The “One Day Sale” at Scarborough Town Centre Mall
The war on terrorism is unlike any we’ve seen before in that it’s ideologically based and without any geopolitical boundaries or limitations, as my former colleague (DC based military strategist Bill Lind) has pointed out.
During WWII, we knew where the Nazis were — and the answer certainly wasn’t “in North America”. Now, things are more complicated. This is a war fought on both international (military) and domestic (law enforcement) fronts. But when even the military is under harsh scrutiny for its treatment of enemy combatants (ie. people they could have lawfully killed in the field without consequence, as has been the case since the Peace of Westphalia) in the war overseas, can we really afford to be that merciless with those who want us dead here at home? Answer: We have to be.
Martyr Mouse: This is a kids’ show. The Mickey doppelganger is named Farfour. I’m not joking.
Post-9/11 anti-terror laws, brought in by Anne McLellan and the Libs, for crying out loud, accorded law enforcement sweeping powers to:
* Within carefully defined limits, allow the arrest, detention and imposition of conditions of release on suspected terrorists to prevent terrorist acts and save lives;
* Make it easier to use electronic surveillance against terrorist groups.
Two major elements of the Anti-Terror Act, involving preventative arrest and hearings, were since yanked by the opposition parties in parliament (this, in addition to the security certificate provision, which was also pulled). Why nix a law that has worked perfectly for us thus far?
What is clear is that there are terror suspects in Canada. That is an undeniable, verifiable fact. Relatively few have been arrested and charged under the post-9/11 legislation. Why is this? If it’s a matter of amending the legislation yet again in order to change the evidentiary requirements, then we need to have that dialogue. Now.
How long do suspects have to be spun before they can be taken out of commission? Do we have to wait until they make suspicious purchases? Shave their heads? Meet with other suspects at a mosque? At what point is enough considered enough, exactly?
And perhaps someone can explain what the heck is the purpose of having increased use of electronic surveillance when the authorities aren’t trained in the language used by some of the suspects. I mean there’s only so much insight one can gleam from warrantless digging through garbage.
Now, some might argue that we need to hire people of Mideast nationalities who can speak/translate the language into usable intelligence. Forget it. That’s the enemy — and we’ve already established from 9/11 onwards that, unlike with WWII where the Nazis weren’t roaming around North America — the enemy is here. Look, if people who live in caves can learn the language, then surely someone with a university education serving in an intel gathering capacity can pick it up.
More to come on this topic in the coming weeks.
Here’s another thought: The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour in WWII, not the Germans. And I don’t recall anyone crying, “Why did we take out Hitler when we should have been focused on the Japanese because THEY were the guys who hit us?!” Yet that’s what critics say about taking out Saddam Hussein and draining the swamp in Iraq.
Awww, but HE never attacked us — the JAPANESE did! Right? Must have been about the oil. *sigh*