Canada, U.S. Agree To Share Troops In Civil Emergencies

Posted on Saturday, February 23 at 12:49 by N Say
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. ... http://www.nationalpost.com/rss/story.html?id=327869

Note: http://www.nationalpost...

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:38 pm
    Good find!<br />
    <br />
    More CONservative party secrets.<br />
    <br />
    The USNORTHCOM press release can be found here:<br />
    <a href="http://www.northcom.mil/News/2008/021408.html">http://www.northcom.mil/News/2008/021408.html</a><br />
    <br />
    Notice the masthead text on every page of the site:<br />
    "UNITED STATES NORTHERN COMMAND"<br />
    "DEFENDING OUR HOMELANDS"<br />
    <br />
    Plural? How many homelands do they think they have?

  2. Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:04 am
    "The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S."

    Uh, I think this insanity will be *opposed* (greeted yeah right) by all flavors of the political spectrum.

    The last thing I want to see are American troops in Canada, and they had better stay out if they know what's good for themselves.

  3. by RPW
    Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:36 am
    As it's not likely that there will be a need for Canadain troops to romp through the US of A, one wonders what coming crisis Harper envisages happening in Canada, that will require "timely intervention" by our best friends and neighbours to the south. <p>Will Canadians <b><u>finally</u></b> get fed up with the Quisling Parties (aka the Cons and Libs), and "take to the streets".....?</p> Or, better yet, was the CBC TV series "H20" prescient?<p>---<br>"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." <br />
    -Max Planck<br />
    <br />

  4. Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:18 am
    Note that "share troops in civil emergencies" where a civil emergency can mean riots in the streets against an unpopular totalitarian style of government, such as the one Harper is currently running.

  5. Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:14 pm
    Could not a legal argument be made that this is treason?

    WTF!!

    As Tony Montana would say "Say hello to my little friend". Or as George W.
    once levied against the world, "bring it on". If one US soldier touches
    Canadian soil, for whatever reason, the 49th will be painted red.

    If failure to support the Harper's government’s wrongful treasoness policies
    makes me a terrorist—so be it. If speaking truth to power makes one a
    terrorist—sign me up; move me to NSA and FBI lists of suspects. If exposing
    the lies and corruption that attends power makes me a terrorist—I will
    proudly wear the crown and bear the cost. I will cheerfully take my place
    alongside other terrorists with names like Thoreau, Debs, King, Gandhi,
    Einstein etc...

  6. by RPW
    Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:51 pm
    As long as an action of this sort doesn't simply keep the current yobs in power..........

    ---
    "When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
    -Max Planck

  7. by avatar pancho
    Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:58 pm
    “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.”

    This is a lie! American troops operate under foreign command every day. NATO and the UN


    “As it's not likely that there will be a need for Canadian troops to romp through the US of A”

    Canadian and Mexican troops will be used confiscate American guns.

  8. by avatar pancho
    Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:01 pm
    “The last thing I want to see are American troops in Canada, and they had better stay out if they know what's good for themselves.”


    What are you going to do, you allowed your government to take all of your guns?

  9. Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:51 pm
    This is only the thin edge of the wedge How long before American troops have perminant bases here?

    Get on your knees Canadians you are now property ot the United States of Canada and the the US

    Don't revolt, Eh?
    Can you say, North American Union?


    ---
    "When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

    William Blake

  10. Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:10 pm
    "American troops operate under foreign command every day. NATO and the UN"

    No, they do not. There is a difference between 'under command' of and 'supporting' a mission. It's a key difference.

    US troops 'supporting' the UN or NATO missions are given orders by an American officer, who recieves those orders from the overall UN or NATO commander. And only an American Officer.

    Otherwise, they are 'under command' of a foreign army, which the US does not permit.

    ---
    The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

  11. Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:07 am
    Troop this!<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4</a> <br />
    <br />
    <p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
    <br />
    William Blake<br />
    <br />

  12. by avatar pancho
    Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:15 am
    Army Specialist Michael New was Court Marshaled for defying President Bill Clinton's direct (and illegal) order to wear a baby-blue United Nations beret, and refused to serve under foreign officers in the United Nations military operations in Macedonia, in 1995.

    If UN or NATO commander gives the orders to an American Officer and he or she gives that order to the US troops who is commanding the US troops? The UN and/or NATO

    The American Officer is just a lackey of his or her UN or NATO "commander".

  13. Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:22 am
    Supposedly Canada has about 30 guns per 100 people and attempts to take away all our guns is being heavily resisted (for good reason I may add).

    Anyway, I guess we'd better school up on IED making just to be on the safe side.

  14. Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:28 am
    When Richard Hazleton ,the editor of the Seattle based sailing rag "48 North" starts telling people how wonderful things would be if the US annexed Canada, then implies that it is inevitable , I think the yanks are testing the waters to see what kind of reaction they get.
    If you want to give them your reaction and predictions of what that would mean for them, then email him your commments at richard@48north.com
    Ask as many of your friends as possible to also send him their thoughts.
    Given the stakes, we can't afford not to. Lets nip their asumptions about our apathy in the bud.
    Brent



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news