Four days ago, War on Error posted an excellent diary on The Daily Kos that discussed the new secret trade agreement that is being negotiated by the White House. He linked to an email that was posted by Alan Grayson:

The TPP is nicknamed “NAFTA on steroids."  Now that I’ve read it, I can see why. I can’t tell you what’s in the agreement, because the U.S. Trade Representative calls it classified. But I can tell you two things about it.

1)    There is no national security purpose in keeping this text secret.

2)    This agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests.

This agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests.

If that seems surrealistic, it’s because the citizens of any free nation have difficulty imagining their leaders granting a foreign entity the power to enforce corporate interests on their soil or in their courts. But that scenario is not the product of any CT's imagination…it is being tested with Canada at our nation’s border right now, and unfortunately, we are not viewed as the good guys:

From Sean Casey, Liberal MP for Charlottetown, P.E.I.:

Now we are now witnessing the Americanization of our law enforcement. Armed American police officers will now operate on Canadian soil.

Again, the Conservatives will tell us that an armed American cop in Canada is all about trade, jobs and security, not sovereignty. If this is true, then can we not expect to see Mounties stopping Americans on the Buffalo side?

I don't believe Canadians want American police operating and carrying guns in Canada. It's just not right.


And this from Jim Bronskill of The Canadian Press:
OTTAWA - The United States wants its police officers to be exempt from Canadian law if they agree to take part in a highly touted cross-border policing initiative, says an internal RCMP memo.

The debate over whose laws would apply to U.S. officers working in Canada raises important questions of sovereignty and police accountability, says the briefing note prepared for RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson.

"Canadians would likely have serious concerns with cross-designated officers from the U.S. not being accountable for their actions in Canada."


Unfortunately, actions of this nature open up the possibilities of seeing a reciprocal agreement in our courts.

You might remember this article posted by Zach Carter re: legislation introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden:

Traditionally, co-operative initiatives in cross-border law enforcement and border management have been based on the notion that the laws of the host country apply to illegal acts on its territory and that host-country courts would have jurisdiction, says the RCMP memo.

"However, the U.S. has recently expressed concerns with the continued application of the 'host country law model' and has requested that its officers be exempted from the laws or the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts in Canada in the context of the Next Gen and Preclearance initiatives."


The inherent danger of enacting such an agreement is obvious, but this says it all:

“… exempted from the laws or the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts…”

Your Email has been sent.