What right have you lost.

[Black Dog]

Sure - let anyone go off to Syria to chop off heads and have them return and do the same to us. Our laws and police never foresaw what is taking place in the world today. We have to adapt - and I see nothing at all that infringes on my rights and freedoms. Nothing. But that's just me.

Yeah, people seldom do. At first.

[Michael Hardner]

Not true at all.....there was plenty of American interest in the ME before 9/11.

"plenty" ... doesn't negate my word "less"

[bush_cheney2004]

"plenty" ... doesn't negate my word "less"

Yes it does....longer timeline of U.S. engagement, Gulf War, post-Gulf War, Suez Crisis, Camp David accords, Marine barracks bombing, Iran hostages, Missiles in Turkey, etc., etc.

[Michael Hardner]

Example: I eat plenty of burgers but I eat fewer than I used to.

[bush_cheney2004]

Example: I eat plenty of burgers but I eat fewer than I used to.

Bad example. The U.S. has been "interested" in the ME for a long time, regardless of 9/11.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think any increase in powers should be accompanied by a commiserate increase in oversight. What that would look like exactly, I can't say, but that seems like an uncontroversial position to me, though not to the feds.

Unproven.

You are asking the wrong question. The question any responsible citizen should ask in the face of expanded state powers is "why is this needed?" not "what harm will this do?" as the consequences of these types of things are often unintended and unforeseeable.

Very good point. If you dont get a good answer to the first question, you will likely end up with a bad answer to the second, only it will be in the present tense.

[eyeball]

Our laws and police never foresaw what is taking place in the world today.

Really? How come I could see this coming almost 15 years ago?

[Michael Hardner]

Bad example. The U.S. has been "interested" in the ME for a long time, regardless of 9/11.

Agreed. Also, America was a lot less interested in the ME before 9/11.

[bush_cheney2004]

Agreed. Also, America was a lot less interested in the ME before 9/11.

Sure...that's why America first invaded Afghanistan instead of the ME after 9/11.

How did this get so off-topic ? Oh...I know...worrying about U.S. interest in the ME is a Canadian right.

Edited February 4, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Keepitsimple]

Really? How come I could see this coming almost 15 years ago?

Perhaps I should have said that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms never foresaw what's going on in the world today. Our Charter, as did it's predecessor the Bill of Rights - hold freedom, liberty and Human Rights as the centerpiece of society. As such, we rightly take great care in making legislative changes that could infringe on those rights. That's why we only took baby steps and had sunset clauses after 9/11 - but nonetheless, they seemed to have served us well. But now we're faced with an evolving reality and once again we have to acknowledge it and address it - because now Canadians are being radicalized, going abroad to join a violent ideology - and potentially/probably coming back home to wreak havoc on their own society. It's not a pretty picture. The vast majority of Canadians are comfortable with the balance that we're trying to strike to keep Canadians safe.

[Black Dog]

Perhaps I should have said that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms never foresaw what's going on in the world today. Our Charter, as did it's predecessor the Bill of Rights - hold freedom, liberty and Human Rights as the centerpiece of society. As such, we rightly take great care in making legislative changes that could infringe on those rights. That's why we only took baby steps and had sunset clauses after 9/11 - but nonetheless, they seemed to have served us well. But now we're faced with an evolving reality and once again we have to acknowledge it and address it - because now Canadians are being radicalized, going abroad to join a violent ideology - and potentially/probably coming back home to wreak havoc on their own society. It's not a pretty picture. The vast majority of Canadians are comfortable with the balance that we're trying to strike to keep Canadians safe.

What about the old way of doing things was inadequate for the task?

[Derek 2.0]

"plenty" ... doesn't negate my word "less"

BC2004 speak the truth Michael, the Americans have had a great (military) interest in the Middle East since the later 1970s, further compounded by the fall of the Shah, the Iraq-Iran war, both military assistance and pre-positioning of forces in Saudi Arabia (and Diego Garcia) in the 80s (to counter a perceived Soviet threat), regular naval deployments, then of course the invasion of Kuwait, the liberation of Kuwait and the containment of Iraq up into the ’03 invasion…….

The Americans simply filled the vacuum left by the British (and Commonwealth) following their withdrawal from “East of the Suez” and to a lesser degree the French………

[On Guard for Thee]

Sure...that's why America first invaded Afghanistan instead of the ME after 9/11.

How did this get so off-topic ? Oh...I know...worrying about U.S. interest in the ME is a Canadian right.

How come they didnt invade Saudi, where most of the terrorists came from I wonder. Oh yeah, oil.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oil matters....see "Carter Doctrine". Fast forward to today.....

Oil matters....see Alberta Premier in Washington D.C. addressing powerful U.S. lobby group.

Edited February 4, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

BC2004 speak the truth Michael, the Americans have had a great (military) interest in the Middle East since the later 1970s,

Do you think Americans have been more interested in the region since 9/11 ? It's a simple proposition.

[Derek 2.0]

Do you think Americans have been more interested in the region since 9/11 ? It's a simple proposition.

No, but to determine their interest is subjective (in my opinion), I feel their interest in the region has evolved post 9/11……..i.e. The threat of another Superpower involving itself has been reduced, likewise the prospects of a regional war breaking out among nation states…….clearly their interest in asymmetric threats has increased though….

[eyeball]

BC2004 speak the truth Michael, the Americans have had a great (military) interest in the Middle East since the later 1970s, further compounded by the fall of the Shah, the Iraq-Iran war, both military assistance and pre-positioning of forces in Saudi Arabia (and Diego Garcia) in the 80s (to counter a perceived Soviet threat), regular naval deployments, then of course the invasion of Kuwait, the liberation of Kuwait and the containment of Iraq up into the ’03 invasion…….

The Americans simply filled the vacuum left by the British (and Commonwealth) following their withdrawal from “East of the Suez” and to a lesser degree the French………

The Americans got hooked on the region back in 1953. Britain lured them in with a taste of the good stuff..."Here kid, try a hit of this...the first one's free".

Now they're the biggest pusher in town and judging by France, withdrawal is a real bitch.

Edited February 4, 2015 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

The Americans got hooked on the region back in 1953. Britain lured them in with a taste of the good stuff..."Here kid, try a hit of this...the first one's free".

Now they're the biggest pusher in town and judging by France, withdrawal is a real bitch.

Nope....FDR met with the Saudis right after Yalta in 1945. Truman fully engaged the issue of Israel and Palestine long before 1953.

I guess this has something to do with Canadian rights.

[eyeball]

Nope....FDR met with the Saudis right after Yalta in 1945.

Oil that is...Black Gold...Texas Tea.

But also....

"The President replied that he wished to

assure His Majesty that he would do nothing to assist

the Jews against the Arabs and would make no

move hostile to the Arab people" and that his government

"would make no change in its basic policy

in Palestine without full and prior consultation with

both Jews and Arabs."

The Day FDR Met

Saudi Arabia’s Ibn Saud

Truman fully engaged the issue of Israel and Palestine long before 1953.

And reneged on the pledge Roosevelt made by endorsing the partition of Palestine. Shit happens eh?

To his credit though at least Truman thought helping Britain overthrow Iran was a pretty stupid idea but then in similar fashion his successor came along and...

Notice the pattern yet? One doofus after another after another...like a line of dots connected to...now.

I guess this has something to do with Canadian rights.

Human rights actually.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Notice the pattern yet? One doofus after another after another...like a line of dots connected to...now.

At least we have you calibrated correctly now....1953 my ass !!

[eyeball]

Up till then the mistakes and gaffes were honest enough but no, America truly crossed over to the Dark Side that year. Bit the apple, caught the bug, got hooked...It is what it is.

C'mon you've never had any trouble owning this before, why is now so different?

[Derek 2.0]

So Trudeau and the Federal Liberals put on their big boy pants and are jumping into bed with the Government in quashing the rights of Canadians.......whats better, Trudeau is concerned with the bill, and wants changes to it, which the Government won't do, so he'll vote for it anyways.......The two-faced Liberals are back!!!

I liked this part though:

The announcement, made Wednesday afternoon, seems particularly odd because the bill includes a measure that would let the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) apply for a warrant to ignore the charter. The charter is indelibly linked to Trudeau, as it was written and enacted under the Liberal government headed by his father, former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

[bush_cheney2004]

Up till then the mistakes and gaffes were honest enough but no, America truly crossed over to the Dark Side that year. Bit the apple, caught the bug, got hooked...It is what it is.

C'mon you've never had any trouble owning this before, why is now so different?

Nonsense...the "dark side" was embraced in the preceding century throughout the Americas. Your rompin' stompin' empire died, so another had to take its place.

[bush_cheney2004]

So Trudeau and the Federal Liberals put on their big boy pants and are jumping into bed with the Government in quashing the rights of Canadians.......whats better, Trudeau is concerned with the bill, and wants changes to it, which the Government won't do, so he'll vote for it anyways.......The two-faced Liberals are back!!!

Well...hell...what's he gonna do after ISIS just barbecued a guy in a cage ? He didn't even send him any blankets to help put the fire out !

[ReeferMadness]

Critics are all over the map - but seem to retreat to the "more oversight is needed" when they can't express their concerns in a rational, meaningful way.....but to answer your question. I agree that there should be better oversight and I'm hoping the committee process will start to build on that concern. I'd like to see a hybrid model of oversight that combined appointments along with MP representation - three appointments on overlapping 5 year terms to ensure continuity - along with 3 MPs - one each from the major parties - all sworn to secrecy of course.

Of course they can't express concerns in a rational, meaningful way. Know why? Because nobody knows what the hell CSIS is doing. Why? Because there is no meaningful oversight!!! All we do see is every time we turn around, the law and order freaks, most of whom normally espouse smaller and less intrusive government, are ratcheting up the invasive and intrusive powers of CSIS and the police. Are these powers being used responsibly? Are they even effective? Who knows - there's no meaningful oversight!!!

So, in answer to the question posed in the original post, I've lost my basic right to privacy to our very own version of the secret police. And it's all been over a handful of deranged or mentally ill people that the government won't care for. Because we need smaller and less intrusive government. Except when it comes to espionage.