Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canadian soveranty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    [QUOTE=JSam21;38231]Yes because thoes are pieces of US properity. Just like forgien embasy's over here are considered that respective countries land. Its just like how the Marines guard our embasy's over in other countries.[/


    IMO the best duty in Corps.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    yep

    jsam has it right, they are defending United States gov't property. Doesn't matter where it's at. As far as basic security detail goes i.e. the G8 summit, individual countries should directly secure their leaders, but operations overall should be supervised by the host nation. at least brief them and let them know what will happen in case of a shooting, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • JSam21
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity View Post
    In the Canadian situation our LE people were told if the plane or motorcade was threatened, to stand back & let the Secret Service & Marines take care of it. That is was bugs me. Your suggestion is more reasonable.
    Yes because thoes are pieces of US properity. Just like forgien embasy's over here are considered that respective countries land. Its just like how the Marines guard our embasy's over in other countries.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Originally posted by dougo83 View Post
    I certainly don't want our citizens dying to protect a foreign personality. That just seems stupid to me. Protect your own. I personally feel that a foreign diplomat should be protected by their own countrymen, but HIGHLY supervised by the host country's service of choice. Here, I believe foreign diplomats are kind of looked after by our Secret Service (not sure, I believe I heard that somewhere though) They still have their own security detail though.
    In the Canadian situation our LE people were told if the plane or motorcade was threatened, to stand back & let the Secret Service & Marines take care of it. That is was bugs me. Your suggestion is more reasonable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    well...

    I ask you the same question I asked before: How would you feel if the "secret service" type agency from a country like Russia was soly responsible for the security of the Russian president while visiting the US - even being allowed to kill a US citizen to defend their president? (Answer honestly)
    I certainly don't want our citizens dying to protect a foreign personality. That just seems stupid to me. Protect your own. I personally feel that a foreign diplomat should be protected by their own countrymen, but HIGHLY supervised by the host country's service of choice. Here, I believe foreign diplomats are kind of looked after by our Secret Service (not sure, I believe I heard that somewhere though) They still have their own security detail though.

    Leave a comment:


  • tattedupboy
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity View Post
    I ask you the same question I asked before: How would you feel if the "secret service" type agency from a country like Russia was soly responsible for the security of the Russian president while visiting the US - even being allowed to kill a US citizen to defend their president? (Answer honestly)

    Thanks for the spelling correction, I am more used to seeing it written in French which is closer to the way I spelt it.
    Here's a rhetorical question for you. If a U.S. citizen gets killed for putting the Russian president's safety in jeopardy, what difference does it make whether the person's killers are Russian or American? The person is just as dead either way, is he not? Can you honestly say that if a person putting the Russian president's safety in jeopardy while visiting the U.S. gets killed, you would prefer that it be done by Americans? The same goes for U.S. Secret Service agents visiting a foreign country; if someone from that country puts our president's safety in jeopardy and gets shot and killed, it really doesn't matter to me whether the shooters are American or not.

    Also, even at the risk of playing devil's advocate, liability issues must always be considered when providing security for prominent persons such as heads of state. I can honestly say that if a U.S. citizen gets shot while trying to jeopardize the Russian president's safety, I'd rather the liability be solely with the Russians, not with the U.S. Can you imagine the fallout that would result if a Secret Service Agent sacrificed the life of a U.S. citizen to protect a foreigner? Not saying it wouldn't be news if a foreign bodyguard did it while here, but the fallout would not be nearly as serious.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Originally posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Oh, the horror God forbid a U.S. security organization takes responsibility for ensuring the protection of the U.S. President, and in the process, saving the subjects of the host country a boatload in taxes.

    P.S. The word is spelled "sovereignty."
    I ask you the same question I asked before: How would you feel if the "secret service" type agency from a country like Russia was soly responsible for the security of the Russian president while visiting the US - even being allowed to kill a US citizen to defend their president? (Answer honestly)

    Thanks for the spelling correction, I am more used to seeing it written in French which is closer to the way I spelt it.

    Leave a comment:


  • tattedupboy
    replied
    Oh, the horror God forbid a U.S. security organization takes responsibility for ensuring the protection of the U.S. President, and in the process, saving the subjects of the host country a boatload in taxes.

    P.S. The word is spelled "sovereignty."

    Leave a comment:


  • Eric
    replied
    Stand back and let the Secret Service handle it - scare tactic or public relations speak....No problem with that from me, I do not want a Leader from another country "disrupted" when visiting.

    President Bush on his last visit here said something like, he apprieciated all the people waving, specially the ones using all of their fingers at the same time....

    www.nascocorridor.com/

    It is interesting to see Ford say they can not compete here, but Toyoto is building more plants here.....

    Leave a comment:


  • JB diligence
    replied
    I believe it is normal for each country to provide security for there own respective leader's, It makes sense to me as each service has there own SOP's, combine that with cooperation and planning with the host countries security/police services it seems to have been working for all these years now. With respect to Air Force 1 she's US property and the Marines and US Secret Service have to protect her and her cargo. As far as the motorcade goes, same thing. Our guys create and secure the barricades with personnel posted and so on. Keep in mind each President/Prime Minister or whoever's security teams are trained and continue to train to perfect the protection that they provide.

    Also with regards to the meeting grounds perimeter fence, it looked like The Surte de Quebec was doing a fine job keeping demonstrators from breaching the fence.

    As for Mexican workers... I see the issues our friends to the south of us are dealing with regarding Illegal immigrants from there southern most border. I'm not nuts about the idea of migrant workers coming over here either for that same reason, as well as Canadian jobs being given to the lowest bidder. Maybe I watch CNN's Lou Dobbs to much, but it's bad enough seeing so many factory jobs among others going overseas as is. We like the US have hard working people trying to sustain a life for there families then out of the blue the company is sold off shore. Another thing is graduates who tried so hard in school and college/university, some are fortunate and land a job in there field of choice, while those not so fortunate working for minimum wage just to get by.

    As for this "super-highway" I think this is a long way off. First they have to plan it's structure, entry and exit points, then standardize laws. I.E. Ontario's highway Traffic Act differs from those of other Provinces, and one states Traffic laws no doubt differ from other states (Weights of trucks, hours drivers can operate for) and so on. Who's going to enforce it? a specialized police service? Or they way our highways/interstates are already? We have Customs & Immigration & Homeland Security issues. The list goes on. Even longer than I had planed to post here in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawson
    replied
    Originally posted by JSam21 View Post
    What I'm more worried about is this Can-Mex super highway thats being built through the United States that no US Law Enforcement can take place on.
    Im okay with it as long as there's 100ft wall on both sides, 100ft deep moats on the outsides and no exits into the U.S.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chucky
    replied
    See if this rings a bell. In early summer when the illegal immigrants were protesting in the U.S. a couple radio stations from Canada were talking trash so in rebuttal from some U.S. stations said basically how about we send them up to you guys and see how you like it. That is around the first time I ever heard of that proposed highway. IMO the highway was just a part of the friendly badgering and is nothing more than that. If I remember it correctly it was to be a one way highway north. As far as no U.S. law enforcement on U.S. territory well that would definitely be a laughable hoax.

    Leave a comment:


  • JSam21
    replied
    What I'm more worried about is this Can-Mex super highway thats being built through the United States that no US Law Enforcement can take place on.

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishCop
    replied
    It will be interesting to follow your story, although I'm inclined to believe it's a beat up by your local radio talk back Shock Jock.

    Generally speaking the US Secret Service, the Royal Protection Squad or any other Government's Protective Service may use force proportionate to the immediate physicial threat to their Principal; however when visiting a foreign country, entry would be conditional on they having to adhere to the laws of that country in relation to the possession and use of firearms etc. They would have no powers of arrest or interception and other than when preventing an immediate physical threat, they themselves could in certain circumstances be charged with assault, should they infringe on the liberty of a member of the public.

    It is for that reason that Government Protective Services when visiting a foreign country will work closely and be guided and assisted by the host countries police and security services.

    Leave a comment:


  • JSam21
    replied
    I would assume so... we are only worried about our presidents and dignitaries. Honestly whats the big deal?

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X