NDP , Harper's safety not worth the price to send over amoured car

cybercoma · November 12, 2012

nope you and smallc are still ducking and side stepping the question, the RCMP's assessment carries no weight here they've proven to be less than honest...the RCMP has done or said nothing to justify the selection other than "no comment" coincidentally the same answer as the PMO....the Indians have the latest in armored car technology which would have cost us 35K rental for the entire trip...the PMs car and the Indian's Mercedes specifications aren't state secrets so why the no comment...

You may think it's perfectly acceptable for a foreign government to determine what kind of security our Prime Minister gets, but I'm sure the vast majority of people would think that's insane. The RCMP makes the security decisions for our Prime Minister and the last thing we should be doing is criticizing them for being too secure.

cybercoma · November 12, 2012

the penny pinching mindset eschews any such understanding or logic.

So now you criticize "austerity"?

login · November 12, 2012

See post #115 it is their mandate. Even so, if you choose not to believe it fine, but the RCMP does and did assess the situation and acted accordingly.

http://www.rcmp-grc....p/index-eng.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...s-security.html

Nonsense

it ain't their mandate under the rcmp act.

'just because the police don't do their job according to the law don't make it no mandate.

their mandate seems to be wasting police resources while women get raped on their way home, and organized crime reigns the streets.

the only mandate they are acheiving is wasting tax dollars

'stop lying show me where it says that in the rcmp act or how it is fullfilling their duties under the act.

you are spouting nonsense.

just because the rcmp post it on their website don't make it true

read the act not the webmasters take on how things work, the webmaster is only showing corruption in the rcmp administration

there ain;t been no democratic mandate for that stuff you say, it ain't the law, it is bigwigs giving themsekves perks

rcmp stopped being responsible for security intelligence in the 1980's. it ain't their job, it actually for a reason ain't their job.

only csis is suppose to be responsible for that stuff

there is also the military stuff for cse and intel and coubter intel and counter counter intel

then they made up all those police teams which is just forgetting why csis was made in the first place and the rcmp stopoed acting as an intel agency.

your are confusing the law with corruption

THEN YOU HAVE THIS NONSENSE

http://www.canada.com/news/RCMP+asks+outsider+review+security+squad/7060363/story.html

Edited November 12, 2012 by login

cybercoma · November 12, 2012

login, you're making an argument that no one's making. There isn't a single politician or pundit saying the RCMP shouldn't be responsible for the PM's security detail. Regardless of whether you think they should be or not, they are. Moreover, it doesn't matter for the topic whatsoever. The fact is that they are responsible and they made the call.

g_bambino · November 12, 2012

Nonsense
it ain't their mandate under the rcmp act.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, Part I, Section 4: "The Force may be employed in such places within or outside Canada as the Governor in Council prescribes."

login · November 12, 2012

Just admit you are wrong and you can't demonstrate where that is in the RCMP Act and it is a corruption for the RCMP to babysit the PM for 50 Million dollars a year.

It is disgusting one person is eating up so mmany millions of dollars.

It is an utter waste of money.

Oh no I'm saying something the corrupt politicians with gold plated pensions and perks up the backend won't be upset about.

gtfo here,

Edited November 12, 2012 by login

g_bambino · November 12, 2012

Just admit you are wrong and you can't demo strate where that is in the RCMP Act

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, Part I, Section 4: "The Force may be employed in such places within or outside Canada as the Governor in Council prescribes."

And here are the Governor in Council's prescriptions: Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations 1988, Section 17.1.e.ii: "In addition to the duties prescribed by the Act, it is the duty of members who are peace officers to... protect, within or outside Canada, whether or not there is an imminent threat to their security,... the Prime Minister of Canada."

[ed.: +]

Edited November 12, 2012 by g_bambino

WWWTT · November 12, 2012

this is a straw man argument and I would appreciate it if you didn't mischaacterize what I'm saying in the future.

What I'm saying is criticizing them for security decisions they make about protecting the PM in the interest of austerity is ridiculous, especially coming from the party that criticizes austerity.

I'm not blindly partisan, waving the orange flag and cheerleading for the democrats. I actually want to see the party govern some day and will continue to criticize the things they do that will prevent that. This is one if those things.

I'm calling a spade a spade!

If the NDP did not make a fuss about this then it would have slipped under the radar.

And as far as I'm concerned,this is the job of the opposition.

Just because you think it is not a worthy issue does not mean that I do so.Or other responsible Canadians.

Oh and by the way,not spending on unnecessary security,in any way can not be defined as austerity!

WWWTT

cybercoma · November 12, 2012

It is disgusting one person is eating up so mmany millions of dollars.

It's not the individual that's eating up so many millions of dollars, but protection of the person holding that position regardless of the person.

WWWTT · November 12, 2012

They would still decide, based on their intel, how to handle security, not the PMO.

They would "suggest",not decide.

There is a difference.

WWWTT

cybercoma · November 12, 2012

Just because you think it is not a worthy issue does not mean that I do so.Or other responsible Canadians.

Excuse me, but I take offence to you implying that I'm irresponsible because I disagree with criticism over the Prime Minister's security abroad. The RCMP didn't want to use the Indian vehicles for whatever reasons they had. Presumably you would like the NDP to form government some day. Do you really want the Conservatives across the aisle criticizing how the RCMP protects Mulcair? It's a very short-sighted argument that looks to me, a supporter of the NDP, a hell of a lot like unreasonable nitpicking.

WWWTT · November 12, 2012

The RCMP does not have to justify the details of security procedures for the travel abroad of our government officials. In fact, discussing and detailing such procedures would compromise the very security they are trying to ensure.

Isn't that too convenient!

WWWTT

cybercoma · November 12, 2012

Isn't that too convenient!

WWWTT

You want the details of the Prime Minister's security abroad to be made public? Seriously... ? Edited November 12, 2012 by cybercoma

WWWTT · November 12, 2012

You want the details of the Prime Minister's security abroad to be made public? Seriously... ?

Who cares?

Think about it,what would someone who had harmful intents do differently if the vehicle was an armored mercedes compared to a cadi SUV?

This whole "Oh we can't tell you because of security" is a load of bunk,and I'm not swallowing it!

WWWTT

WWWTT · November 12, 2012

Do you really want the Conservatives across the aisle criticizing how the RCMP protects Mulcair? It's a very short-sighted argument that looks to me, a supporter of the NDP, a hell of a lot like unreasonable nitpicking.

You got to be freekin kidding me?!?!?

Let the conservatives criticize whomever they want!

You are implying that the NDP run and hide!

Got news for you cybercoma,it's not going to happen!

WWWTT

cybercoma · November 12, 2012

Who cares about the Prime Minister's security? That about says it all.

cybercoma · November 12, 2012

You are implying that the NDP run and hide!

WWWTT

That's exactly what I'm implying.

You become extremely irrational when someone disagrees with you.

WWWTT · November 13, 2012

Who cares about the Prime Minister's security? That about says it all.

Actually this comment pretty much says how much your debating skills have slipped.

WWWTT

WWWTT · November 13, 2012

You become extremely irrational when someone disagrees with you.

And this attack on a posters character.

Your slippin.

WWWTT

wyly · November 13, 2012

Excuse me, but I take offence to you implying that I'm irresponsible because I disagree with criticism over the Prime Minister's security abroad. The RCMP didn't want to use the Indian vehicles for whatever reasons they had.

and what reasons did the RCMP have, technical data of armored cars are not state secrets...you're doing quite the dance here to avoid admitting that...any armored car builders openly brag about their cars abilities as part of their sales promotions, so what makes the PM's cars superior to India's? that India that has assinations of it's leaders a country of 1 billion people can't afford the very best of security for it's leaders and foreign heads of state? I find that very difficult to believe ...a simple listing of technical abilities ends the debate but all we here from you is the same as the RCMP, which essentially amounts to "just because we said so"....sorry I don't accept that until I see the evidence I see an unnecessary $700K waste of tax payers dollars so that the PM can pretend to be presidential...

Presumably you would like the NDP to form government some day. Do you really want the Conservatives across the aisle criticizing how the RCMP protects Mulcair? It's a very short-sighted argument that looks to me, a supporter of the NDP, a hell of a lot like unreasonable nitpicking.

both WWWT and I have posted it's the opposition's job to question and scrutinize everything the government does and I mean exactly that and I assume WWWT does as well regardless which party is in opposition...an anal annoying opposition is part of our democratic checks and balances... Edited November 13, 2012 by wyly

wyly · November 13, 2012

Who cares?

Think about it,what would someone who had harmful intents do differently if the vehicle was an armored mercedes compared to a cadi SUV?

This whole "Oh we can't tell you because of security" is a load of bunk,and I'm not swallowing it!

WWWTT

absolutely this is easy matter to diffuse if the government wished to do so, that they don't suggests they can't and the extra expense was unnecessary...we see all sorts of technical pros and cons for procuring fighter jets, tanks and ships but armored cars... well we don't want to talk about that "no comment" ...

cybercoma · November 13, 2012

and what reasons did the RCMP have

Since it apparently needs to be said again, you will never know the specific reasons the RCMP has for decisions regarding the protection of the Prime Minister. It's quite obviously not in their best interest to release detailed reports about security threats to the Prime Minister to the public, while those threats are active.

Also, as it pertains to the differences between the vehicles, it may not be anything in particular about the capacities of the vehicles, but the fact that it is their own vehicles, as opposed to ones provided by the host nation. It may be about limiting opportunities for problems. Who knows?

All I know is that they made a call and questioning the RCMP because they provided too much security for the PM signals to me that the NDP is not ready for prime time. It makes me even angrier because I want the NDP to succeed. But they're still acting like a third place party.

g_bambino · November 13, 2012

and what reasons did the RCMP have, technical data of armored cars are not state secrets...

Actually, they are.

Smallc · November 13, 2012

And as I said, the only way to ensure information security is to use your own vehicles...maybe they didn't trust the Indians?

g_bambino · November 13, 2012

And as I said, the only way to ensure information security is to use your own vehicles...maybe they didn't trust the Indians?

Well, that's a fairly sound argument. However, why, then, were two cars necessary? Why is this sometimes an issue and sometimes not (he travels without his own car more often than with, as far as I'm aware)? And why is it only for the prime minister and no other ministers or the governor general?