Posted on 02/23/2008 9:18:08 AM PST by BGHater
Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.
Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.
The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.
The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.
The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.
"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites," said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.
Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.
"Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?" he asked.
Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. "We don't know the answers because the government doesn't want to even announce the plan," he said.
But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.
He said the agreement is "benign" and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.
"But there's no agreement to allow troops to come in," he said. "It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The 'allow' piece is entirely up to the two governments."
If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.
News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.
On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a "North American union" where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.
"Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!" notes one website. "The next time your town has a 'national emergency,' don't be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember - Canadian military aren't bound by posse comitatus."
Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.
Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.
Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn't been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.
BTTT
Watch the youtube video and get enlightened! People like you with your head in the sand will cause the rest of us to be injected with a chip and thus become slaves to the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo
“But why the insults”?
This was my very first thought on this subject but, I’m not the first.
This has been a fear for many in the pro-sovereignty, pro-2nd amend. crowd for years although, it involved mainly the threat of bluehat UN troops from whatever number of countries.
This could be the beginning of such a threat. When we send our troops to other countries for disaster relief, there’s always this thought in the back of their minds.(natives)
exg is CERTAINLY NOT a troll.
When exg asks why you are making insults, you claim it is because of how exg views your second amendment, when exg has said nothing about the subject.
Don't get your panties in a knot over Canadian troops, Swampie.
If you lose your second amendment rights if will be because YOUR government took them away, not some Canadian soldiers.
Couldn’t tell frankly. Should have stayed home and finished the maple syrup run.
As for you, Noobie, do a little research before bashing an ally.
B.C. urban rescue team headed to Louisiana
Canadians donate over $1 million for Hurricane Katrina relief
Don't tell them, but, we are already there.
Yeah, that's a problem isn't it.
The point of the Second Amendment is to make sure that the politicians aren't the only ones with guns.
That’s what this agreement is about. It’s not to set up an invasion of U.S. territory by Canadian forces, or vice versa. This is how we normally do things, only now there’s a formal, written agreement on procedure. If we need help, they’ll provide it. If they need help, we’ll provide it. Same as it’s been in the past. I understand your concerns, but this is not something to be overly worried about.
To quote exg; “I suppose these guys are trying to take your precious guns too”,
Did you look at the link exg provided?
I can see how you would read it like that, however, as a Canadian, I see exg's comment as a plea to stop the Canada bashing that is so rampant here.
Let's just give back Kalifornia.
The comment in discussion shows a remarkable disdain for a vital part of our Constitution, a part that many of us will fight to preserve. I have no interest in giving law enforcment powers to anyone else not bound by the Constitution, we have enough of those already.
Yes, a Republic, if you can keep it.
America is the worlds beacon of freedom.
Good luck.
BUAIDH NO BAS!
BUMP!
Thanks Ben. Good evening to you...
“This would be effective 99% in one direction.”
If you get 4 years of Obama or Clinton and we get another 4 years of Harper will be in the other direction.
Actually, the Liberals made an agreement like this with the USA in 2003, this is probably more of a renewal of it after 5 years.
The agreement came out from the big ice storm in eastern Canada at the very end of 1997. There were 1100 troops in Edmonton that they needed out east, but they had to get there by begging the Americans and others for a ride. The Liberals then made this agreement as a way to avoid beefing up the Canadian military.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
