The Long Arm Of Uncle Sam

Two hours, and no replies? C'mon! People scream when China wants to buy part of the OilSands, but when a US court may lay claim to a part of our soverign country, and no one comments?


---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

Agree Dr C this is utter b.s.! Where are all our politicians on this one, is this the easy way out, let them cease bits and pieces all over the country. How about ceasing a section of Ottawa or Toronto?

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

sorry major typos, seize not cease!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

So what? If the US government seizes the land, it is still soveriegn Canadian territory. The US seizes (or at least tries to seize) all properties used for crime or purchased with the proceeds of crime (except in Florida, where real estate is protected from seizure if it is a primary residence). Once seized, the government sells it on the open market to try and recoup some of the costs of trial. It does not become US territory.

I don't see the point of your outrage here. US citizens buy Canadian properties all the time, and vice versa. My cousin owns beachfront property in Florida... not exactly a sovereignty issue in that case. I know two Americans that own Muskoka properties that they vacation at, and again, not exactly a sovereignty issue.

There is little difference between the US government or the Canadian government seizing the proceeds of crime. This guy, if found guilty, will probably lose his place. And then the US will sell it after seizure. Once seized, all other liens against said property are null and void (though a third party can try to put a lien against the sale itself to recoup your losses - good luck with that).

The sovereignty of the land is never in question. Ownership of title is not sovereignty. This property becomes the title of the US government, not US soil. No different than a US person or US company purchasing land here. They then own title. And that title doesn't extend to mineral rights, setting up anything that contravenes the Canadian zoning of the property, any resource rights... nothing beyond that of a Canadian homeowner. And if the US government wanted to "keep" the property, the BC or even the local government could easily expropriate the land.

You are making a mountain out of a really tiny anthill.

Sorry, the above was me.

You don't get it. US Courts and laws have no jurisdiction in Canada, period. If a court order to sieze that property is honored by Canada then Canada ceases to exist as a nation in all but name. We become American citizens, exposed to whatever laws americans choose to make.

Just trying to get such an order is a major insult to Canada and Canadians. It says that America believes that Canada is nothing more than a colony of the USA, subject to whatever the USA says.

Would that mean Canada has claim to the property on the American side? They buy all of Canada that is available so what's surprising about American's taking it. I guess moving the border further North is a possibility.

<p>PatM,</p> <p>I think that you might be reading more into this than the evidence currently reveals. As you noted, US jurisdiction stops at the border; thus, an American court order, no matter what its wording, would be insufficient to enact such a seizure. A Canadian federal or BC provincial court (whichever has jurisdiction in this case) would have to issue an analogous ruling to make it happen. Is there any precedent of Canadian law enforcement honouring similar American court orders? Is there any relevant extraterritoriality clause in any of the treaties between our countries that makes such an honouring legal? If not, then I’d see Michael Scott’s view as being closer to the way things are.</p> <p>Differences in perception between our national viewpoints also seem to exist. If the situation were reversed, i.e. a Canadian prosecutor was trying to get a Canadian court to seize American property from Americans found guilty of smuggling contraband into Canada, I wouldn’t have felt subjected to a major insult, or that I was becoming a Canadian citizen against my will, or that the USA was becoming a colony of Canada. I’d guess that the American prosecutor who’s trying to get that court order would react the same way — he’s trying to match punishments to crimes, not annex Zero Street and points north.</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

I think the point is that this is part of a bigger problem, to say that the Canadian government doesn't have to recognize these orders is the problem. Our government seems to be acting as an agent for U.S. law enforcement. To quote from an article in Vancouver Sun, '‘Ian Hillman, spokesman for the U.S. Consulate in Vancouver, won't give the exact number of law enforcement agents from his country operating here, but notes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Department of Homeland Security are all represented. "For security reasons, we can't give out the exact numbers, but I can tell you overall we are very, very small," Hillman said. "We are here in a liaison capacity only. They don't have the authority to conduct active investigations in Canada because this is a sovereign nation."’

So what are all these agents of the U.S. gov doing in Canada? Why are our judges signing warrants for the DEA, aka Marc Emery? The problem isn't whether the U.S. has the right to ask for these things, but why is our government saying yes?

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Conversely, why are RCMP and CSIS and OPP and other Canadian authorities doing in the US, then? Maybe we're subverting US sovereignty and covertly deploying spies to subjugate our neighbor to Canadian ideals and morals.... or maybe they are trying to catch criminals.

They call it trading info. Joint investigations. Cross training. We deal with alot (not all, but many) of the same issues on both sides of the border. We work with each other on cases ranging from fraud to murder. We provide access to witnesses, technologies, methods and consult each other on the best way to conduct investigations. We ask US profilers to assist with serial killer investigations because the FBI/DEA/etc.. have resources we don't always have. When dealing with cross border criminals, the authorities talk it out as to where the first charges will be laid - usually based on where a conviction is most promising.

With specific reference to the tunnel diggers, do you think that when the RCMP discovered these guys, and contacted the DEA and US customs that the US cops wouldn't come up for a look? I can imagine the Mounties and FBI sitting in a van down the street from the tunnelers, eating some bagels and laughing as these morons dug their tunnel, knowing that they were going to bust them big time.

Why wouldn't we allow these agents in? They're helping us bust criminals. We are helping them bust criminals. I for one have no problem with joint work by US and Canadian authorities, just as I have no problem with Canadian authorities working together with any other country to prosecute criminals. In fact, if they were not doing this, I'd be outraged.

As for Emery... we didn't want to prosecute him. The US did. He broke laws in both countries. He was a low priority for us, but not the US. He got his hand caught in the cookie jar. Tough for him. Had he been caught doing this in Singapore he would be caned. And I still wouldn't care. If you do business in another country, you are subject to their laws, not Canadian laws. Good riddance to a piece of bad garbage.

You all are looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Authorities barely have the resources to effectively catch criminals. Setting up a multifaceted conspiracy relying on various independent and firewalled individuals and agencies for the overall goal of dissolving our sovereignty (and that of many other countries) is a degree of coordination and planning that you are giving your supposed enemy way too much credit for. The US gov can't even plan a successful post Iraq - which, since they are running the country should be a relativy simple thing compared to what you are proposing. How on earth do you think that they are going to pull this off?

You say if this guy was in Singapore and broke the law? I agree but he wasn't in Singapore, nor the U.S., that is the point. Also we didn't prosecute, true, and the government of Canada collected taxes on his business, and it is reported that they referred people to him for medicinal marijuana. Then they get the DEA to ask for a warrrant?? Sorry this is totally off.

Then you say, 'The US gov can't even plan a successful post Iraq - which, since they are running the country should be a relativy simple thing compared to what you are proposing. How on earth do you think that they are going to pull this off?' True they destroyed their country in order to take out one man, who is sitting pretty in a jail somewher. Pulling it off in Canada, has been going on for some time, wake up to the reality of foreign investment, NAFTA and several governments who are following along with the deals! There is more than one way to take over a country, and don't think I believe they give a rats ass about the people living here, we are just something to be controlled, the land mass is the issue!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

What I said was if he was selling to people in Singapore, I would have supported extradition to Singapore as well for breaking their laws. You can't sit comfy in Canada and contravene a sovereign nations laws, especially when you know that you are breaking those laws.

Emery was a drug dealer. Canadian authorities knew this, but due to the fact that he would get a slap on the wrist, they ignored him. He sold drugs to US citizens. Therefore, he was committing a crime against the US. The US has every right to ask Canadian authorities for extradition... and he has every right to fight it. They are following due process in this case. There is no sovereignty issue here. If some guy in Holland were selling hash to Canadians, and the Dutch wouldn't arrest him, we would have every right to ask for extradition. Even though dealing in hash is a crime in Holland (you can only have enough for personal use) they probably wouldn't do too much about this case, just like Canadians were not doing much with Emery.

The tunnel diggers broke the law in both countries as well. I would figure that they were allowed to complete their tunnel and allowed to get arrested in the US because:
1 - no extradition hearings or costly court tie ups
2 - allows Canadian authorities to espouse to the American media that US-Canadian police investigations work well
3- shows the in depth coordination of US-Canadian authorities which plays well politically for both the Liberals and the Republicans who don't want to spend diddly on the northern border
4 - ensures that these dim witted drug dealing criminals are prosecuted by the strongest drug laws
5 - convictions in the US are easier to obtain on the evidence in the case (though a big hole and the fact that they had the drugs on them is pretty strong evidence anywhere)

US law allows for the application of the seizure of the proceeds of crime. That means they can seize homes, etc... The complication is that this home is on Canadian land. The US government (or any government of foreign third party that we have the applicable treaties signed with) can freeze assets in this country as a result of a foreign court order. The Canadian (or any other owner of the Canadian property) can apply to both the foreign court as well as Canadian courts to fight that freeze or seizure. And the courts will decide based on the laws that govern the case. Canadian law trumps US law in this case - but there are Canadian treaties with the US that can be envoked by the US authorities to make this seizure legal. Title can be transferred to the US government. However, sovereignty of that piece of land cannot. It is still Canadian soil and subject to all Canadian laws and statutes. This case does not impinge upon our sovereignty.

And finally, the reality of foreign investment, NAFTA, etc... We have laws that prevent foreign ownership over a certain % of some industries. There are elaborate ways around that, like setting up a subsidiary, or arms length Canadian corporations that report to US parents... .

That is not to say we should allow degradation of these laws (I would advocate making them somewhat stricter). Canadians in general invest quite heavily in other countries, but because we are such a small country (population wise), we don't own the same % of the US as their citizens own of us. I personally own stock in US, British and Japanese companies. Does that mean I infringe on their sovereignty? Am I part of the Canadian plot to take over? The US is worried that Chinese and Saudi companies are buying up US companies. We are worried about US investment here. France is worried about German and British designs. The US is worried about off shoring manufacturing to Asia. We are worried about manufacturing moving to the US and Mexico (and to some degree Asia as well). Who is taking over who? Will China surpass Canada in trade with the US (it is projected to happen by 2012 at current rates according to the latest Macleans)? What happens then? If China keeps expanding their influence into the oilfields in the mideast other than in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, will they dictate price to the US? If Iran allows their oil to be priced in Euro's does US influence diminish? Will Canadian oil be sufficient to prop up north america? Does Canada have the internal resources to exploit that oil wealth without foreign investment? And if foreign investment allows us to capitalize on current events, who is taking advantage of who? Do countries matter anymore? Or will corporations dictate policy and take over?

To see an overreaching conspiracy to control is rather simplistic. The variables are endless. What I see is thousands of very rich and thousands of companies trying to look out for their own self interest. Some companies are better than others. Canadian companies have nothing to brag about with respect to not imposing upon the sovereignty of other nations. For every instance of foreign interference here, there is a story like Talisman energy abroad.

Yes we need to protect ourselves. But we need to help other countries protect themselves as well. The high road is almost never the easy way, but it is almost always the right way.

Sorry for droning on so long. But it's been awhile since rational debate took place here and I thought I should take advantage of it. You have good points and a definitive point of view that in isolation would point to a bigger issue, however I just don't see a plan of manifest destiny playing out to the satisfaction of US authorities. We need to tread carefully as a nation, but we are not in dire straits.

No need to apoligize. Beats the hell out of the usual "neo-classical" economy bs and all the Martin dupes.

You are indeed a gentleman and a scholar Michael Scott!!! Thanks for illustrating to me that there indeed still a few Canadians left out there in the universe who actually ARE "enlightened" and "progressive" as opposed to those merely (and mindlessly) braying on that they are to all who they can force to listen somehow...much coolness dude... ...