Canadian Air Carriers Slam Into Patriot Act

[Mcluhan]

If Canada were to respond to things like this with trade sanctions, as several of your remarks suggest, it would hurt us more than it would hurt them. It would suck to be poor.

There ya go (again) twisting the sentences 180 degrees and putting them ass-backwards into my mouth, in order to support your off-centre position. Where do I advocate tariffs? Lol..in fact, this issue that you invent, where it to be applicable, is exactly the opposite. Talk to any mill owner, or softwood supplier. It's the US that has the protectionist tariffs. I was proposing it's time to get less reliant on the US market for the few pitiful things that we do actually still supply (and for the reasons that you twist backwards). It was a business solution. And yes, we definitely should be making at least one household appliance in Canada, but that's another argument, I just threw on it initially to fan the fire.

lol, Are you actually a Canadian Trunc? Or more a Torontonian (as I suspect) with New Yorker Syndrome

9-11 happened less than four years ago. It's not as though use of a hijacked plane as a weapon of mass destruction is some sort of paranoid tin-foil-het theory. A terrorist at the helm of a big passenger airplane can and will do a lot more damage than Stephen Harper ever could or would.

Be careful of over-use of that tin-foil-hat metaphor, your sounding clichéd doesn't fit with your uniquely interesting writing style.

The mission is to stop the terrorists BEFORE they get on the plane. This latest manoeuvre is simply leverage to gain more information on you as a citizen under the guise of protecting American airspace. That's the point under discussion. Consider for a moment where this process leads, and where you must draw the line. I'm drawing the line in the sand here, RIGHT here. Our domestic PERSONAL information on citizenry movements is none of any other foreign countries business. PERIOD. I have a clear and meaningful cause to take this position, you on the other hand (seemingly) have some weak rational for capitulation which I find is against our national interest, and therefore against my personal interest, and as such, is a threat to my rights as a citizen. (in fact now that I actually see how serious this is, I think you should go to jail for the weekend or do some comminty time as penance)


Wouldn't it be reasonable for both sides to compromise, seeing as how it's a bi-national issue ? It's not as though the Americans are proposing that we be banned from taking shortcuts through their turf. It's reasonable for them to ask something in return, no ?

Yes, I agree. They can ask. But I guarantee you they will be as high-handed and broadminded as our friendly American poster-neighbour OTB, whose position is, "Tough, we own it, it's our way or the highway." Wake up Trunc. This is Canada. They are Americans. They are an aggressive, take-no prisoners para-military-business mentality that are trying to gain a leg-up on your sovereignty. And you/we are a fat lazy docile sheep. Jesus, there should be some kind of therapy where some Canadians can go to regain their sense of lost national survival mechanisms.

Quote:
International Law is based on International Shipping Law, and to date it's the strongest body of Laws in common to the Planet. What's your point? I am quite sure the US suggestion will run contrary to this body of law. Someone with 'real' knowledge no doubt speak out on it shortly.


I was speaking to the belief, widesparead in Canada, that a sovereign nation has to get permission from the UN or whatever before starting a war.

Yes, opposite to your Patriotic bedfellow to the South, the one whose demands to invade your sovereign privacy you are crawling in with.

 

[red]

Amongst other things he was supporting terrorists, that's not news. So indirect it could be presented as self defense.
Any good laywer could present that............"You don't have to pay us, until we get money for you"...

not sure that qualifies- the charter states that a member state may defend itself against an armed attack. it would not appear on the surface that Saddam supporting terrorists - mainly suicide bombers in israel, counts as an armed attack against the US.

on the other hand - I am glad he is out of power and wished that bush sr had finished the job in 1990

 

[Truncador]

Is the US a signatory to the UN Charter? Does the Charter say they need UN permission except in the case of self defence?

Whatever they signed or didn't sign, there's nobody who can enforce the Charter or hold signatories to their word. At the end of the day, no sovereign State strong enough to is going to ask for permission to go to war or abide by a ruling forbidding them from doing so; being sovereign means never having to say please or sorry. This is why IMO it's meaningless to speak of "international law".

 

[Vietor]

I am uncertain whether this information amounts to overkill or whether it is appropriate to avoind having to down an airplane that strays from its course over US airspace. If it is fact is not overkill but a legitimate step necessary to protect against further use of airplanes as a weapon of mass destruction, then the cooperation between our respective governments to share such information is quite reasonable and without much downside. I think that it would therefore be reasonable for the US to provide such information to Canadian authorities if requested.

This may only be my imagination, but the favored relationship enjoyed between those north of our border and those south of seems to be fraying. While both countries lose if this realtionship goes awry, because of the relative sizes of our respective economies, Canada has the most to lose. In fact, the magnitude of Canada's exposure is even greater. Canada's exports to the US constitute over 88% of its total exports, while its imports from the US are only about 65%. Thus, Canada's positive trade balance is almost entirely derived from sales to the US.

We need each other and, although our relationship is as comlex as it is old, we need to restore the respect and national friendship that has, at least in my mind, been diminished in the recent past.

Citizens of both our countries have a right to their respective opinions. Civility and mutual respect for each of our nations would go a long way to restore our relationship. I do not mind personal attacks, although it is more fun to give than to receive. But I ignore unreasoned discourse about my country. Those who engage in such are, in my regard, self-flagellants.

 

[red]

Whatever they signed or didn't sign, there's nobody who can enforce the Charter or hold signatories to their word. At the end of the day, no sovereign State strong enough to is going to ask for permission to go to war or abide by a ruling forbidding them from doing so; being sovereign means never having to say please or sorry. This is why IMO it's meaningless to speak of "international law".

so the US can break any treaty they want? basically you are saying might makes right. personally I support the rule of law. one of the foundations of the US constitution was the rule of law over the arbitrary power of a monarch or government. its a very important principal. The US is upset that iran and north korea are not abiding by the NPT, but its hard for the US to hold onto the high ground as they recently have been disavowing any treaties they don't like.

 

[red]

I am uncertain whether this information amounts to overkill or whether it is appropriate to avoind having to down an airplane that strays from its course over US airspace. If it is fact is not overkill but a legitimate step necessary to protect against further use of airplanes as a weapon of mass destruction, then the cooperation between our respective governments to share such information is quite reasonable and without much downside. I think that it would therefore be reasonable for the US to provide such information to Canadian authorities if requested.

This may only be my imagination, but the favored relationship enjoyed between those north of our border and those south of seems to be fraying. While both countries lose if this realtionship goes awry, because of the relative sizes of our respective economies, Canada has the most to lose. In fact, the magnitude of Canada's exposure is even greater. Canada's exports to the US constitute over 88% of its total exports, while its imports from the US are only about 65%. Thus, Canada's positive trade balance is almost entirely derived from sales to the US.

We need each other and, although our relationship is as comlex as it is old, we need to restore the respect and national friendship that has, at least in my mind, been diminished in the recent past.

Citizens of both our countries have a right to their respective opinions. Civility and mutual respect for each of our nations would go a long way to restore our relationship. I do not mind personal attacks, although it is more fun to give than to receive. But I ignore unreasoned discourse about my country. Those who engage in such are, in my regard, self-flagellants.

how does it add to their security? if someone was to hijack a flight with the intent of attacking the US, they could hijack a flight from toronto to Ottawa which does not involve US airspace and have the plane turnaround an fly south.

 

[Truncador]

personally I support the rule of law. one of the foundations of the US constitution was the rule of law over the arbitrary power of a monarch or government. its a very important principal.

I agree, but no nation is going allow laws to be imposed on it from the outside by a higher authority. The US Constitution, like any other, defines the rule of law in terms of limits on the power of government over its citizens, not the power to fight wars abroad.

 

[langeweile]

on the other hand - I am glad he is out of power and wished that bush sr had finished the job in 1990

Darn, this is the second time we agreed on something...

*Slap..Slap..Slap...c'mon Lange..don't get weak*

 

[happygrump]

how does it add to their security?

It doesn't. It may add to the appearance of security, but in actual fact it won't amount to anything.

One thing, though, that I wonder about; does a branch of the US intelligence services have some information about a potential attack coming from Canadian or Mexican airspace, and this is a vague way of saying to the potential attackers, "We know what you're up to"?

 

[red]

I agree, but no nation is going allow laws to be imposed on it from the outside by a higher authority. The US Constitution, like any other, defines the rule of law in terms of limits on the power of government over its citizens, not the power to fight wars abroad.

sure- but they have signed international treaties which when approved by congress become the law of the land in the US as well. Also the US congress has passed laws which limit the Presidents ability to go to war.

 

[Truncador]

sure- but they have signed international treaties which when approved by congress become the law of the land in the US as well. Also the US congress has passed laws which limit the Presidents ability to go to war.

I recall that last year lawyers for the US government pointed out in the Abu Ghirab torture case that the President can set aside laws if he really wants to (on the grounds that since the laws get their force from the President's authority, the President can also ignore them, something that each President proves every year by pardoning some people convicted of breaking the laws passed by Congress). Presumably he could get out of any treaty or limitation imposed by Congress this way.

 

[red]

I recall that last year lawyers for the US government pointed out in the Abu Ghirab torture case that the President can set aside laws if he really wants to (on the grounds that since the laws get their force from the President's authority, the President can also ignore them, something that each President proves every year by pardoning some people convicted of breaking the laws passed by Congress). Presumably he could get out of any treaty or limitation imposed by Congress this way.

Yes - they did say that. it was shameful. Pardons are part of the law of the land they are not avoidance of the law.

 

[antaeus]

US gov't pays all costs in perpetuity for this program, and...

Canadian federal government programs are very expensive and include hidden extra's!


International diplomacy could be better maintained were this negotiated within a larger industry specific trade agreement. However, diplomacy seems an historic anachronism in both our current strange, fractious, polarized governments.

Other information (telephone and internet traffic) is routinely collected, analyzed and stored. How much more intrusion are travel manifests if it were required under negotiated industry trade agreement. However, protections must be in place to control American's zealous racism regarding certain ethnicities, as well as American official's traditional single minded behaviour to other nations' citizens.

But overall, given it's for domestic flights, what the American's are asking for is just useless information. As always, some mind-numbingly stupid middle manager probably proposed this plan. It's simple enough to explain to everybody and consequently difficult to negate without sounding anti-American.

 

[onthebottom]

Yes, valid point. And Mexico will respond according to how they see fit. I as one Canadian voice, object to the US government having access to this type of information and especially to the precedent in information-access it sets between our two counties. And I can also fully understand how as an American, it wouldn't concern you one whit.

Now, if I were King I'd give Canada the option of checking their lists against the US no fly list in Canada - in other words we send you our banned list instead of you sending us everything. That would only apply to flights that enter US airspace obviously. If you miss one and he/she strikes our country we simply take your country as payment.

I'm one of the least paranoid people you'd ever meet on privacy - I figure my bank knows where I spend my money, Delta knows where I go, Starwood knows where I stay...... and it's all very boring. But hey, I can see if you've got something to hide

OTB

 

[cyrus]

Look guys, I have said this many times but it seems no one wants to understand it!
American politicians are very reactionary people by history or at least their contemporary politicians have become! They don't think deep enough to solve an issue at hand but to force a fix on every problem! I guess that is why they invented condoms
This news, again precisely highlights that! They have no clue, what so ever who the terrorists are and how to catch them so what they do they continue to paint everything and everyone with the same freaking brush!
I guess if you bug a million travelers per day for a year and slow down the economy by a mile, at a cost of billions, you might be able to catch a single terrorist, never mind how statistically impossible and that is good enough for them!

 

[onthebottom]

Look guys, I have said this many time but it seems no one wants to understand it!
American's are very reactionary people by history or at least their politicians are. They don't think deep enough to solve an issue at hand but to force a fix on every problem!
This news, again precisely highlights that! They have no clue, what so ever who the terrorist are and how to catch them so what they do they continue topaint everything and everyone with the same freaking brush!

Pot calling Kettle, oh never mind the irony will be missed on you.

OTB

 

[Keebler Elf]

Goverments artificially supporting the industry breeds inefficencies and keeps carriers in business that under normal circumstances would be gone already.

True. But in Canada the gov't has a responsibility to ensure modes of transport exist for all communities rather than just the urban hubs. If gov't support in the airline industry were removed, only the most profitable routes would continue to be serviced and the least profitable routes would be dropped. "But that's capitalism!" you say. Yeah, that's great an' all but part of being a country is ensuring that said country is unified as effectively as possible. And if that means inefficient/unprofitable routes need to remain in service, so be it. The problem comes in balancing that inefficiency with outright mismanagement.

As an aside, and I could be wrong on this, I thought there were shortages of qualified airline pilots? That may explain the skyhigh salaries of pilots. As for flight attendants, I dunno what they make or how many hours they work so I've got no comment on that.

 

[onthebottom]

True. But in Canada the gov't has a responsibility to ensure modes of transport exist for all communities rather than just the urban hubs. If gov't support in the airline industry were removed, only the most profitable routes would continue to be serviced and the least profitable routes would be dropped. "But that's capitalism!" you say. Yeah, that's great an' all but part of being a country is ensuring that said country is unified as effectively as possible. And if that means inefficient/unprofitable routes need to remain in service, so be it. The problem comes in balancing that inefficiency with outright mismanagement.

As an aside, and I could be wrong on this, I thought there were shortages of qualified airline pilots? That may explain the skyhigh salaries of pilots. As for flight attendants, I dunno what they make or how many hours they work so I've got no comment on that.

Air Canda has more than 70% market share and still looses money - please.

Unions are the answer to why pilot and flight attendant wages are so high.

OTB

 

[Mcluhan]

Fine, very sensible. I think we just did the deal OTB...

And yes, my areas of sensitivity are probably different than yours.

 

[onthebottom]

Fine, very sensible. I think we just did the deal OTB...

And yes, my areas of sensitivity are probably different than yours.

See, reasonable people can come to sensible agreements (usually mine ) if they stop calling each other names and listen.

OTB