Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies


givpeaceachance
#1
Hello, i have searched all over this forum and i couldn't find this article anywhere so i thought i would post it. I posted it in this In The News section because i'm not sure if it has been on the news yet but the government said they would make it public. I haven't heard anything official yet.

Feb 14, 2008 : the day our government stabbed us all in the back and sold us down the river. You can find this article at canada.com

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies

David Pugliese , Canwest News Service

Published: Friday, February 22, 2008
Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.
Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.
The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

var addthis_pub = 'canada.com'; function textCounter(field,cntfield,maxlimit) { if (field.value.length > maxlimit) // if too long...trim it! field.value = field.value.substring(0, maxlimit); // otherwise, update 'characters left' counter else { var divLabel = document.getElementById("divLabel"); divLabel.innerHTML = maxlimit - field.value.length + " characters remaining"; } } The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.
"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites," said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.
Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.
"Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?" he asked.
Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. "We don't know the answers because the government doesn't want to even announce the plan," he said.
But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.
He said the agreement is "benign" and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.
"But there's no agreement to allow troops to come in," he said. "It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The 'allow' piece is entirely up to the two governments."
If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.
News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.
On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a "North American union" where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.
"Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!" notes one website. "The next time your town has a 'national emergency,' don't be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember - Canadian military aren't bound by posse comitatus."
Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.
Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.
Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn't been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.
© Ottawa Citizen 2008

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/st...14879d&k=14984


My personal questions :

1- What troops? We don't have enough troops for this and EVERYBODY knows this. Including the U.S.

2- 'Civil Emergencies' ??? When was the last time Canada was ever involved a Civil Emergency? This deal isn't even necessary? - unless someone knows something the rest of us doesn't?

3- Martial Law? Why is our government even discussing these things with the U.S.?

I don't want to jump to too many conclusions but this whole thing seems quite foul!!! I see ulterior motives.

The truth is Canada has always been prepared to help the U.S in emergencies. Take Hurricane Katrina as the latest example - Canadian officials told the U.S that they were ready to send whatever type of aid the United States required to help with the aftermath of hurricane Katrina and they did. We sent highly trained disaster response volunteers from our Canadian Red Cross to help. We had some of our Canadian Troops on stand by to help them. We sent, along with all kinds of medical and non-medical supplies and volunteers, three warships along with a Coast Guard vessel, and three Sea King Helicopters to the area. So, it's not like we don't help or that we pass on our responsibility to help our neighbors when they're in need.
I understand that some are going to think - But WE are the ones who need protecting. That's fine BUT what i am saying is that this is 'in case' of a civil emergency - usually those things are not predictable and if that were to happen, we are already obligated to help each other because we are allies?

What i don't understand is why are they messing with our Martial Law? What is all this and why the secrecy?

Stepping back - we don't stand to gain anything from this kind deal. In fact i think we as Canadians have already lost too much simply with the signing of his agreement.

I pray to God we don't start seeing crap happening here so that they can make use of that 'new agreement'.

When you have another country's military looking down the barrels of their guns at you for whatever reason, then you know your government has failed you. I feel like we are no longer free. Like we are now no different from any other country that is at the mercy of anothers government and military power.


sorry for the long post!!!!!







 
Kreskin
#2
In case members of the Royal Canadian Legion attack and disarm our military we'll have some backup.
 
Praxius
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

In case members of the Royal Canadian Legion attack and disarm our military we'll have some backup.

*snaps finger* Damn there goes that plan.

This was actually started in another thread, but not the topic, so good that you started one. When I find the thread again, I'll try and link comments.
 
MHz
#4
Be interesting to see just what would qualify as an emergency.
For some unexplained reason the US rejected many offers from the international community for Katrina.
I seem to recall some nations rejected the offers for assistance from the US after that big tidal wave, probably because that help came in the form of a warship.
 
givpeaceachance
#5
Wow! i guess i'm the only one that cares about this sort of thing.

wow . . . that kinda chokes me up a bit.
 
MHz
#6
Apathy runs deep on issues like this. If it was an Ann Nicole type of thread it would already be several pages long by now.
 
Kreskin
#7
Quote:

He said the agreement is "benign" and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.

If the agreement still requires both sides to agree to the action then what is being achieved by the agreement?
 
givpeaceachance
#8
See . . that's what i thought. And i also thought that if, and God forbid, anything were to happen, don't we normally help each other? That's part of what i don't get. I thought that we all just kinda knew that.

Also, i'm curious what 'civil emergency' means. Is that, say for example, when a people come together and protest their government for making underhanded and secret deals against them? - so they call Martial Law and get the U.S. military to come in with their guns to 'control' the problem.

civil emergency. Or would that be like a 9/11? A terrorist attack.

I'm just worried about this deal people because it's
1 - out of the ordinary,
2 - it's been kept quiet,
3 - the U.S. has something to do with it. I'm not anti-us, just the government. And i've heard and read things about the people in their military and i'm sorry but i wouldn't want to see that crap happening to some of us.

I just get this feeling like they have moved in on us somehow. Like NOW they've got us by the balls. It's like we're all gonna wake-up one day and realize wait a minute! You mean Canada doesn't belong to Canada? And everyone will all be wondering "How did we let this happen?"

There's not much we can do if we're under a Martial Law that is under the orders of some american general that was hired by our own government to 'control the problem'.

Do you see where i'm coming from? Anyone?
 
BM5
#9
Well Give,, like, peace a chance,

Try not to traumatize yourself about all this stuff.

Mulroney sold the country that you and I love to the capitalists down south and there is nothing we can do to change it. So just be true to yourself, regress, withdraw within your own self and love that which is good.
 
Praxius
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by givpeaceachanceView Post

Wow! i guess i'm the only one that cares about this sort of thing.

wow . . . that kinda chokes me up a bit.

Hey you're not the only one. It doesn't chock me up any though, just P's me Off.
 
Praxius
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by BM5View Post

Well Give,, like, peace a chance,

Try not to traumatize yourself about all this stuff.

Mulroney sold the country that you and I love to the capitalists down south and there is nothing we can do to change it. So just be true to yourself, regress, withdraw within your own self and love that which is good.

To hell with that crap, there's plenty we can do. There has always been plenty the people of the country can do.... check out the French Revolution or even the American one against the British. Heck, France has riots and protests like the British have tea time.... it's our right to keep the government in check and to sit back and shrug our shoulders about it? If we do just that, then we all deserve a good swift kick in the gonads.
 
Praxius
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by givpeaceachanceView Post

Also, i'm curious what 'civil emergency' means. Is that, say for example, when a people come together and protest their government for making underhanded and secret deals against them? - so they call Martial Law and get the U.S. military to come in with their guns to 'control' the problem.

civil emergency. Or would that be like a 9/11? A terrorist attack.

Either/Or.... that's why they worded it as such, so they can pick and choose what it means.
 
MikeyDB
#13
Conservatives like Haper (see Cancun trip) aren't Candian, they're "businessmen". Patriotism has no seat at the tables of commerce and while it might be uncomfortable to come to grips with this thread...in terms of what it really means for Canadian sovereignity and the freedom of Canadian people, the machinations of the Conservative government in power have little interest in anything that doesn't maintain the position of the power elite in this country.

I've mentioned several times that the process of "voting" in this and the American "democracy" isn't worth the effort, and this thread and the Cancun thread should help people understand why your vote makes no difference....

Corporations will make the decisions that shape Candian lives and a government like Stephen Harpers, i.e. bought, has no time for the flimsy notion of democracy....
 
darkbeaver
#14
The will be most efficiently accomplished because we (Canada) don't actually have any soldiers of our own, they were all integrated into the Yankee corporate war machine years ago when we started training with the murdering State Terrorists. See the words of Field Marshall Von Hillier.

Take a Banker to lunch , rotate the spit slowly till the screaming stops, season to taste.
 
lone wolf
#15
Next summit in Quebec will be policed by US troops and CIA agitators?

Woof!
 
MikeyDB
#16
Lone Wolf

Get your entry in quick to the latest competition....

Submit your ideas for the new flag of Palestinada ..... Perhaps an American eagle demonstrating the missionary position on a beaver....on a field of dollar signs....
 
MHz
#17
Maybe this time they will change their boots to non-Govt issued. LOL
 
givpeaceachance
#18
BM5 - It's nice of you to try and soothe my fears. Thank you. But in all honesty, my fears are not all my own. I'm looking at it in the sense of how cruel it was of this government to do this to us. You mention

" Mulroney sold the country that you and I love to the capitalists down south and there is nothing we can do to change it. "

Funny but i look at that attitude as the mistake that has brought us to this new level of deceit and corruption. It occurs to me that the reason why it has gone this far is because WE let them get away with that very first evil in the first place.

Brian Mulroney doesn't care and we should have made him care and we should have made him an example of what Canadians won't accept from their government.

It's amazing how one thing will lead to another if it's left to it's own devices.

I admire Praxius' fire. I look at that as the spirit of someone who is not oppressed. When i hear apathy what i see are chains, people who are already oppressed before ever having been bound in shackles. I hope we understand that that's how they do it. They shackle the minds in order to get control. It makes it easier for them to get the rest of you later.

There ARE examples of nations/countries where it's people successfully overcame their oppressive governments or dictators. What fascinates me about these events is the fact that this phenomenon - successful overthrowing of governments or policies, occur in very poor countries and victory comes from the hands of very poor, oppressed and, interestingly enough, poorly educated people/individuals.

Why is it that we, in our society where we have everything seem incapable of doing even the very least of what we can do for the sake of OUR country = we the people?

Here's a fundamental question : What makes you think that we are hopeless/helpless when it comes to making changes for ourselves, each other, and our country? Also keep in mind, it wouldn't be a one man battle.

AND if there was already a group of people out there trying to expose the government and protesting, would you sit back in your homes and watch it all on t.v or would you get up and join the others and try to become an instrument of change? Even if it meant - you could get hurt?

(Man - i should've called myself Windbag. Why can't i keep it short????)
 
EagleSmack
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Be interesting to see just what would qualify as an emergency.
For some unexplained reason the US rejected many offers from the international community for Katrina.
I seem to recall some nations rejected the offers for assistance from the US after that big tidal wave, probably because that help came in the form of a warship.

The US sent help to all those nations...they just didn't want armed US troops. Those warships was able to desalinate sea water so the people could have potable water and it they were used.

Quote from an article...

Following the 26 December 2004 earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the U.S. military responded quickly, sending ships, planes, and relief supplies to the region. Coordinated by Joint Task Force 536, established at Utapao, Thailand, the Navy and the Marine Corps shifted assets from the Navy's Pacific Command (external - login to view) within days. The rapid response once again illustrated the flexibility of naval forces when forward deployed.


The Navy deployed four Patrol Squadron (VP) 4 P-3 Orion patrol aircraft from Kadena, Japan, to Utapao to fly reconnaissance flights in the region and five VP-8 P-3s began flying missions out of Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory. The Abraham Lincoln (external - login to view) (CVN 72) Carrier Strike Group [including Shoup (DDG 86), Shiloh (CG 67), Benfold (DDG 65) and USNS Ranier (T AOE 7)] and the Bonhomme Richard (external - login to view) (LHD 6) Expeditionary Strike Group [including Duluth (LPD 6), Milius (DDG 69), Rushmore (LSD 47), Thach (FFG 43), Pasadena (SSN 752) and USCG Munro (WHEC 724)] steamed to Indonesia from the Pacific Ocean. Marine Corps disaster relief assessment teams from Okinawa, Japan, flew in to Thailand, Sri Lanka and Indonesia, and were later joined by U.S. Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Units from Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Lastly, a total of eleven ships under the Military Sealift Command (MSC) proceeded to the region from Guam and Diego Garcia.



Nineteen SH-60 Seahawk helicopters from the ships of the Abraham Lincoln group began flying reconnaissance, evacuation, and relief sorties over Indonesia on 31 December. The Bonhomme Richard group arrived on 3 January and her embarked 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) began using their 24 CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters to deliver supplies to damaged areas along the coast of Indonesia.



In early January six ships from Maritime Prepositioning Ships Squadron 3 – MV lst Lt. Jack Lummus (T-AK 3011), SS Maj. Stephen W. Pless (T-AK 3007), MV Cpl. Louis J. Hauge Jr. (T-AK 3000), MV Pfc. James Anderson Jr. (T-AK 3002), MV 1st Lt. Alex Bonnyman (T-AK 3002) and USNS 1st Lt. Harry L. Martin (T-AK 3015) – got underway from Diego Garcia. Collectively, these ships carry enough equipment and supplies to support 15,000 Marines for 30 days, including road-building supplies, electrical power generators, and other emergency equipment. These ships’ water purification machines and evaporators are capable of producing more than 100,000 gallons of potable water per day and pumping it to shore from up to two miles away. In addition, the MSC fleet replenishment oilers USNS Tippecanoe (T-AO 199) and USNS John Ericsson (T-AO 194) as well as the combat stores ship USNS San Jose (T-ASF 7) joined Rainier in providing fuel and supplies to U.S. Navy ships in the tsunami relief area. Lastly, two MSC oceanographic ships have been ordered into the affected area to conduct hydrographic surveys of the ocean bottom where the 9.0 magnitude earthquake occurred. USNS Mary Sears (T-AGS 65) and USNS John McDonnell (T-AGS 51) will sail from Sasebo, Japan, in mid-January.
 
Just the Facts
#20
Why would you say Canadians are hopeless at making change? The ruling federal party didn't exist much more than twenty years ago.

Just because we don't make idiots of ourselves carrying placards and chanting mind numbingly simple slogans over and over again doesn't mean we are hopeless to institute change.

This country has changed a LOT over the last 30 years.
 
MHz
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

The US sent help to all those nations...they just didn't want armed US troops. Those warships was able to desalinate sea water so the people could have potable water and it they were used.

I'm more than happy to be wrong on this issue. My post did mention warships though and when I re-found the article it was just one nation that was reluctant, not many. At a time like that it would have to be a lot of distrust not to readily accept aid from whomever can get there the quickest.
India's rejection of all foreign aid might show independence but it also show a bit of disregard for it's people that were doing the actual suffering.

www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0105-10.htm (external - login to view)
As Sri Lankan political scientist Jayadeva Uyangoda puts it: ''Humanitarian (aid) is not purely humanitarian'', but might represent an opportunity for Bush to ''get a foothold in Sri Lanka... There is no innocence in the politics of humanitarian assistance.''
 
EastSideScotian
#22
Well...I dont see it as a horrible idea...I think Canada has enough soldiers in Canada at any given time to respond to an emergency...Now if it were some sort of nuclear attack, or chemical attack....both countries only have so many soldiers trainned on rescue in those condtions...I think that what it would apply too. Supplementing eachothers shortages in soldier professions...
 
givpeaceachance
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by EastSideScotianView Post

Well...I dont see it as a horrible idea...I think Canada has enough soldiers in Canada at any given time to respond to an emergency...Now if it were some sort of nuclear attack, or chemical attack....both countries only have so many soldiers trainned on rescue in those condtions...I think that what it would apply too. Supplementing eachothers shortages in soldier professions...

I hope you're right. It's just it seems that recently the U.S. will take advantage of any situation and people have paid a heavy price for their actions (americans included!).

You would think that our government could see something as seemingly obvious as this.
 
EastSideScotian
#24
As Obvious as what...helpping a long time ally?

Mergeing our armys wont really happen.....Thats not true...if it did...your look at one very anoyed soldier
 
givpeaceachance
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

Why would you say Canadians are hopeless at making change? The ruling federal party didn't exist much more than twenty years ago.

I'm not sure i understand your answer. Could you elaborate a bit?


[/quote]Just because we don't make idiots of ourselves carrying placards and chanting mind numbingly simple slogans over and over again doesn't mean we are hopeless to institute change.[/quote]

I completely agree with you. Not that i think that people who are trying to be heard on important issues are idiotic. But it's just that sometimes things like that can get out of hand and do more damage than good. But since you brought it up, do you have any suggestions on ways we can institute change other than making " idiots of ourselves carrying placards and chanting mind numbing slogans over and over again" ?


[/quote]This country has changed a LOT over the last 30 years.[/quote]

Yeah, i know! And i think we need to ensure that we protect what we have left.
 
givpeaceachance
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by EastSideScotianView Post

As Obvious as what...helpping a long time ally?

Mergeing our armys wont really happen.....Thats not true...if it did...your look at one very anoyed soldier

Well there you go. You're a Canadian soldier. How do you feel about all this?

Not to freak you out or anything but there are alot of Americans all over the U.S. that own their own weapons and will use them if they feel threated. Who would be getting the brunt end of that deal?

Also, hypothetically, what if you were ordered to fire on American people? I know this might sound weird but realize, pretty much every tour that Canada has been involved in for the last 30 or so years have been in countries where the demographic of the people are very different from our own. It's easy to feel distant from them and feel like the greater cause is easily seen and so you feel semi-comfortable doing whatever you have to do there. But what if the people were just like you, they listened to the same music as you, laughed at the same television shows as you and basically shares and contributes to and virtually IS your culture AND what if you weren't so clear with why you are there having to 'contain'(?) these people?

Where as here in Canada we're pretty much unarmed. If the U.S. ever had the opportunity to have their soldiers on our soil enforcing martial law, that could prove disastrous. Imagine that! With all the American resentment every where you can almost be sure that there's gonna be some idiot that is gonna do something that will qualify as a 'provocation' and then it'll just be chaos and pandemonium from there on out because, if you look at the past, things always get blown fantastically out of proportion.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that, honestly, i REALLY WANT to believe that this is something as innocent as a friendly agreement to be there for each other when the going gets tough but my Spidey senses are tingling on this one. The whole thing just seems out of place.

 
givpeaceachance
#27
I've just been on a site called the ledger.com and read some of the comments over there. I'm pretty sure that most of them are American judging by their responses.They don't seem to trust this agreement either but it's interesting to hear it from an American perspective.

You should check it out if you're interested.

Dorkasaurus Award : read what Somerville said Feb 26
 
EastSideScotian
#28
Your thinking to far into the whole situation I think. It works for both Countries...The States has lots of Troops deployed all over the world....Well they do have tones at hime they dont have as many as they would need to control certian situations, attacks or Natural disaters....Canada can help with that....And Like wise to Canada the USA can help.

If I were ordered to fire on American people and it wasnt for an Unlawful Purpose then I would. I doubt however that thier will be any reason to fire on any americans unless they have the chance to take your life... But wouldnt you yourself fire to protect yourself? Hell if a Canadian was trying to kill me I think id try to kill them first. So I dont think that argument really applys...and if it does you need to explain that better. Canadians would only fire on innocent people if they were no longer being innocent, or caused great risk to Canadians on the ground. Even when great risk is apperant we have to do 2 warning shots if we have the chance to stop soething bad form happing....

Now if Americans were fireing on Canadians Iam sure it would be out of the same rules...I wouldnt be happy about it......but if a Canadian was trying to kill an american the American does have the human right to protect theirself.
 
Praxius
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by givpeaceachanceView Post

Brian Mulroney doesn't care......





Brian Mulroney doesn't Like Black People!

Sorry, couldn't resist.... it crossed the mind.

Quote:

There ARE examples of nations/countries where it's people successfully overcame their oppressive governments or dictators. What fascinates me about these events is the fact that this phenomenon - successful overthrowing of governments or policies, occur in very poor countries and victory comes from the hands of very poor, oppressed and, interestingly enough, poorly educated people/individuals.

Quote:


Why is it that we, in our society where we have everything seem incapable of doing even the very least of what we can do for the sake of OUR country = we the people?



Simple answer:

because we look at those poor people across the world and think that their situations are dire.... and we are far better off then they are, so why complain about the small things? Because it's all the small things that will get us in the end and put us right back to where they are now. We're stuck in this labeled developed country and we just grown acustomed to being screwed over as the way to keep the country running well.

How about we use a bit of that Capitalistic attitude against them "We have it not that bad, but we can have much more.... we deserve much more!" Why the hell should we bend over backwards for the select few who promise they have our best interests in mind without any proof? How about we put in a government structure which can be proven, can be monitored, and no decision is made unless the collective of the country is educated on the pros/cons, and we alone decide?

Quote:

Here's a fundamental question : What makes you think that we are hopeless/helpless when it comes to making changes for ourselves, each other, and our country? Also keep in mind, it wouldn't be a one man battle.

Quote:


AND if there was already a group of people out there trying to expose the government and protesting, would you sit back in your homes and watch it all on t.v or would you get up and join the others and try to become an instrument of change? Even if it meant - you could get hurt?

(Man - i should've called myself Windbag. Why can't i keep it short????)

Welcome to my world.

Short answers are short solutions.

Petitions don't do squat, and protestors do nothing either except get on the news.... but in the end, nothing ever changes. More action and orginization is required. Time to set the ball in motion and get people aware that there is always an alternative solution to the hell we live.

And don't forget, we are in a hell of a country, both the US and Canada.... it's not as bad as those who are across the world poor, hungry and opressed.... because we're the one's partially responsible for their suffering by allowing these governments to continue on their selfesh and profit for the select few ways.

Well the selfish and select few can never survive in nature and no matter how technologically advance we become, it's all still a part of nature, as are we.... and no species can survive forever is it doesn't stick together, unify, and work as an actual family. Some may say we're no where near this unity, that we have so many diversities and differences in race, religion etc.

But who keeps telling us this? Who keeps blaming one another for petty things?
 
MHz
#30
Say the common people revolted against the 'authorities' because they invalidated the constitution. That document gives them the right to do that (revolt)if the Gov oversteps what they are permitted to do.
Whose orders would you be obeying, the illegal Gov (who will most likely be doing the 'asking')or the 'common people' who are acting 'legally' in that they are trying to prevent a 'coup'?
If some American troops joined the 'commoners' would you then fight against them, or vice-versa?

In an open and transparent Gov aren't these things to be made public before they are signed into being? Think any protest will ever make that deal null and void? Even a change of Government will not do that, not that I've heard even a whisper of any opposition from any elected official.
 

Similar Threads

no new posts