such as fraud, theft and counterfeiting, still would not disqualify a person from remaining in Canada, the authors argue.

The report even takes issue with the name of the 2002 law — the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act — saying it "serves as an indication of the prevailing concern for or priority placed upon civil liberties in Canada."

[NorthOf45]

Question ... when was a terrorist attack successfully carried out on the U.S. from a Canadian sleeper cell.

Also, am I to understand from what you state that Ottawa has an "arrangement" with terrorist groups? If so, then good to know.

[albertabound]

Why do you think we are against you? We have troops abroad and warships at sea. What proof is there that Canada is crawling with terrorists sneaking about with hockey sticks clenched between thier teeth anxious to slapshoot America back to the stoneage. There are also many suspicious looking " foreigners" working in New Jersey 7/11 stores. Having said that, our immigrant favourable government needs to beef up border security, screen new applicants more thoroghly and nab the 30,000 illegals that were ordered deported but have disappeared from the radar screen. Our agencies seem to be co-operating and notwithstanding alarming government reports, that is where the rubber meets the road.

[mark502inf]

Also, am I to understand from what you state that Ottawa has an "arrangement" with terrorist groups

My apologies. No, there is not an arrangement. Better to have said something along the lines of current "state of affairs." Even better to have said nothing at all. The Canadian contributions in Afghanistan are well-known and the Canadian troops have fought well. The RCMP is a reliable partner in the hunt for terrorists. In the scheme of things there are a lot bigger problems. Go Red Wings.

[NorthOf45]

It's all good. Forums can be cryptic. On to the bigger things.

[albertabound]

Quietly, Canadian and American officials are discussing further integration


Canadians are so exasperated with George W. Bush that few politicians dare to speak about Canada-U.S. ties. The topic was inserted as an afterthought into the final paragraphs of the Speech from the Throne, tucked under the deliciously vague heading of "Canada's role in the world." The almost visceral reaction to the U.S. President has turned any overt attempts at closer ties into political suicide on the brink of a spring election.

And that makes what is going on behind the scenes all the more astonishing. Politicians may be coy, but bureaucrats are quietly devising plans for closer ties across multiple areas. Ottawa's Canadian Centre for Management Development is even offering an eight-month course for top bureaucrats on how to take account of Canada-U.S. concerns in daily decisions. (In keeping with Ottawa's below-the-radar approach, this course cannot be found on its Web site.) "It's a top priority within the bureaucracy, the preoccupation of most departments," says Tom d'Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. "Next year, you will be able to point to initiatives where we have moved forward."

Consider the following:

• The U.S. is implacable in its determination to secure its borders. That could spell huge trouble for exporters. Last month, U.S. officials began to photograph and fingerprint all visa visitors arriving at 115 airports and 14 ports. By the end of this year, that program is to be extended to the 50 busiest land crossings; by the end of next year, it is to include all land crossings. That could lead to catastrophic lineups — so Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan is scrambling to find a compromise with her U.S. counterpart Tom Ridge. The idea is: we assuage their security fears, such as increased monitoring of the largely unpatrolled Great Lakes, and they will work harder at preventing border delays.

[Kozak]

It unfortunately is that black and white. The US is pointing out the fact that Canada is not doing enough to prevent terror cells from operating in Canada. If they harm us, we will be royally and rightly pissed. How would Canada feel if the shoe was on the other foot? Say if Quebec separatists were operating in the States and preparing to attack? The least you can expect is a shut down of the border, and perhaps a military presence.

And re defence, Canada has been leaching off the US for several decades now. Knowing full well the US has to protect all of North America. Meanwhile, acting oh so superior and morally elevated. I'm damn sick of it.

[NorthOf45]

I see your point, but still say that "with us or against us" is not a black and white issue as percieved by some. We do though need to step up on our border watch.

Now regarding the defence issue and Canada leaching off the U.S. ... I'm not sure what to say here. For starters, when has the U.S. defended Canada? Yes, Canada may benefit from a united defence with American forces, if required, but you can't tell me that the U.S. defends Canada out of the goodness of it's heart. It will defend Canada because of proximity. Whether we have a suitable military or not, U.S. forces would still be there to understandably defend the U.S. What are the costs for defending your northern neighbour? Is this a free service I don't know about? Bottom line, our military does what it can with what our godforsaken government provides while the U.S. military will do what it deems is necessary. To the best of my knowledge, there is cooperation all around.

[Kozak]

Yah, it is a free service for Canadians, allowing you to wallow in your increasingly socialistic, dysfunctional policies. You've been allowed to have a rump military, knowing that come what may, we will defend you. If you had shouldered your portion of the burden, it would have freed up US forces/ resources we could have used in other areas. Once upon a time Canada was an ally who could and did help to shoulder that burden and defend liberty. Starting in the 70's you all decided it wasn't a priority, leaving that burden solely on us. In addition Canadians love tweaking our noses with your foreign policy, embrasing the likes of Castro, and the Sandinista's, while at the same time secure in your secret heart that we won't let anything bad happen to Canada no matter what.

The best thing the US could do to improve the security of our northern border would be to take over the job of security at all Canadian ports of entry. That way unless the terrorists want to walk over the pole, or swim the Atlantic or Pacific, we would shut down the northern hole in our defences. Don't worry, it won't happen, at least I don't think it will unless a few thousand of us die because Canada has the welcome mat out to terrorists. Lets all hope it doesn't.

[Sunsong]

"Saying Syria is friendly to terrorists is OK by me, but Canada ?"

Absolutely. It's time to wake up to what's going on up North. Canada is indeed a haven for terrorists.

[Sunsong]

"Here we go again ... give it up already. Both nations have issues. We both need to get our act together and pointing fingers is useless."

I disagree. Canada is a threat to America with their creeping socialism, lax law enforcement, rampant anti-Americanism and tolerance for terrorists. It's time for America and Americans to make our borders safe.

[Sunsong]

"So, sleeper cells in Canada cause an event in the U.S. and suddenly we're an enemy worthy of an extreme reaction ... nice. I'm glad not all Americans think like that."

Enough do. Rather than telling us Americans here on our site what we should be doing, better to change your own government. There is no moral equivalence between the United States of American and Canada. Canada needs to deal with terrorists and the threat of terorism. America is already about that business.

[Sunsong]

"Yes, Canada may benefit from a united defence with American forces, if required, but you can't tell me that the U.S. defends Canada out of the goodness of it's heart."

Canada is nothing more than another US protectorate. But unlike countries like Porta Rico Canada is too dishonest to admit it.

[Sunsong]

"What proof is there that Canada is crawling with terrorists"

Read the article and the links provided on this thread.

[NZerFromHK]

The first thing for you to do is...

1) get someone like John Howard as your PM.
2) put all asylum seekers into detention centres.
3) rebuild your military by building 10 frigates, 100 new fighters, building intelligence networks, and joining US NMD programme as Australia has done (with support from both the Right and the Left).

[NorthOf45]

'Yah, it is a free service for Canadians, allowing you to wallow in your increasingly socialistic, dysfunctional policies ...'

For starters, don't tell me what I do and don't do. You generalize your comments, therefore including me in your assessment. You don't know me and therefore cannot judge me.

'If you had shouldered your portion of the burden, it would have freed up US forces/ resources we could have used in other areas. Once upon a time Canada was an ally who could and did help to shoulder that burden and defend liberty.'

I've already stated earlier in this thread that I am critical with what is going on in my country. It disgusts me to see what is happening with our military. We have a very good military, albeit a small one, and it is sadly ignored by our government. However, we do get involved in theatres of operation, freeing up U.S. troops and costing us lives, to defend our values such as liberty.

'The best thing the US could do to improve the security of our northern border would be to take over the job of security at all Canadian ports of entry.'

You talk as if you already have ... being our protector and all.

'we would shut down the northern hole in our defences.'

You see, this is what frustrates me. Canada is a hole in America's defenses, yet there is no military perimeter set up on the U.S. side of the border. Individuals such as yourself lecture us about our lax security, meanwhile your government appears to be satisfied, with some criticism, of our efforts. You have three other directions from which terrorists can, and do, enter your country. Perhaps more effort should be concentrated on pulling up the welcome mats there.

'Don't worry, it won't happen, at least I don't think it will unless a few thousand of us die because Canada has the welcome mat out to terrorists. Lets all hope it doesn't.'

Yes, let's hope that it doesn't.

'Canada is a threat to America with their creeping socialism, lax law enforcement, rampant anti-Americanism and tolerance for terrorists. It's time for America and Americans to make our borders safe.'

The 'tolerance for terrorists' is wider spread than just us ... it includes the U.S., whether you want to admit it or not. Yes, it is time for America and Canada to make our borders safe. Steps are being taken on both sides.

'Rather than telling us Americans here on our site what we should be doing, better to change your own government.'

Yes, changes need to be made. However, if defending our position and pointing out that we're not the only deficiency is telling you what to do, then so be it.

'Canada is nothing more than another US protectorate.'

Tell me when Canada needed protection from the U.S. I see no buildup of military might around our shores and northern front.

'The first thing for you to do is... '

We, or at least some of us know what needs to be done. Hopefully that number will grow with the currently evolving situations. That remains to be seen though.

Bottom line people is that yeah, we have issues to confront here. However, this terrorist haven issue is getting old, especially when Canada is only one variable in an equation of many, including your own U.S. of A.

[Sunsong]

My view is "too bad" if you think the terrorist haven accusations are getting. If the truth hurts...

"Yes, changes need to be made. However, if defending our position and pointing out that we're not the only deficiency is telling you what to do, then so be it.

I don't see where it states that the purpose of this site is to "defend Canada". Do you? And beyond that Canada is so much worse than America that it is annoying to hear you trying to compare Canada to America. Canada is an arrogant, irrelevant country that does not pull her own weight but exploits the good will of America and Americans. Canada could no more defend Herself than She could expect to be taken seriously on the world stage.

"Tell me when Canada needed protection from the U.S. I see no buildup of military might around our shores and northern front."

This is the dishonesty that I am talking about. Canada has let Her military deteriorate into third world status *because* She is the neighbor of the mighty United States of America and She knows that no one will attack Her. That is the equivalent of being a US protectorate. But As I said, Canada and Canadians do not have the honesty to admit it. Canada and Canadians should thank God everyday for America, imo. You should be showing gratitude and respect instead spewing hatred, jealousy and intellectually dishonest arguments.

It is more than annoying to me to listen to the hateful anti-Americanism coming from your country when you benefit in so many ways from being next to America.

It is time for America to make our borders safe. I do not believe that Canada can be trusted and so I think we need to take the responsiblity, as we usually do and do it ourselves. To hell with Canada...

[NorthOf45]

'If the truth hurts...'

That's just it, the truth doesn't hurt. My reaction is a defense to an accusation blown out of proportion.

'I don't see where it states that the purpose of this site is to "defend Canada". Do you? And beyond that Canada is so much worse than America that it is annoying to hear you trying to compare Canada to America.'

I'm not defining the purpose of this site nor am I trying to compare the two countries. I simply state that we both have issues regarding defense against terrorists that need to be addressed.

'Canada is an arrogant, irrelevant country that does not pull her own weight but exploits the good will of America and Americans. Canada could no more defend Herself than She could expect to be taken seriously on the world stage.'

... and you're calling my comments arrogant?

'This is the dishonesty that I am talking about. Canada has let Her military deteriorate into third world status *because* She is the neighbor of the mighty United States of America and She knows that no one will attack Her. That is the equivalent of being a US protectorate. But As I said, Canada and Canadians do not have the honesty to admit it.'

I'm being honest when I ask why anyone would attack Canada? Aside from a terrorist attack, in which military might is virtually rendered useless due to surprise, no one would attack Canada directly. If anyone did attack Canada, it would be because we were in the way of getting to the U.S. That's honesty.

'Canada and Canadians should thank God everyday for America, imo. You should be showing gratitude and respect instead spewing hatred, jealousy and intellectually dishonest arguments.'

Actually, I am thankful for living next to the U.S. But not for the reasons you think. I do not hate the U.S. I have great respect for the country as a whole. I may not like Bush or some who are anti-Canada, but I don't let that cloud my judgement.

'It is more than annoying to me to listen to the hateful anti-Americanism coming from your country when you benefit in so many ways from being next to America.'

The idiocy of our current government and the media do not mirror the majority of the populace. Again, I am not anti-American. But will someone like you discern that?

[Sunsong]

"That's just it, the truth doesn't hurt. My reaction is a defense to an accusation blown out of proportion."

The truth is that Canada is lax on terrorism. Look at your immigration policy. Look at your attitude toward groups like hamas and hezbalah etc. Are you aware of the statements of Chretien in the last couple of years regarding terrorist nations and his attitude toward them?

"I'm not defining the purpose of this site nor am I trying to compare the two countries. I simply state that we both have issues regarding defense against terrorists that need to be addressed.

Of course you are. You said that you are here "defending" Canada. And I ask you again, where does it say that that is the purpose of this site? This is an American site where Americans are free to speak their mind and to promote conservatism in America. How are you honoring the purpose of this site?

Me:"Canada is an arrogant, irrelevant country that does not pull her own weight but exploits the good will of America and Americans. Canada could no more defend Herself than She could expect to be taken seriously on the world stage."

your response:"... and you're calling my comments arrogant?"

I did not call your comments arrogant. I called your country arrogant. Which it is. There is nothing I said there that is not true. Canada *is* an arrogant country. You don't hear Americans saying that they are "morally superior" to Canadians. You don't hear American government officials talking about "hating those Canadian bastards". You don't hear American government officials calling Chretien or Martin a "moron". Canada *is* an irrelevant country. Canada could not defend Herself. Period. Those are facts.

"I'm being honest when I ask why anyone would attack Canada? Aside from a terrorist attack, in which military might is virtually rendered useless due to surprise, no one would attack Canada directly. If anyone did attack Canada, it would be because we were in the way of getting to the U.S. That's honesty.

Well maybe you are deluded. You sound just like the French. Muslim terrorists could very well attack Canada, as could China. You are deluding yourself if you think that Islamic terrorists do not hate Canada.

"Actually, I am thankful for living next to the U.S. But not for the reasons you think. I do not hate the U.S. I have great respect for the country as a whole. I may not like Bush or some who are anti-Canada, but I don't let that cloud my judgement.

I'm saying that you ought to be grateful to America for the reasons I've stated and more. What are you doing on this site if you don't like President Bush? I ask again, how are you honoring the purpose of this site by bringing an anti George W. Bush attitude here? Are you aware that most everyone here will be working to re-elect President Bush and defeat the democrat nominee?

"The idiocy of our current government and the media do not mirror the majority of the populace. Again, I am not anti-American. But will someone like you discern that?

I think the majority of Canadians are indeed anti-American. The latest poll I saw said that the vast majority of Canadians want President Bush to be defeated. And really, what does it matter if you or a couple of people are not anti-American. So what? Your country is. And that is a problem. As I said, better for you to work on changing your own country, as we are doing here -- than to come onto this American site and defend the indefensible. Rather than trying to defend Canada as She is. Change Her.

[NorthOf45]

'The truth is that Canada is lax on terrorism.'

I'm not denying this. But, at the same time, the accusation is being blown out of proportion. As for Chretien, I am well aware of, and embarrassed by, what he has said.

'This is an American site where Americans are free to speak their mind and to promote conservatism in America. How are you honoring the purpose of this site?'

Again, I am in no way trying to "define the purpose of this site". Is it yours to say how one should use this sight? Are you an admin here? I know what the foundation of this site is. However, it's also my understanding that this site provides an open forum through which individuals can engage in discussion.

'I did not call your comments arrogant. I called your country arrogant.'

OK, I'll give you that one. But, what you say is indicative of that trait. As for government officials insulting Canada ... no, I don't recall a specific occurence. There are many examples of American personalities/celebrities providing their 2 cents worth though. In addition, Bush's waiting 2 days (if I remember correctly) before acknowledging the deaths of our soldiers in the friendly fire incident requires no words to be insulting.

'Well maybe you are deluded. You sound just like the French. Muslim terrorists could very well attack Canada, as could China.'

No, I'm not deluded ... and I'll ignore the comment comparing me to the French. As for the issue of terrorists hitting Canada, reread my comment, I did not exclude that possibility.

'I think the majority of Canadians are indeed anti-American. The latest poll I saw said that the vast majority of Canadians want President Bush to be defeated.'

Two things ... I wouldn't put much weight in that one poll (about Bush and not the U.S. in general) and I've seen other polls which denounce anti-Americanism.

'Rather than trying to defend Canada as She is. Change Her.'

I'll continue to defend what Canada is to me. I will not defend our current government or misguided media, but I will defend our people, military, values, contributions and potential. As for changing her, I'm there.

[JustPiper]

Have you seen this?