Manning found guilty of some charges, but not all

[FZR1KG]

Here's the problem: the US government is insisting that American law enforcement personnel should not be subject to any Canadian laws while on Canadian soil. I'm sorry... what? No. I'm really, really not okay with that.

Yeah, I've read many things that revolve around the USA is a special case and requires special treatment.
Unfortunately they rarely return the favour.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I think you mean that the US is exceptional. As in "American Exceptionalism."

Arrogant, elitist bigotry, if you ask me.

[SciFiFisher]

It is "just" a part of the bigger hypocrisy of the US. We (the country as a whole, not you and I) have this "we are better than anyone else and therefore don't have to answer to concerns of mere mortals" attitude that I hate.

Speaking of, this is a news item that recently surfaced:

The US and Canada are exchanging law enforcement personnel at the border to speed up border crossings for semi-trailers. Cool. Regulatory streamlining is good. Here's the problem: the US government is insisting that American law enforcement personnel should not be subject to any Canadian laws while on Canadian soil. I'm sorry... what? No. I'm really, really not okay with that.

Is it possible that this has something to do with diplomatic privilege? I.e. if we start letting you enforce laws on x then you will be able to enforce laws on y. i.e. law enforcement today and diplomats tomorrow?

[SciFi Chick]

It is "just" a part of the bigger hypocrisy of the US. We (the country as a whole, not you and I) have this "we are better than anyone else and therefore don't have to answer to concerns of mere mortals" attitude that I hate.

Speaking of, this is a news item that recently surfaced:

The US and Canada are exchanging law enforcement personnel at the border to speed up border crossings for semi-trailers. Cool. Regulatory streamlining is good. Here's the problem: the US government is insisting that American law enforcement personnel should not be subject to any Canadian laws while on Canadian soil. I'm sorry... what? No. I'm really, really not okay with that.

Is it possible that this has something to do with diplomatic privilege? I.e. if we start letting you enforce laws on x then you will be able to enforce laws on y. i.e. law enforcement today and diplomats tomorrow?

I don't know, but unless we're extending the same privilege to the Canadians, then there's a major problem.

[geonuc]

I don't have a problem with it if it only extends to border patrol officers working just on the other side helping to expedite truck crossings. In fact, I think that sort of legal agreement is a good thing. It's not like the US is expecting our cops to be allowed to travel throughout Canada with diplomatic immunity.

This probably was brokered in NAFTA, or whatever subsequent treaty followed it, that allows Mexican and Canadian truckers to operate in the US to a limited extent.

My comments are made off the cuff - I did no research into the actual facts.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Is it possible that this has something to do with diplomatic privilege? I.e. if we start letting you enforce laws on x then you will be able to enforce laws on y. i.e. law enforcement today and diplomats tomorrow?

Nope. The US government has explicitly said that if its officers engage in some sort of wrongdoing, they don't want Canadian laws regarding police misconduct to apply. Nothing to do with diplomats, especially since diplomats are protected by the Vienna Convention; police are not.

I don't know, but unless we're extending the same privilege to the Canadians, then there's a major problem.

You aren't. The US DHS has made the request for American officers to be exempt from Canadian law, with no mention of reciprocation at all. Hell, there aren't even Canadian police on the US side of the border to speed up crossings: this is just American law enforcement in Canada, asking to be exempt from Canadian law, with no reciprocation of any kind.

Can you imagine how pissed people would be if Mounties were stopping cars at border crossings on the American side while being exempt from American law? With no US officers on the Canadian side? People would hit the roof. That's why I'm pissed off about this.

I don't have a problem with it if it only extends to border patrol officers working just on the other side helping to expedite truck crossings. In fact, I think that sort of legal agreement is a good thing. It's not like the US is expecting our cops to be allowed to travel throughout Canada with diplomatic immunity.

Well, no offence, but you wouldn't be the irritated party, would you? I'm not happy with armed (!) American police officers exercising police powers in my country while being entirely exempt from Canadian law - especially Canadian law regarding police misconduct. I've said I'm fine with cross-border officers speeding up crossings. What I'm not fine with is immunity from Canadian law, no Canadian officers on the American side, and no reciprocation concerning immunity.

Sorry, that's just not on. That's a huge slap in the face regarding sovereignty and police accountability. Fuck that. You're in Canada, you're subject to Canadian law. I'm not okay with Canadians being policed by foreigners subject only to foreign law while in Canada. As I said: fuck that.

This probably was brokered in NAFTA, or whatever subsequent treaty followed it, that allows Mexican and Canadian truckers to operate in the US to a limited extent.

No, it's a direct bilateral policing and border agreement between the US and Canada. The US is pushing for immunity from Canadian law for its officers, while Canada is asking for no such thing for its officers on US soil.

Worst part? We have no one to complain to, since there's currently no US ambassador to Canada. The last guy left at the beginning of summer, and there was no replacement lined up. There's always a replacement... just not this time. And there's been no movement on appointing a new ambassador. You think the government would want a representative up here, what with all the ruckus surrounding a certain oil pipeline. Might be good to have someone here to negotiate, since it's such a political hot potato in Washington. Good diplomacy skills, guys...

[geonuc]

What are the US officers doing anyway? Have any incidents occurred?

[The Supreme Canuck]

There is currently a pilot program with US officers doing "pre-screening" of trucks heading across the border. They are armed. They are currently operating under Canadian law - DHS has so far just requested that that be changed. As far as I'm aware, there have been no incidents of any sort.

Even more worryingly, the program that this is happening under is designed to allow cross-border policing. Essentially, you'd have a team of Canadian and US law enforcement officers working together in either the US or Canada. And not necessarily near the border. As originally envisioned, all officers would operate under the laws of the country that they are operating in. If the DHS gets its way, American officers will always operate under US law... even if they are operating with Canadian officers deep inside of Canada.

This is unacceptable.

[geonuc]

So, in reading this CBC article, as you say, there are two initiatives. One, a pre-inspection effort aimed at speeding southbound cargo by having US Customs officers in Canada at the border. The article says the US officers would be bound by Canadian law.

The second part is a cooperative policing project involving Canadian officers in the US and vice versa, enforcing the host country's laws. It is here the US has said it wants its officers bound by US law while in Canada. The article does not mention whether Canada has asked for reciprocity in that regard. It just says the RCMP prefers Canadian law hold for all officers in Canada.

I still don't have a problem with the US stance. I don't read anywhere in that article, which is short and thus not very comprehensive, where it says the US is not willing to reciprocate. If the US is not so willing, then yes, I believe Canada should decline.

I'm not sure what the aim of the second program is - what US laws would the Canadian officers help enforce within the US and what Canadian laws would the US help with? And why does either country's police forces need such help? I can see the cargo pre-inspection thing. That helps both countries. Canadian goods get into the US faster and the US doesn't have its northern border clogged with trucks, or at least not as much. There's no mention of pre-inspection of US goods into Canada. Perhaps Canadian customs laws are not as onerous as US laws and trucks are able to cross over to the north more quickly? I don't know.

[Parrothead]

Re: the border agents, they fall under DHS, so there may be some arrangement about whose laws they operate under. They are pre-clearing for entry into the US, the question at the land crossings, are the inspection centres on canadian soil, or on an area of land that can be qualified as a grey area? There are pre-clearances carried out in airports, before boarding flights to the US, these inspections/clearances may be in the security area of the airport which can be a sort of limbo (think Snowden in Russia before being granted asylum or that person that spent years living in a Paris airport). I wouldn't be surprised if the US border agents at the airports also work under and are governed by US law while on duty, if they reside in Canada, they may fall under our jurisdiction/laws while off-duty. I believe Canada has the option of having pre-clearance areas in US airports, but am not sure if we actually opt to have them.

edit: I typed my post before seeing the post above mine, which basically covers the issue, they are covered by our laws. Uhm, carry on.

[The Supreme Canuck]

So, in reading this CBC article, as you say, there are two initiatives. One, a pre-inspection effort aimed at speeding southbound cargo by having US Customs officers in Canada at the border. The article says the US officers would be bound by Canadian law.

The second part is a cooperative policing project involving Canadian officers in the US and vice versa, enforcing the host country's laws. It is here the US has said it wants its officers bound by US law while in Canada. The article does not mention whether Canada has asked for reciprocity in that regard. It just says the RCMP prefers Canadian law hold for all officers in Canada.

Kind of. As I understand it, the first program is a pilot program under the second, broader, program.

I still don't have a problem with the US stance. I don't read anywhere in that article, which is short and thus not very comprehensive, where it says the US is not willing to reciprocate. If the US is not so willing, then yes, I believe Canada should decline.

The reason that there is no reciprocity is because there are no Canadian officers on US soil... and there is likely never going to be Canadian officers on US soil. The whole "bilateral" part of the arrangement strikes me as hokum. The US wants law enforcement in Canada. It tells Canada this. The Canadian government really can't say no, so it insists on calling it a bilateral agreement when it is anything but. The Canadian government saves face, and the US government gets its way by telling its junior "partner" what is going to happen.

So even if there is de jure reciprocity - and there currently is not - there will never be de facto reciprocity. On paper the Canadian government can have law enforcement in the US; in actual fact, it will never happen, because A) it doesn't really want them there and B) the US won't let it happen, even if Canada changes its mind.

I'm not sure what the aim of the second program is - what US laws would the Canadian officers help enforce within the US and what Canadian laws would the US help with? And why does either country's police forces need such help? I can see the cargo pre-inspection thing. That helps both countries. Canadian goods get into the US faster and the US doesn't have its northern border clogged with trucks, or at least not as much. There's no mention of pre-inspection of US goods into Canada. Perhaps Canadian customs laws are not as onerous as US laws and trucks are able to cross over to the north more quickly? I don't know.

As for the first bit, it has something to do with terrorism fear, I'm sure. Take the two jackasses who wanted to blow up a commuter train in Niagara. Stopping them was a joint FBI/RCMP operation. It's legitimate... but I don't see why the host countries laws shouldn't apply to foreign officers. That makes zero sense to me, and raises huge sovereignty issues. Seriously, give me a good reason why immunity is a good idea.

Also, I'm really only okay with it so long as it remains as it is now: American law enforcement working in an investigative capacity only. I do not want American officers running around Canada enforcing warrants or arresting people. That's not okay. Especially if they aren't subject to Canadian law. Frankly, the word for that is "colonialism."

As for pre-inspection, there are no Canadian officers in the US pre-inspecting goods. There almost certainly never will be. The US government wants more control over its "unsecured" northern border, so it bullied its officers into Canada. It's a bilateral program in name only.

[geonuc]

I don't know. I think I'm willing to give the Canadian government a little more credit that that. For sure, the US has more economic muscle to flex - and is willing to do so - but I can't see Ottawa caving in with no quid pro quo of some sort. Even if the RCMP (or whomever) has no real interest is policing down south, surely Canada is getting something out of this deal.

That said, I respect the Department of Homeland Security about as much as the IRS. Never should have been created. Even the name give me chills.

[geonuc]

BTW, this is an epic derail of the thread!

[geonuc]

Re: the border agents, they fall under DHS, so there may be some arrangement about whose laws they operate under. They are pre-clearing for entry into the US, the question at the land crossings, are the inspection centres on canadian soil, or on an area of land that can be qualified as a grey area? There are pre-clearances carried out in airports, before boarding flights to the US, these inspections/clearances may be in the security area of the airport which can be a sort of limbo (think Snowden in Russia before being granted asylum or that person that spent years living in a Paris airport). I wouldn't be surprised if the US border agents at the airports also work under and are governed by US law while on duty, if they reside in Canada, they may fall under our jurisdiction/laws while off-duty. I believe Canada has the option of having pre-clearance areas in US airports, but am not sure if we actually opt to have them.

edit: I typed my post before seeing the post above mine, which basically covers the issue, they are covered by our laws. Uhm, carry on.

That's a good point about pre-clearing at airports.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I don't know. I think I'm willing to give the Canadian government a little more credit that that. For sure, the US has more economic muscle to flex - and is willing to do so - but I can't see Ottawa caving in with no quid pro quo of some sort. Even if the RCMP (or whomever) has no real interest is policing down south, surely Canada is getting something out of this deal.

Yes. We get the continued goodwill of the American government. Can't afford to piss off the elephant next door.

Besides, there have been times before when the US has laid out what it wants, Canada be damned, and the Canadian government has agreed so long as they pretty it up to look as if it's bilateral. And I can't bloody think of the big example right now - it's bugging the hell out of me. Had to do with NAFTA, arctic sovereignty, or terrorism detainees... I think. Damn it...

That said, I respect the Department of Homeland Security about as much as the IRS. Never should have been created. Even the name give me chills.

Yeah, not good...

BTW, this is an epic derail of the thread!

Meh. Never stopped us before!

That's a good point about pre-clearing at airports.

Well, those guys are subject to Canadian law, are confined to the airports, are unarmed, and have very narrow duties. I'm fine with them. If the same were true of the truck pre-inspectors, I'd be fine with them, too. It's all the other shit surrounding the pre-inspection program and the broader policing program that I take serious issue with. It's one thing to be the airport guy; it's another to be an armed police officer wandering around Toronto with the power to execute warrants and make arrests without being subject to Canadian laws or safeguards.

[SciFi Chick]

I wonder how different our laws are.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Not very, I'd imagine. But that's not the point. If a law enforcement officer engages in some form of misconduct against me in my own country, I expect to have recourse to my own country's legal system. It's much more onerous for a wronged citizen to have to complain to a foreign system and to understand foreign laws. It's a barrier to accountability and thus is unjust. Moreover, the expectation is that the legal safeguards in place here to protect citizens from police misconduct are actually going to do so - to have police operating here free of the safeguards passed by the democratically-elected government of my country, and free of constitutional safeguards which are my right as a Canadian citizen to have, is unacceptable, even if there are similar American laws.

Then there are practical differences: there are different standards for police conduct in Canada and the US. Admissibility of evidence, for example, has different rules. If an American police officer is operating in Canada under American law, does that mean that the US evidence standard applies? And does that mean that an American police officer would be able to do things regard search and seizure that a Canadian police officer would be barred from doing? And would I therefore have no recourse to a police officer doing things to me that are illegal and unconstitutional under Canadian law, just because he can say "Well, I was operating under American law, so I don't care if it would violate your laws. Bend over."? I'd rather not have that happen; we have laws and constitutional guarantees against certain police actions. Those actions should therefore not happen in Canada. Exempting American law enforcement from Canadian law opens the possibility that they will happen.

[Parrothead]

TSC: I don't read the article as US police operating in Canada according to US regulations, if I understand your assumptions correctly. The article states each would be enforcing the host country's laws. What is being studied is what would happen if one of the police officers were caught breaking the law, while in the host country. I'll go on the assumption, if they are caught and are exempt from facing punishment in the host country, there would be provisions for said officer to be removed from the joint service, then face charges or disciplinary measures back home. The article also states that, if the US were to gain this provision, Canada should only agree if reciprocal laws for RCMP officers that would be stationed on US soil, be in place. If caught breaking a US law, they would be exempt and subject to our law, not US.

I'm fine with this. As for any protocols on how these joint forces operate, I'm assuming those are being or have been hammered out. The article states if not the status quo, then input from all involved should be considered in coming up with some newer policing model. I doubt there would be provisions for US police to operate independently in Canada or RCMP to operate independently in the US, according to their own procedures.

[Rommie]

To be fair, probably the biggest thing that would happen to the American police officers is they'd be persecuted if they smoked pot because US law is anal about that whereas Canadian law wouldn't care, especially in Vancouver. And we can't have that!

[The Supreme Canuck]

Parrothead:

Here's the issue. There are overlaps between misconduct laws and things that actually matter to the outcome of an investigation. There's a reason that I brought up evidentiary rules. One of the remedies for an improper search and seizure in Canada is that the evidence that was improperly obtained gets thrown out. I'm fairly certain the same is true under American law... but our two countries use different standards and thresholds to determine when that sort of evidence becomes inadmissible. So if US officers use US misconduct laws, that probably means that the US evidentiary standard applies, too. Which has concrete outcomes for Canadians subject to that sort of misconduct by American law enforcement in Canada.

And that's just an example of the sort of complexities involved in misconduct laws. They do have real consequences for those wronged.

[FZR1KG]

Thin edge of the wedge.
The USA wants Canada as its 51st state to be finally formalised.

[Yosh]

Late to the party.

Minor nit: They elected *not* to prove he aided the enemy. WNINTEL and all that.

I disagree with the suspended sentence TSC:

1. Don't for a minute think the information WikiLeaks let out to the press wasn't altered to fit their narrative.

2. He violated his oath of enlistment and at least a couple of formal contracts without regard for his fellow soldiers.

Now, I spent a lot of time getting educated on, discussing, and helping teach what we call "moral authority," i.e.; that one is obligated to disobey illegal orders and to *not* commit crimes...e.g., My Lai.

I submit this falls outside of that.

[Sigma_Orionis]

He got 35 Years

[brite]

He got 35 Years

And all probability only serve 8... 25-30 years ago... he would have been shot. I'm not sure he's worth the bullet. But he's sure as shit not worth the money it will cost to keep him at Leavenworth.

[Rommie]

From now on, we should refer to Manning as Chelsea

Cause this case wasn't weird enough...