Category: War on Terror
McKay Travels to Afghanistan
| 1/8/2007 | Posted by Patti under Afghanistan, War on Terror |
Peter McKay, our Foreign Affairs Minister is traveling in Afghanistan to have a look at the situation there both militarily and from a reconstruction standpoint. His perception is that tangible progress is being made in connecting with the population and getting beneficial projects under way to rebuild that country.
This follows on the heels of a report in the journal “Foreign Affairs” which presents an outlook that the situation in Afghanistan is teetering on the edge of civil war much like Iraq. This is a widely read journal put out by the Council on Foreign Relations which counts most past and current presidents along with secretary of states and other high level US government types among it’s contributors. Call me jaded, but I’d prefer to hear from those on the ground in Afghanistan than those using current and previous political positions to gain their soapbox.
The End of Saddam — Maybe
| 1/2/2007 | Posted by Patti under War on Terror |
Well, Iraq has ended 2006 with the end of Saddam. He was hanged on Saturday. I’ve refrained from commenting right away about his death. I have to admit to some ambivalence about it.
He was a brutal dictator who directly or indirectly murdered thousands. If there is a figure who ‘deserved to die’ it would be him, however, how can his state sanctioned death be anymore acceptable than the state sanctioned deaths which occurred under his authority as head of state?
Is every country, every people, every culture in the world mature enough and ready to live in a democracy like we in the west hold to such value?
Afghan War Top Canadian News Story
| 1/1/2007 | Posted by Patti under Afghanistan, War on Terror |
The war in Afghanistan and Canadian participation in it has been voted as the top news story of 2006 in a Canadian Press vote. The war has been brought home by the stark images of flag draped coffins being returned to Canada. In perspective while Canada has sent home 44 of our young in those coffins, the British have sent home 38 and the Americans 200.
While we’re most familiar with the battle stories, the stories of suicide bombers and our battle deaths, what we don’t see much of is the other side of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan. That is the work of the reconstruction teams working in Kandahar province to bring economic and social stability to the villages the combat group have managed to secure.
Where Do We Find That Fine Line?
| 10/24/2006 | Posted by Patti under Canadian Politics, War on Terror |
The Toronto Star today reports that a parliamentary committee is urging that the preventive arrest and investigative hearings provisions brought in following the 9/11 attacks be continued until 2011 which would provide a decade to look back and review their use and effectiveness. They are set to expire in December of this year. Their report must pass the Commons and the Senate or the provisions expire.
The Conservative & Liberal members of the committee brought in the majority report while the Bloc and the NDP brought forward a minority report. The minority reports raises concerns that laws like this seriously impact on civil liberties and can lead to abuses. On the one hand they argue that it is of no value in the war on terror and can be used on innocent citizens.
It is interesting to note that these provisions have yet to be used in the hysteria and fear immediately following the attacks on New York. That begs the question if the provisions should remain as a fall back position for law enforcement if they should really need to pick a suspect up to prevent a terrorist act but yet lack enough to charge them with the act or the conspiracy.
The minority report writers lack credibility in regards to their expertise on what or what isn’t effective in battling terrorism. The ones who can provide that credibility are the intelligence agencies and police. Unfortunately, since they are the ones who are also capable of and have abused the power provided to them by parliament we walk a truly difficult line between laws needed to protect us and laws designed for fear and control.
When we start to lower the threshold of proof we then open up the potential for honest law abiding Canadians to be arbitrarily arrested and detained for up to a year without charges on very flimsy grounds. The evidence used to detain someone under those provisions can be as thin as having association with someone else who the police are investigating. We can associate with a lot of people in the course of our lives but unless we live in their space, we truly don’t know them.
On the other side of the coin, law enforcement should be able to act on reasonable suspicions that someone may be involved in potential terrorist activity without having to wait for the proverbial smoking gun.
So, where to we find that fine line between providing the police the ability to act in our defense and to at the same time restrain them from overreacting or outright abusing the power we grant them?
Follow Me!