...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...
In case you've been in a cave, here's the latest news on a terrorist cell arrested by the anti-terrorism squad of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
A counterterrorism sweep Friday resulted in the largest arrest ever made by the nation's anti-terrorism forces and raised, for the first time, the spectre of homegrown terrorists striking Canadians from within our borders.[from Globe and Mail]RCMP Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell announced the arrest of 12 Ontario men who were to appear in court later Saturday in Brampton, west of Toronto. The men ranged in age from 19 to 43, and are residents of Toronto, Mississauga and Kingston.
. . .
Media reports Saturday alleged that the suspects engaged in terror training camps north of Toronto. It was further alleged that the group was plotting to attack targets in Toronto, including the headquarters of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
. . .
Police have recovered three tonnes of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in the raids. Commissioner McDonell noted that this amount was three times the amount used by Timothy McVeigh to destroy the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
Certainly the most disturbing aspect of this story, and one that will probably be ignored by the evil right wing bloggers, is that the Canadian intelligence services were apparently snooping on these suspected terrorists' private websites!
The chain of events began two years ago, sparked by local teenagers roving through Internet sites, reading and espousing anti-Western sentiments and vowing to attack at home, in the name of oppressed Muslims here and abroad.This is a clear violation of terrorist rights, and it certainly makes me glad to live in America where such domestic surveillance, while still possible, at least generates sufficient outrage among our enlightened class.Their words were sometimes encrypted, the Internet sites where they communicated allegedly restricted by passwords, but Canadian spies back in 2004 were reading them. And as the youths' words turned into actions, they began watching them.
Who will step up in Canada to protect terrorist rights? Where is Canada's Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? More proof, I guess, of how backward them Canadians are.
h/t Dr. Rusty.
More from Canadians Skippy Debbye and RightGirl.
I live in Toronto, so this story has more than its share of interest for me.
There's a great deal of difference between our respective constitutions. The Bill of Rights tends to be absolutist in its language (eg, "Congress shall make no law...") whereas the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - which can be found here if anyone is interested http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/ - has a self-limiting clause right at the beginning. It reads as follows;
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
And even if there were no "reasonable limit", the federal or any of the ten provincial governments could invoke the notwithstanding clause (section 33.1) and override and judicial decision declaring an act unconstitutional.
To explain that further, let's assume you had a notwitstanding clause when Brown v. Board of Education was ruled on in 1954. The governors of the segregationist states would have been able to legally ignore the ruling and nothing would change.
That's hypertechnical and probably boring as hell to your readers, but as a law student, I thought you might be interested.
My government can, and regularly does, things a whole lot more unpleasant than snoop on websites. Despite that, they are still almost genetically incapable of successfuly prosecuting a terrorst case.
Oh, I also wrote a lot of nonsense about today's events at my place.
Check out my blog for an article by Pejman Yusefzadeh and my reply on this development.
It seems that trying to distance themselves from the USA will not protect Canada from terror.
http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
I'm surprised you're creating a strawman and whumping it; laws concerning internet technology are much more loose than telephone wiretapping, and besides, the websites had addresses visible from anyone's computer.
I'll be curious to see if there is any true outcry.
Posted by: will on Jun. 4, 2006You can tell i'm being facetious, can't you? Still, these websites were private, and used passwords and encryption. Is it too far of a stretch to believe that if the NSA had been reading password protected websites, somone would have been "troubled" by it? Might someone have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" regarding private websites or encrypted information going over the net? Remember, simple e-mails are encrypted too, and some people get all crazy when they hear about the NSA and e-mails.
Posted by: annika on Jun. 4, 2006So you are facetious and serious at the same time? Ah, the things men cannot get away with, unless they are true comedians.
Let's wait to see who comes out in opposition to the monitoring of password protected websites of those who present a threat, lest we speak for others unfairly.
Posted by: will on Jun. 4, 2006actually i learned that trick from the master, Rush.
Posted by: annika on Jun. 5, 2006