Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611

    Post imported post

    As reported by JFPO -

    Could Canadian troops be used to disarm you in the event of a civil emergency in the good ol' US of A? There are those that think this would be all right on both sides of the border. The agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas, has not even been publicized by the main stream media. Wonder why not. (sarcasm)
    Nice Valentine's Day pesent!

    http://tinyurl.com/3yswep

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    As reported by JFPO -

    Could Canadian troops be use to disarm you in the event of a civil emergency in the good ol' US of A? There are those that think this would be all right on both sides of the border. The agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas, has not even been publicized by the main stream media. Wonder why not. (sarcasm)
    Nice Valentine's Day pesent!

    http://tinyurl.com/3yswep

    Yata hey
    Yes, they could disarm us... It's a loophole around Posse Comitatus as the Canadian soldeirs are not bound by it.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Neither are the Mexican troops in the US bound by posse comitatus, why would we receive the Canadian troops differently? UN-blue helmets in the US wouild drive home the status quo in a way that the hot water fanatic frogs couldn't ignore - well, they could.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Neither are the Mexican troops in the US bound by posse comitatus, why would we receive the Canadian troops differently? UN-blue helmets in the US wouild drive home the status quo in a way that the hot water fanatic frogs couldn't ignore - well, they could.
    Not sure I understand your question Doug, but I will say that I certainly don't condone any of these type of activities. There is something inherently wrong with anon-American soldier conducting operations on our soil, whether or not the US government has "asked" them to help or not.. Armed, Mexican soldiers coming across the border to protect drug smugglers is something I have read quite a few reports about and article IV section IV of the constitution is obviously being ignored. That is all kept quiet on government cirlces and they are keeping this Canadian situation quiet as well..



    UN troops with blue helmets... :what:

    That is a whole other discussion...
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    Grapeshot wrote:
    As reported by JFPO -

    Could Canadian troops be use to disarm you in the event of a civil emergency in the good ol' US of A? There are those that think this would be all right on both sides of the border. The agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas, has not even been publicized by the main stream media. Wonder why not. (sarcasm)
    Nice Valentine's Day pesent!

    http://tinyurl.com/3yswep

    Yata hey
    Yes, they could disarm us... It's a loophole around Posse Comitatus as the Canadian soldeirs are not bound by it.
    There is no need for a "loophole" around Posse Comitatus......

    http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

  6. #6
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Comp-tech,

    Thank you for providing that link. I had not been aware of the relative "repeal" of the Posse Comitatus Act. This information you provided is highly disturbing... I don't even know what to say... :shock:
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Comp-tech wrote:
    There is no need for a "loophole" around Posse Comitatus......
    Of course there is. You can never have too many loopholes. If for no other reason it's good to have at least two so that if someone gets wise and closes one you don't have to wait for Congress to drum you up another.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    This upsets me, too, but then I have to put it in perspective.

    Everyday I see images and video of Iraqi women and children standing in the front yard while foreign troops (that would be us) rummage through their bedrooms. Civilians in other countries worldwide are expected to stand aside and not resist foreign troops patroling their streets and searching their homes.

    Telegram to Americans: you're not special, and it's only a matter of time. Just stand in your front yard, hands where we can see them,and the UN/EU/North American Union/whatever will bring peace and order to your neighborhood during the next terrorist attack or disaster.

    The Canadian troops in your daughter's bedroom will be protected by a treaty with the force of law, enforced by federal agents, so don't even think what I know you're thinking right now, either.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    Scary. Very Scary.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Canadian Search and Rescue deployed very quickly to Katrina. They were very effective , acting as good neighbors should act. I am not promoting foreign disarmament of U.S. citizens, just putting some perspective to al of this.

    Posse comitatus, by law only applies to the Army and Air Force. It applies to the Navy and Marine Corps by presidential order.The CoastGuard had federal police power now. I f the president wanted to he could vacate the presidential order and posse comitatus would not apply to the Navy or Marine Corps.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Posse comitatus does not apply to any other federal troops than those listed by Thundar. DHS/FEMA alone have the necessary troops to quell any disturbances.

    The count of armed troops maintained by the various federal agences is on OCDO somewhere. IIRC it was on the order of half a million (that's technical mathematical jargon for the invincibly ignorant to mis-interpret).

  12. #12
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    Comp-tech wrote:
    There is no need for a "loophole" around Posse Comitatus......
    Of course there is. You can never have too many loopholes. If for no other reason it's good to have at least two so that if someone gets wise and closes one you don't have to wait for Congress to drum you up another.
    Two is one, one is none.

    I'm glad my country has my safety and well being in mind. Can't wait 'till Comrade Hussein Obama takes over. (I'm just thinking about the big hole in the ground where all my toys will go for hibernation)



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    This upsets me, too, but then I have to put it in perspective.

    Everyday I see images and video of Iraqi women and children standing in the front yard while foreign troops (that would be us) rummage through their bedrooms. Civilians in other countries worldwide are expected to stand aside and not resist foreign troops patroling their streets and searching their homes.

    Telegram to Americans: you're not special, and it's only a matter of time. Just stand in your front yard, hands where we can see them,and the UN/EU/North American Union/whatever will bring peace and order to your neighborhood during the next terrorist attack or disaster.

    The Canadian troops in your daughter's bedroom will be protected by a treaty with the force of law, enforced by federal agents, so don't even think what I know you're thinking right now, either.
    +1

    It's not so "macho" to support invasions when your family is the one being invaded.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Silence my guns,take them away andI will become evenmore powerful. Silence my mouth and my words will ring louder and longer through history.

    AsI told my Sailors for over 20 years:The most powerful weapon in the US is not a fancy ship, aircraft, missile, tank or firearm. It is the American Fighter. It is the heart thatbeats deep in the chest of everyone that loves freedom and liberty has ever fought for this great nation, be it in uniform or civilian clothes; wielding either sword or pen.



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Neither are the Mexican troops in the US bound by posse comitatus, why would we receive the Canadian troops differently? UN-blue helmets in the US wouild drive home the status quo in a way that the hot water fanatic frogs couldn't ignore - well, they could.
    Not sure I understand your question Doug, but I will say that I certainly don't condone any of these type of activities. There is something inherently wrong with anon-American soldier conducting operations on our soil, whether or not the US government has "asked" them to help or not.. Armed, Mexican soldiers coming across the border to protect drug smugglers is something I have read quite a few reports about and article IV section IV of the constitution is obviously being ignored. That is all kept quiet on government cirlces and they are keeping this Canadian situation quiet as well..



    UN troops with blue helmets... :what:

    That is a whole other discussion...
    Conversely we use our special ops boarder patrol agents BORTAC to make incursions into Mexico to disrupt illegal drug activities that are suspected of being transported onto American soil. So, the idea that we would allow foreign troops on our soil is not that far fetched. I do not agree with anyone trying to disarm Americans. If a foreign troop were to try to disarm me on American soil, I believe we'd have a problem.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    OneShot wrote:
    I do not agree with anyone trying to disarm Americans. If a foreign troop were to try to disarm me on American soil, I believe we'd have a problem.
    Not something a tight shot cluster couldn't solve. Damn canadians.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Nothing good can come of this.....



    What would Brian Boitano do??


  18. #18
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    Nothing good can come of this.....



    What would Brian Boitano do??
    ROFLMOA!!!


  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Posse comitatus does not apply to any other federal troops than those listed by Thundar. DHS/FEMA alone have the necessary troops to quell any disturbances.

    The count of armed troops maintained by the various federal agences is on OCDO somewhere. IIRC it was on the order of half a million (that's technical mathematical jargon for the invincibly ignorant to mis-interpret).
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/8705.html

    Posse comitatus does not apply to these federal troops - by any other name stink as sweetly.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-canadians.htm

    The Canadians are Coming!
    The Canadians are Coming!


    by L. Neil Smith
    lneil@netzero.com
    For Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org
    [line] You'll recall that, a while ago, the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, signed an agreement with Canadian leaders to permit each country to send troops to the other's aid in an emergency. In short, the President authorized foreign soldiers to cross our border and push us around, exactly the same way various uniformed thugs did in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina provided them with an excuse.
    The alert JPFO issued on this subject asked a rhetorical question: how would you like those foreign troops to come around smashing down your door to relieve you of the weapons that you -- along with every man, woman, and responsible child in the world -- have an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any time, any place, without asking anybody's permission? Only we didn't say "foreign troops". We said, "gun-hating Canadian troops" -- and we heard about that, loud and clear.
    From Canadians.
    One person wrote, "'[G]un hating Canadian troops'? Huh? You do us a huge disservice ... this agreement is completely harmless ... [Canadian Armed Forces] assistance must be formally requested by the appropriate government through an established chain ... I expect the lefties to over-react, as they have done, but I expect better of you .... [p]lease relax ... [w]e are not going to invade you and take away your guns ... [o]ur government hasn't even managed to do that here yet."
    Another individual said, "Millions of Canadians own firearms. Legally owned handguns number in the millions ... Canadian troops are taking more than their share of casualties in Afghanistan, having been placed in Khandahar, the most dangerous part of the country ... Five Canadian[s] have been nominated for the Bronze Star. Canadian soldiers are among the most heroic in the world ... Clearly, just as in the US, it is a strong, vocal, unscrupulous tiny minority of Canadians who are 'gun hating' ... Would you be willing to offer some kind of retraction?
    And a third correspondent offered this: "Actually, among most Canadian Armed Forces there is support for civilian firearms ownership. A high proportion of enlisted men come from rural or small town areas where owning firearms and hunting is still part of the culture. This has survived over 17 years of increasingly restrictive gun laws and a Main Stream Media holy war against civilian firearms ownership ... "
    And that was pretty much typical of the mail we got.
    First of all, thanks, Canada , but we don't really want or need your help with a couple of undeclared, unconstitutional, and illegal wars that were trumped up by "a strong, vocal, unscrupulous, tiny minority" of our very own. Nor with killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and destroying what was left of the world's most ancient civilization.
    But more to the point, nobody who wrote to us reacted to the evil and unprecedented event -- inviting foreign troops onto American soil -- that motivated us to write the alert, just to three little words we chose when perhaps we should have chosen others. Maybe we should have said, "Troops taking orders from a gun-hating Canadian government, carrying water for a gun-hating American government". Would that have been better? No, because then we wouldn't have gotten any feedback at all.
    Furthermore, it doesn't make a bit of practical difference, in the end. We know that lots and lots of Canadians own, enjoy, and depend on their guns. Some of them are even members of JPFO. We know that they've resisted government mandates from time to time to register their guns or turn them in. Good for you guys, and that's not meant sarcastically.
    But history clearly shows that governments invariably create emergencies so they'll have a credible excuse to shorten your leash and mine. (In an ideal world, it would be illegal for any government employee to utter the word "emergency" or, for that matter, the word "children".) If you have any doubts on this score I urge you to get a copy of the JPFO video Innocents Betrayed and read Death by Gun Control.
    Go to: http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=83
    And what happens when you put on a uniform and take a solemn oath to obey the orders of those who claim to be your superiors? Will you kick down the door of an 80-year-old veteran, and when he won't let you take his trusty Garand, smash his teeth in with your rifle butt? Of course you will, because that's what you've been told to do, and besides, everybody else is doing it. Later on, you can always say you were "just following orders", like the Nazi concentration camp guards did.
    Don't tell us that you won't. We know too much about history and human nature. The Roman thug who shish-kebabbed Archimedes probably had a wife and kids he enjoyed taking to the Colosseum to see all the latest gladiators. He may have recited -- or even written -- poetry or knew a lot about wine. But when his moral turning-point arrived, he shoved eighteen inches of bronze gladius through the solar plexus of the world's greatest physicist, exactly as his centurion had told him to.
    "I was just following orders."
    And if you don't do it, you'll be shot in the back of the head, kicked aside, and somebody else -- most likely a mercenary from Blackwater -- will do it and get a lot better paid for it than you were.
    This is what we've come to, my dear Canadian friends; every day the crouching spiders in our governments make it worse. No matter what government -- they've proven themselves to be all alike -- no matter what spiders. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Trust me, the coming American election won't make even a microscopic particle of difference. If the other party returns to power, they'll just take whatever the previous party was doing -- or planning to do -- and pile on another layer of tyranny and oppression all their own, as the Nazis did with victim disarmament laws passed by the Weimar regime.
    That's how it's always been.
    It's how we got where we are now.
    Sadly there are American troops who will follow evil orders, too. And what happens, my dear Canadian friends, when those American troops come for the guns your own government couldn't pry you loose from? If you survive the process, will you get to be in your own, separate, Canadian concentration camps, or will the trucks and cattle cars take you to the ones Halliburton is building in the American heartland for us? Is that what clinched this midnight backroom deal between our two governments?
    Free concentration camps?
    Admittedly that's less likely than the previous scenario with the old guy and his Garand; the whole reason for this exercise -- agreeing to come to each other's aid in an emergency -- is that the American Empire's legions are stretched a bit thin of late. Barely holding onto Iraq and Afghanistan, it longs to invade Iran and Syria. It already has military bases in about 150 other countries around the world. It has more civilian "security contractors" in Iraq than it has genuine troops.
    Don't believe it? Go to Google, put "mercenaries"+"iraq"+"180,000" in the slot, and then stand back as your query gets 11,000 hits like this"
    http://middleeast.about.com/od/iraq/a/me071031.htm
    Even so, our government still doesn't have enough warm bodies -- dog-faced ground-pounders with mud on their boots and a stick in their hands -- to enforce his anti-Constitutional will at home. So what happens when those "contractors" have honed their "skills" and are finished Over There?
    What will they be hired to do Over Here?
    That's where you come in, too, my dear Canadian friends. While the American Empire busies itself overseas trying to occupy the world, you folks get to help occupy America, a nation that, in private hands, possesses -- by various estimates, from a low-ball guess made by the BATFE of 250,000,000 guns of all kinds, to an industry figure quoted by the late Jan Libourel of 750,000,000 firearms "of modern design in good working order" the wherewithal to make it a bloody and expensive undertaking.
    America is a nation consisting of somewhere between 70 and 100 million gun owners (half the country's household are armed), of which around four million are politically active and aware. It is a nation whose gun owners boycotted and bankrupted Smith & Wesson when that company colluded with Waco Willie Clinton to obliterate their rights, and nearly did the same to K-Mart before the corporation wisely fired Rosie O'Donnell, its obnoxious hoplophobic spokeswoman. It is a nation that expends some two billion rounds every year, of .22 Long Rifle alone.
    Don't misunderstand, we're ecstatic that some of you are gunfolks, too, my dear Canadian friends, and politically savvy ones, at that, it appears. But both of us (and Mexico, too, in the long run) are facing a bizarre threat of being pinned down, disarmed, and oppressed by foreign invaders -- each other! -- taking orders from our gun-hating governments.
    Maybe we should all get together and figure out what to do about that.
    What do you think?
    ================================================== ========================
    "Men cannot be governed and remain men. Domesticate the wolf and he changes both physically and mentally. His muzzle shrinks, his teeth diminish, he loses size, speed, and strength, He grows spots. His ears flop. His brain withers. He becomes a dog. Men are on the verge of becoming dogs -- the changes are underway already -- unless we do something to stop it."


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    What emergencies have we had or happen that we would need Canadians to come rescue us? Aye?

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Beer shortage?

  23. #23
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    What emergencies have we had or happen that we would need Canadians to come rescue us? Aye?
    It seems to me that there is no reason for this agreement to take place unless there was some intent on it's use. The administration and New Orleanshas received a lot of flak from the Katrina debocle and agreements like this after-the-fact worry me a bit. Several states have passed laws reafirming that guns will not be confiscated during a crisis, as if that "law" already didn't exist... The federal government passed a similar law - Homeland Security appropriations bills, H.R. 5441. A federal judge ruled after Katrinathat the confiscations were unconstitutional but the state and federal governmentswent ahead a passed these laws anyway. That's not to mention the Posse Comitatus Act, which states thatfederal troops cannot police our own citizens.

    It is my belief that the option for improprietieswill always be left open if the situation is bad enough. Private security firms like Blackwater and troops from other nations like Canada are not bound by Posse Comitatus and it remains to be seen if they are bound by, or will abide by, these "newly passed" laws.

    I live in a border state to Canada. Many of you do as well. I am separated from the rest of the continental United States. If something devastating happens, I am concerned that given the close proximity to our Canadian neighbors,their"use" of military personnelmay be more of an availableoption to our government than say if there is a problem in South Carolina.


    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    If Blackwater comes to my door making demands... we are going to have a problem. :X

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    if there is a problem in South Carolina.
    If there is a 'problem' in South Carolina then I hope all concerned will remember who fired the first shots in the War of Northern Aggression. Maybe the Citadel will find its testicles and the citizens of Charleston turn Mayor-for-Life Squeaky Riley and his pissants out.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •