Tag Archives: treason

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other’s troops in civil emergencies

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other’s troops in civil emergencies

By Ottawa Citizen

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.
© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.

SOURCE

Who doesn’t want to be President forever?

Bill Clinton Supports Changing 22nd Amendment on Presidential Term Limits

by Billy Hallowell

Former President Bill Clinton says he supports a new “rule” in dealing with limits to presidential governance. After individuals serve two terms, he says they should be able to serve a third — with a few caveats.

First and foremost, this regulation, should it be adopted, shouldn’t apply to anyone who has already served. Also, the former president would want the individual seeking a third round in the White House to take some time off after his or her second term.

Clinton was speaking to MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where he was promoting his new book, “Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy.”

When co-host Joe Scarborough asked, “Shouldn’t a president be able to take two terms, take time off and run again? Shouldn’t Americans have that choice?,” Clinton answered affirmatively, saying:

“I’ve always thought that should be the rule. I think as a practical matter, you couldn’t apply this to anyone who has already served, but going forward, I personally believe that should be the rule.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

SOURCE

Splitting AZ: Support grows for 51st state


Splitting AZ: Support grows for 51st state


Posted: Feb 24, 2011 7:43 PM EST Updated: Feb 25, 2011 4:00 PM EST
By Jessica Chapin, Reporter –

Splitting AZ; Support is growing for 51st state

“Start Our State” co-founders Paul Eckerstrom and Peter Hormel want Southern Arizona to break away and become the 51st state “Start Our State” co-founders Paul Eckerstrom and Peter Hormel want Southern Arizona to break away and become the 51st state
Hormel says with Pima County’s size and population, they could pull it off Hormel says with Pima County’s size and population, they could pull it off
State Senator Vic Williams, who represents Northwest Pima County, says they have bigger priorities State Senator Vic Williams, who represents Northwest Pima County, says they have bigger priorities
Pima County Board of Supervisors Chair Richard Elias says “Start Our State” is sending a message that’s been a long time coming Pima County Board of Supervisors Chair Richard Elias says “Start Our State” is sending a message that’s been a long time coming

TUCSON (KGUN9- TV) – One group is so fed up with Arizona politics they want to break away and form a brand new state. “Start Our State,” a new Pima County political committee, hopes to bring the initiative to voters in 2012.

Co-founders Peter Hormel and Paul Eckerstrom say the governor’s Federal lawsuit over immigration and new bills proposing to nullify Federal law are what sent their opinions over the edge.

“I and some other people finally got so frustrated with what’s happening in Phoenix that we felt obligated to do something about it,” said Hormel. “It’s an idea that I think once you take a step back and think about it, it starts to make more and more sense.”

He says with Pima County’s size and population, they could pull it off. Pima County has more square miles than New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island. It has more people than Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware and Alaska.

When asked about the financial feasibility, Hormel responded, “We certainly can’t do any worse than they’re doing now.”

He’s not alone in his thinking. Thursday, State Sen. Paula Aboud (D-28) proposed an amendment to SB 1433, which would enable the state to nullify certain Federal laws.

Today, I am offering an amendment to SB 1433 to propose that Pima County secede from the rest of the State,” she said on the floor. “We do not advocate their brand on our state and we don’t support their harmful legislation that continues to tarnish Arizona’s reputation.

The Senate voted no on the amendment, but passed the bill.

In response, several state legislators came out to support the proposed secession.



“The State of Baja Arizona proposal should get careful investigation and consideration at all levels,
” said Rep. Daniel Patterson (D-29). “Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise, Graham, Greenlee and Yuma Counties could make a nice new western state, with Tucson as the capital city.”

Not every Pima County-based law-maker agrees.

“I am a proud Arizonan who will not support creating a 51st state out of Southern Arizona,” said Rep. Bruce Wheeler (D-28)

Sen. Vic Williams (R-26) says the Northwest portion of the county has bigger priorities.

“I know that they’re going to come around,”
he said about central Tucson. “They’re going to see things our way and help work on the Governor’s job package for our greater prosperity here in Arizona.”

As for the county leaders who may stand to gain a political advantage with statehood, Board of Supervisors Chair Richard Elias says it’s a message, in the least, that’s been a long time coming.

“In many cases we feel like we’re being singled out and attacked on a regular basis by an extremist group of legislators,
” he said. “I’m quite proud to be a citizen of the United States of America and I would be proud to see our new state to be more accepting of the laws of the United States as they stand today.”

Details like potential names, slogans or flag logos have not yet been decided. Hormel says they must first put together a petition to put the motion on a ballot, and they’d leave details up to voters, provided it passes. Elias, however, did have a suggestion.

“I think we should be Arizona and I think all those people who have come here and moved to Maricopa County, they should figure out a new name for themselves because we’re the real Arizona,” he said.

The path to statehood would be long and arduous, even if the measure made it to the ballot and passed. The secession would need approval from state voters, a new constitution, and a final vote of approval from U.S. Congress and the president.
Comments

http://www.kgun9.com/story/14137897/pima-county-group-fed-up-starting-a-movement-to-start-a-new-state?redirected=true