U.S. must respect Canadian airspace, PM says

[Spazito]

A defiant Paul Martin says, despite what the U.S. might say, Canada would have to give permission before any missiles are fired over Canadian airspace.

"We would expect to be consulted," Martin told reporters in Ottawa on Friday.

"This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission."

The Prime Minister has been dealing with fallout on the missile defence program since Thursday when he rejected Canada's participation in the controversial program.

more

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n022502A.xml

The original link below has now changed it's article, assholes)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109335744797_52/?hub=TopStories

(Paul Celluci is so full of crap, it is unbelievable! I am so sick of this creep threatening Canada every time he turns around. Martin should expel him now and not wait till he leaves in March, imo.)

Edited to add: CTV has now changed the original article, geez, seems they are following US media by screwing with the public)

[Megahurtz]

1. Dumbass U.S.

Everyone else in Canada is probably sick of this crap too. I know I am.

[HockeyMom]

3. Soverign Nations?

What does Bush care about Soverign Nations? lol

[MaineDem]

7. Sovereign means they're "sovereign " according to Bush

Remember his address to the minority press people? He couldn't explain the term. He's such a fuckwit!

[Minstrel Boy]

2. This is why Liberal minority governments are a good thing.

I believe, in a majority situation, Martin would be much more accomodating to US pressure. He's being nudged left, and that's a good thing.

Next election, he'll probably be rewarded for it with a majority, which will be unfortunate.

[Coventina]

4. Well, now Canada's on "the list"

:eyes:

[achtung_circus]

8. Well, we hate your freedoms.

[Coventina]

28. Oh yeah? Well OUR oil is under YOUR frozen tundra!

So you just better look out!

:hi:

Honestly, I don't think Bush will be happy until every single nation in the world hates us.
:-(

[egoprofit]

26. canada IS THE AXIS OF EVIL n/t

[achtung_circus]

5. Trade??

what are they going to do? Close the border to softwood lumber?
We are each others' biggest trading partner, although Canada is working to diversify trade.

George!!

Trade irritants hurt both parties, but I believe that Geoge has painted himself into a corner and is desparately looking for an "exit strategy".

[Spazito]

10. Our biggest exports to the US are gas, oil, electricity, water

I suspect they won't want to block those, lol.

[Barkley]

37. You forgot prescription drugs ... n/t

[Lautremont]

6. When a country's leader is described as "defiant,"

that's the beginning of the end, it seems. Let's pull out our 1812 playbooks, fellow Canucks...

[achtung_circus]

9. "Forward, York Volunteers."

[Hand]

11. Ha! They've forgotten our secret weapon....

We'll just feed the invaders Donairs until they all suffer massive coronaries. And if that doesn't work, we'll pull out the poutine!

:puke: :evilgrin:

[Redstone]

33. "And if that doesn't work, we'll pull out the poutine!"

Don't forget the Michigan burgers!

I'll be at the front of the line.

Redstone

[Art_from_Ark]

41. And the Nanaimo bars

A zillion calories per bite! :evilgrin:

[LibertyorDeath]

40. our secret weapon the infamous Nibbles the Canadian Attack Beaver

[havocmom]

35. Hey, if you guys decide to invade the US, would ya bring me some Bleu

Brest cheese? Every since that dumb ass Patriot Act, I can't get it. We really like it with our champaign.

Who knew decent cheese was such a threat to Homeland Security?

[CHIMO]

12. Hey EU

Look over here. It's called co-operation. It's called diplomacy.

[underpants]

13. Sounds almost *gulp* French

Remember the French wouldn't allow us to use their air space when we were bombing Lybia.

[Ravenseye]

15. So We Bombed Their Embassy

I remember Sam Kinison doing a bit on that....

"Ooops! Thanks for those extra 6500 air miles you assholes! Maybe we'd have had better aim if we'd had more sleep! AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! Build a new house! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

[Occulus]

14. Forgive me, but, was the "South Park" movie supposed to be

prophetic?

HA! :D

[Guckert]

16. But God chose Bush to RULE THE WORLD!! He needs NO permission!!!

:puke:

[Jack_DeLeon]

17. Question about airspace...

Althought I'm sure the US government will ignore Canadian airspace whenever we want to despite what the Canadian PM says, does Canadian Airspace actually extend into space where hopefully any Anti-Missile system would engage an enemy warhead in the unlikely event it happens.

[MadHound]

20. Yes, it does

Several treaties have set airspace as going up up and up.

[Jack_DeLeon]

24. Question about satellites...

So what about satellites? When someone launches one do they have to get agreements from every country that thier satellite will be orbiting over?

[MadHound]

27. I believe that they do

Though I'm sure that such agreements are regularly violated.

[Xithras]

34. Nope, wrong.

The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty said that no nation can claim territory or possession of space or naturally orbiting bodies. In 1976 a bunch of equatorial nations began demanding that nations stop placing satellites in geosynchronous orbit, and claimed that they would shoot down satellites in those orbits (as if Uganda could really shoot down a satellite). The UN ultimately decided that the nations claims violated the space treaty, and said that orbiting satellites do not violate the airspace of the countries they fly over, as long as they are in "space".

The internationally recognized border for space is 50km above median sea level.

So to answer the OP, the US could still launch missiles over Canadian soil as long as the missiles were over 50km up when they crossed the border.

[Lautremont]

36. Space law is an ever-developing thing, I'm told.

So all that could be changing.

[JohnyCanuck]

18. My biggest concern

is that if Paul Martin is seen as not compliant enough to US interests and appears insufficiently eager to kiss presidential ass whenever invited to to do so, the neocon/Bush gang will have no hesitation in using their power and wealth to interfere behind the scenes in Canadian politics to ensure that they get get a suitably compliant toady as PM.

It appears that important members of Canada's business establishment are eager to jump further into bed with the US and want Canada to suck up to Boy King George at all costs. With the Canadian establishment (and some prominent people in the political establishment as well) already on side it would make it all the easier for the Busholini gang to insinuate themselves under cover into the Canadian political process with the usual dirty tricks and skulduggery to sway election results. I could see how, for example, a sudden "terrorist" attack on Canadian soil could be used by the propaganda machinery to move public opinion in the desired direction.

'For Our Own Good, Give Canada Away'

The 'deep integrationists' plan one happy continent, but we must teach the little ones.

Tue., Feb. 22, 2005

By Murray Dobbin

As Canadians watch their daily news — the same sex marriage debate, the continuing saga of equalization payments and the fight over splitting the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in two — the future of the country is being decided elsewhere by unelected corporate power brokers.

This particular future is called "deep integration" and is backed by the most powerful business groups, think tanks and foundations in the country. The most recent manifestation of this betrayal of Canada is called the Task Force on the Future of North America. Its leaked report shows the plan in its most refined form to date.

The "team" backing this annexation initiative is politically ambidextrous, which signals the elites' unanimity. Two of the heavy hitters on the Task Force are John Manley, quite likely the next leader of the federal Liberals, and Michael Wilson, former Tory finance minister. It also includes former Quebec Premier Pierre Mark Johnson. Two of the six Canadian members are energy CEOs — just to indicate to George Bush that the oil companies run Canada, too.

The fact that Canadians are more anti-American now that any time in the past 50 years has had no impact on the plans of the annexationists in our midst. It doesn't matter that huge majorities of Canadians want nothing to do with more integration with the rogue nation to the south of us. The democratic imperative is well and truly dead amongst the high rollers who, having failed to meet the competitive challenge of free trade, have adopted a new slogan: If you can't beat 'em, join em.

Read more.....

[Spazito]

19. This isn't going to fly but it is wise to keep an eye on it...

Canadians would turf any government that tried to do this. This smells of PNAC to me, I would bet Perle is involved in this. He makes frequent visits to Canada and that makes me very suspicious.

[JohnyCanuck]

21. Canadians would turf any government that tried to do this

That's only if they played by the rules

What really concerns me is that I believe these power mad megalomaniacs (ie. the neocons) are quite capable of arranging for a Canadian 911 type event and to play upon the fear and public turmoil such an event would create to force Canadians in the desired direction of deeper integration with the US. Would there be enough Canadians willing to consider that such an event was a black op perpetuated by the neocons and specifically designed to force us into the US embrace rather than being a random terrorist attack by some shady Middle Eastern perpetrators/patsies that will undoubtedly be set up to take the fall? I am not so confident that would be the case.

I know this probably seems too tinfoil hat to be worth considering for many. However I am one of those who believe that 911 itself was at the very least purposely allowed to happen for propaganda/brainwashing purposes and quite possibly was a black op set up and organized by the neocon interests from the beginning. So for me it is not much of a stretch that they would try the same thing in Canada if they thought it was in their interests to do so.

[Solon]

22. I have a question...

Could the United States Pull an Australia on Canada? What I mean is back in I think the '60s or '70s, Australia had a defiant PM, so the US, being the upholders of democracy and all, pressured the Governor-General of Australia to dissolve the government. Could the same thing happen in Canada too?

[Spazito]

23. No, the only way the Governor General can dissolve parliament

is if there has been a successful 'non-confidence' motion which would cause the Government to fall or an election did not result in any party having enough seats to become the government.

I am not familiar with the case in Australia but would suspect it was unusual circumstances.


In looking this up, here is what I found:

The Governor General (and each provincial Lieutenant-Governor) governs through a Cabinet, headed by a Prime Minister or Premier (the two terms mean the same thing: first minister). If a national or provincial general election gives a party opposed to the Cabinet in office a clear majority (that is, more than half the seats) in the House of Commons or the legislature, the Cabinet resigns and the Governor General or Lieutenant-Governor calls on the leader of the victorious party to become Prime Minister and form a new Cabinet. The Prime Minister chooses the other Ministers, who are then formally appointed by the Governor General or, in the provinces, by the Lieutenant-Governor. If no party gets a clear majority, the Cabinet that was in office before and during the election has two choices. It can resign, in which case the Governor General or Lieutenant-Governor will call on the leader of the largest opposition party to form a Cabinet. Or the Cabinet already in office can choose to stay in office and meet the newly elected House - which, however, it must do promptly. In either case, it is the people's representatives in the newly elected House who will decide whether the "minority" Government (one whose own party has fewer than half the seats) shall stay in office or be thrown out.

If a Cabinet is defeated in the House of Commons on a motion of censure or want of confidence, the Cabinet must either resign (the Governor General will then ask the Leader of the Opposition to form a new Cabinet) or ask for a dissolution of Parliament and a fresh election.

In very exceptional circumstances, the Governor General could refuse a request for a fresh election. For instance, if an election gave no party a clear majority and the Prime Minister asked for a fresh election without even allowing the new Parliament to meet, the Governor General would have to say no. This is because, if "parliamentary government" is to mean anything, a newly elected House of Commons must at least be allowed to meet and see whether it can transact public business. Also, if a minority government is defeated on a motion of want of confidence very early in the first session of a new Parliament, and there is a reasonable possibility that a government of another party can be formed and get the support of the House of Commons, then the Governor General could refuse the request for a fresh election. The same is true for the Lieutenant-Governors of the provinces.

link:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/idb/forsey/parl_gov_02-e.asp

[buzzard]

30. Spazito I think you would be interested in this "Annexation of Canada"

It is frightening to see how much has already been planned by our neighbors with our own government complicit in the plans. Let me know what you think and if you have any other information like this I would love to read it. Sandy

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html

snip

"Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.  "Binational integration" of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence."

snip


What Next? Canadian Membership of NORTHCOM


The two year mandate of the BPG expires on the 9th of December 2004. Coinciding with president Bush's November visit to Canada, a decision to renew the BPG arrangement until Spring of 2005 has already been announced, at which time a decision pertaining to the formal integration of Canada into NORTHCOM will be made. This decision would essentially formalize a fait accompli.



No doubt, Canada's entry into US Northern Command will be presented to public opinion as part of Canada-US "cooperation", as something which is "in the national interest", which "will create jobs for Canadians", and "will make Canada more secure".


Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada's participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context,  may serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which implies Canada's acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program controlled by the Pentagon.


And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:

Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.


US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.


Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.


snip

But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as nation.


The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.


Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003.

[Spazito]

31. This is not a new push, there are some who have advocated

for something like this for some time, without success. There is a new push now because of the secure border issue, national security, etc. and they are hoping it might fly this time. If the faux Conservatives were ever to gain a majority government they might try and push something like this but would do so at their own peril, imo.

Canadians will not go for this, especially with bush in the Presidency, he is loathed here and anything that would cause closer ties with his administration would be strongly opposed.

With the clear NO to MDS yesterday, a piece of this plan has fallen by the wayside, imo. If the faux Conservatives were ever to gain a majority government they might try and push something like this but would do so in their own peril

I will be watching the committee debates on the budget as it relates to increased spending to see how those monies will be allocated and for what express purpose.

I do think this is a part of PNAC, albeit, not a major focus of theirs as yet. It would be wise of Canadians to be aware of this and watch it closely. The NDP party needs to demand the details of the NORAD agreement recently signed and see what new details are in it, imo.

[ConcernedCanuk]

32. One phrase caught me in ur post "make Canada more secure"

.
.
.

SECURE - from whom ??

Our biggest threat lies right below our border!

To my knowledge, no-one else is meddling in our national affairs to the extent the US is

Are they?

:shrug:

[NuttyFluffers]

38. hasn't america been the only foreign invader of canada?

my canadian history is a bit weak, but hasn't canada been invaded only by the USA? no other country really tried after there was a separate country of canada? and didn't USA attack canada more than once, besides 1812, to be repeatedly batted away (winters there are not a thing to toy with, i assume)?


... all i have to say is canada did the right thing, 'beware of greeks bearing gifts, particularly wooden horses.'

[ConcernedCanuk]

39. Yup - the USA is the only country that tried to invade Canada

.
.
.

And we burnt the WH

:evilgrin:

[Boswells_Johnson]

25. That's interesting, but it'd never fly in Canada because there is a

latent cynicism and distrust of the government. I think the difference in the US is that many, many believe in the President--whoever it may be--and believe he'll do what's best for the country, whereas up here, I believe the vast majority think of the Prime Minister as someone to be tolerated, so long as he/she preforms well.

The minute it became evident that the interests of the country were being ignored, I think there would be major problems for the gov't. That would be on a national scale, with the possible exception of Alberta....Quebec would become very unsettled.

[ConcernedCanuk]

29. IN reading the previous posts, - my Canuk comments

.
.
.

IF Canada was to experience a "911" like occurrence, I, and I expect alot of other Canadians would suspect the USA as the Prime Suspect.

Who else has been threatening Canada lately? :shrug:

right - no one but the USA.

China is picking up product trade that the US has been messing with us for some time now, - including , ahem o-i-l. (shhhhh!)

With our parliamentary system, which one DUer here explained quite well, lets us "turf" our leaders pretty much anytime we are incensed enough about one of their decisions, or non-decisions as the case may be.

AND as an article posted in this thread indicates, Canadian opinion of the US right now is at an all time low within the last 50 years.

Oh, - and the 1812 thing - didn't we burn their White House???

And on the Prime topic of the original post - I expect there are some pretty big guns out there (China and Russia) that are rubbing their hands with glee at Canada's decision not to kowtow to the US's demands.

IN closing - personally speaking,

ANYTHING serious happening in Canada to our country's detriment my suspicions will firstly lie with the Insane Warmongering Administration to our South

And any invasion/liberation?

Call me "insurgent"!!