In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

This Is Not At All Comforting

zuzu

For the first time since, oh, a few years after the War of 1812, the US is putting weapons on Coast Guard vessels patrolling the Great Lakes.

For the first time since 1817, U.S. Coast Guard vessels on the Great Lakes are being outfitted with weapons – machine-guns capable of firing 600 bullets a minute.

Until now, coast guard officers have been armed with handguns and rifles, but the vessels themselves haven’t been equipped with weapons.

The War of 1812 saw violent battles on Lake Erie and Lake Huron between U.S. troops and British forces, which were largely composed of militias from Britain’s colonies in what is now Canada. After the war, the United States and Britain – and later Canada – agreed to demilitarize the Great Lakes waters.

And surprise, surprise — fear of terraists is being used to justify abrogating a treaty that’s been in place nearly 200 years:

The Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817 allowed each country to station four vessels, each equipped with an 18-pound cannon, to safeguard the Great Lakes.

The antiquated treaty has recently been reinterpreted because of U.S. concerns about customs violations, human smuggling and international terrorism.

So we’re going to shoot up Canadians and leave our port facilities largely uninspected. Gotcha.

At least the Canadians are reserving the right to shoot back:

A Canadian Foreign Affairs official said Ottawa has agreed to read the treaty in such a way that coast guard vessels may be mounted with guns by considering them weapons of law enforcement rather than war.

Canada reserves the right to arm its own vessels as well, the official told CBC News.

Under the reinterpretation, which both sides say honours the spirit of the original treaty, vessels may be outfitted with machine-guns of sizes up to .50-calibre. That would be big enough to bring down a helicopter and shoot through a light-armoured vehicle

But I thought fighting the terraists was a job for the military!

Jesus Christ. Yet another sign of the madness of King George.

Posted in Uncategorized

52 thoughts on This Is Not At All Comforting

  1. Could we just have the Canadians shoot first and put us all out of our misery??? They can start with South Dakota.

  2. Well of course we have to arm the cutters. You sillies. Whatabout all them Al Qaeda battleships steaming down the St. Lawrence!!!!!

    *mumbles, stomps off*

  3. On the other hand, we don’t need to defend the northern border at all!!!

    Oh, that’s not what you meant?

    If the Coast Guard wants something better than hand-held firearms, why shouldn’t they have it? Okay, you don’t believe that they have trouble stopping customs violators, human smugglers and international terrorists. Others disagree.

    I’m going to have to err on the side of caution when it comes to defense. Though, I love the title to this post: “This Is Not At All Comforting.” You’re obviously not worried that the border is unsecure.

  4. Why are you referring to the treaty as being abrogated? Both sides agree that the mutual reinterpretation is faithful to the spirit of the treaty – that both sides have the right to put lightly armed, but non-military, vessels in the Great Lakes.

    References to “shooting up Canadians” seem similarly incorrect. The Great Lakes are a potential weak spot in the northern border for – as the article makes clear – smuggling, human trafficking, and terror infiltration. Unless you think that Canadians are smuggling Osama across the border…?

  5. Serious uh-oh.

    What’s playing in my head as I heard this, is a History Channel program I watched a decade ago, where they were talking about Cerberus, the three-headed dog that guarded Hades, “Not to keep the living out, but to keep the dead in.”

    *vague feeling of impending doom*

  6. Unless you think that Canadians are smuggling Osama across the border…?

    Oh, I thought we weren’t worried about him?

    Let’s be real — who do you think pushed for this change in the treaty? Not Canada. Who had the power to just say, screw it, we’re doing what we want?

    And why is it necessary to do this now? If, after all the smuggling that went on during Prohibition, and the trafficking in immigrants and (gasp!) B.C. Bud, mounted machine guns that can take down a helicopter weren’t required, what’s changed now?

    And really, has fencing and Border Patrol agents and machine guns and helicopters and whatnot done a damn thing to stop the same things along the Mexican border or through the ports?

  7. I have to agree with the conservative side (becoming a pattern, I must say, but the Dark Side is strong) on this one. From the article:

    Each vessel is now equipped with a 7.62-mm machine-gun, a light military gun that is the same calibre as a deer rifle but capable of shooting 600 bullets per minute.

    The guns are typically mounted because of their weight. But a spokesman for the U.S. Coast Guard, Petty Officer William Colclough, said they will be stored below decks on the coast guard’s 11 Great Lakes cutters and will be mounted only when needed.

    Not really that horrible.

    And .50 caliber machine guns being capable of shooting through lightly armored vehicles and bringing down helicopters?

    Technically true, but hardly compelling. Depends on the definition of “lightly armored” and the definition of “helicopter”. .50 (that are not used, but allowed) Would be ineffective to most military vehicles beyond jeeps, and unlikely to bring down military assault helicopters like Apaches or Havocs.

    For military purposes, the guns agreed upon are not sufficient. Against threats not of military size, mostly yes.

  8. The armament they’re talking about is basically enough to make a smuggler say “damn it, we have to stop” when hailed, instead of “I bet if we run for it, we might make it”.

  9. Robert and allies – you are totally missing the point here. Our time and resources are limited. Canada is at least nearly as secure as our own country, and it is one of our very closest allies. Why should we invest in shoring up what must be our least vulnerable border? We’ve got ports receiving containers – only a fraction of which are inspected – coming in directly from counties with populations sympathetic with the terrorists. Do you really think that the time and money that this program is costing us couldn’t be better spent inspecting more of those. Or maybe, oh I don’t know, securing loose nukes in former Soviet territories or training more people to understand the obscure languages spoken by the terrorists in Afganhistan and Pakistan, reducing the time lag between tapes being made and our intelligence agencies actually understanding the content. The Bush administration’s latest move is nothing but macho posturing – inspections and language experts aren’t sexy – guns are.

  10. Canada has very lax immigration controls and has been highlighted as a country vulnerable to terrorist infiltration.

    How much do you think it costs to buy 11 machine guns?

  12. The Fraser Institute just released a new study a couple of weeks ago. The news precis of the study is here. The study finding itself is here.

    It’s more than 100 pages and it looks at other security issues as well, but the gist is that Canadian immigration controls are lax.

    This is not a controversial finding. It has been the subject of numerous reports and studies since 9/11, and before. Google “canada lax immigration security” if you’d like a half-million resources or so to examine on this question. A lot of the top hits are editorials decrying the state of affairs, but there’s plenty of empirical research if that’s what floats your boat.

  15. How about something that doesn’t come from a group with an anti-immigrant bias?

    In any event, are Canada’s borders really any more porous than ours? Have we really seen any instances of the Terraist Peril coming through the St. Lawrence Seaway?

  16. Newsflash – The Fraser Institute could just as easily be the GOP-in-Canada Institute.

    They are so far over the right wing, they passed themselves on the left. (especially for Canadian politics)

    The Fraser’s “studies” are amazingly biased – typically with a strong leaning to aligning Canada with the US Republican stance on many things.

    In other words, that study’s conclusions reflect an awful lot of partisan influence, and should be treated with some caution. (I’m not saying that Canada’s immigration system is perfect – but the conclusions that the FI draws from their study are (IMO) unreasonably harsh)

  17. I think the fact that they say in their press release that the study shows Canada becoming a “haven for terrorists” kind of gives it away.

  18. Even if it were the case that lots of terrorists come into the States via Canada (it’s not, actually, but let’s imagine), you block the Great Lakes. So what? The border is *huge*. They’ll just go down any of the many forests or lakes etc on the rest of the border, not say “well, nevermind, no bringing in illegal X anymore”.

    Is there any reasoning for this? Has there been some large set of terrorists coming in across the Great Lakes specifically?

  21. Did everyone forget the Millenium Bomber?

    Did they need machine guns mounted on Coast Guard cutters to get him?

    They did not.

  22. How about CBS News, noting that “Canadian intelligence admits the country has become a sanctuary, staging ground and fund-raising base for hundreds of terrorists from all over the world.” Or any of the thousands and thousands of reports and studies from all over the political spectrum, demonstrating conclusively the obvious fact that Canadian immigration security is lax.

    And yes, Canada’s borders are far more porous than ours, massively so. They have more than 150,000 miles of coastline (compared to our 12,383 miles), and most of that coastline is sparsely settled or uninhabited, versus our coastlines which are largely developed and inhabited.

    However, the real security risk in Canada is the country’s very generous refugee policy. More than 95% of those claiming refugee status are permitted entry to the country without any detention or checking of status – thousands annually. Those admitted are supposed to return for an immigration hearing in the following year; many never do. This is a very humanitarian policy which minimizes the hardships of those claiming to be refugees. It is also a policy that makes Canada essentially an open door to the continent for anyone who can reach a Canadian port.

    As far as terrorists entering the country from Canada, yes, we have seen plenty of instances. Just from the CBS News report:

    Hani Al-Sayegh, a prime suspect in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 Americans, was arrested in Canada.

    Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer used Canada as an entry point to the United States in 1997, bringing with him plans to blow up New York City subways. He’s now serving a life sentence.

    Nabil Al-Murabh, considered one of Osama bin Laden’s key operatives in North America, went back and forth across the Canadian-US border until he was arrested just after Sept. 11 with a valid license to haul hazardous materials.

    All three were able to operate in Canada using the same method. They arrived and claimed to be refugees seeking political asylum.

    As I said before, there is zero controversy over any of this. It is well-known, well-documented, well-established.

    Are you going to continue to resist it, so that you can score a cheap point by pretending to be outraged over the US making a minor incremental improvement in our northern border security?

  24. It’s not going to “solve” anything. It’s going to make it more difficult to smuggle things across the Great Lakes by increasing the capabilities provided to the Coast Guard.

  25. Well, then we come to the problem that none of the examples you listed involved anyone smuggling anything across the Great Lakes. Instead, they all involved people with valid residence in Canada getting into the US (or Saudi Arabia) in broad daylight through Customs agents.

    A better solution, it would seem, would be to clamp down on visits from Canadian residents.

  26. If you’d like to put me in charge of border security, President Zuzu, it’s a job I’d be delighted to engage in. However, I’m going to need to see some indication that my chief executive actually understands the nature of the problem up north; so far, that’s lacking.

    I don’t see anything wrong with making a modest enhancement of Coast Guard capabilities in the Great Lakes.

    Do you see something wrong with doing that?

  27. Well, Robert, haven’t you been reading?

    King George intends to seal us in here with 11 machine guns.

  29. I don’t see anything wrong with making a modest enhancement of Coast Guard capabilities in the Great Lakes.

    Modest?

  31. I don’t see anything wrong with making a modest enhancement of Coast Guard capabilities in the Great Lakes.

    Do you see something wrong with doing that?

    1.) It is part of a pattern of disrespectful behavior by the Bush adminstration towards our closest allies.
    2.) Cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies and diplomacy our most important weapons against terrorists. If we’re shooting at the terrorists on our own borders, we’re already loosing the battle.
    3.) Getting the Canadians to accept our choice to point guns at them cost political points that could have been used on less sexy programs that would have done more to ensure our security.

  32. 1) How is it disrespectful to bilaterally update the understanding of a long-standing treaty?

    2) This is nonsensical. Sure, cooperation with foreign agencies is critical in the GWOT. But what does “if we’re shooting at the terroists on our own borders, we’re already losing the battle” have to do with this? Great, we’re friends with Canada and we work with them to stop bad guys from getting into the continent. Does actually taking measures against bad guys who get past our front line of defense somehow imperil this relationship?

    3) No one has presented any evidence that the Canadians were unhappy in the slightest about this treaty interpretation. Given the Canadian’s new, less-uselessly-liberal government, in fact, I would think it more likely that they welcomed the change.

  33. When will you libtards learn? Major combat operations may be over, but that doesn’t mean that the War of 1812 is.

  34. 1.) The “updated understanding” involves us pointing machine guns in the direction of an ally which we’ve been friendly with for nealy 200 years because we don’t think that they have control of their own borders – that’s disrespect. The fact that we said “please” and let them point a few guns back at us to save some face does not change that. Moreover, this change is part of a larger, much more troubling pattern in the Bush administration’s internation relations. They “reinterpret” existing treaties, often unilaterally (or with the threat of doing it unilaterally if they don’t get cooperation), on the grounds that the war on terror has “changed everything”. The lack of respect for the Geneva Convention is the most troubling case, but this deal with the Canadians is a less virulent strain of the same sick reasoning.

    2.) No one said that we shouldn’t take measures when suspected terrorists are at our borders. We do not need weapons designed to go through lightly armoured vehicles and helicopters to do this. Or, if we do – if the terrorists have amassed so much capital and strength in Canada that they’re likely to have such capacity – then, yes, we are definately losing the battle. If you’re talking about the type of thing the Millenium Bomber did, our current defenses can handle that.
    3.) See number 1. Even if the current Canadian administration is o.k. with this, that doesn’t mean the people are.

  35. The “updated understanding” involves us pointing machine guns in the direction of an ally which we’ve been friendly with for nealy 200 years because we don’t think that they have control of their own borders – that’s disrespect.

    But we’re not pointing guns at them. We’re arming craft which patrol the waters that form part of our boundary. And we don’t “think” they don’t have control over their borders – we know they don’t, and they know they don’t.

    Moreover, this change is part of a larger, much more troubling pattern in the Bush administration’s internation relations. They “reinterpret” existing treaties, often unilaterally (or with the threat of doing it unilaterally if they don’t get cooperation), on the grounds that the war on terror has “changed everything”.

    Again, this is nonsensical. How is a bilateral treaty reinterpretation part of a pattern of unilateral action? That aside, the treaty reinterpretation is entirely within the spirit of the original agreement – which permitted 18-pound guns. That’s a relatively heavy artillery piece, quite capable of smashing a small ship or large boat to flinders. A modern version of the same would be a 3″ naval gun or so – literally hundreds of times more powerful than the light weaponry actually being installed.

    Your other points are similarly unserious.

  37. But we’re not pointing guns at them. We’re arming craft which patrol the waters that form part of our boundary. And we don’t “think” they don’t have control over their borders – we know they don’t, and they know they don’t.

    Explain again how the fact that the US allows in people from Canada after checking their papers at the borders means that Canada doesn’t have control over its borders?

    It seems to me that the problem lies in the US. Which, you remember, let the 9/11 hijackers in on student visas.

  38. We don’t have control over our borders EITHER. A does not preclude B.

    Do you support improving our level of border control?

  39. In intelligent ways, yes. But this does not seem like an intelligent way to do it, particularly when the Administration was ready to waive the required background check on the Dubai ports deal.

  40. Can you explain please how the merits of a program to enhance a security capability on one border is materially affected by the quality of a decision being made on a completely different border? Your statement appears to be a complete non sequitur.

  41. Our problem in the war on terror is not that we don’t have enough guns on the Canadian border – or any of our other borders. It’s that we don’t know where to point the guns that we do have. The Bush administration keeps on trying to solve intelligence problems by increasing “muscle” and it will not work.

  42. I grew up on Coast Guard bases and I have to say “WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU MAKING A DEAL ABOUT???”

    I have been on boats in NYC harbor that mounted M60 machine guns on their bows. They are there as a deterrent to drug runners or others who might want to try a shoot out. Since most CG members are armed only with pistols they are not very scary, but the MG on the bow will turn a boat to swiss cheese and that will convince most people to surrender peacefully.

  43. Can you explain please how the merits of a program to enhance a security capability on one border is materially affected by the quality of a decision being made on a completely different border? Your statement appears to be a complete non sequitur.

    By the quality of the decisionmaker. I don’t trust the decisionmaker to make intelligent decisions about security on any of our borders; ergo, I do not think much of the merits of either program. No non sequitur whatsoever.

    r4d20, the waters around New York Harbor do not border on a friendly country with which we have had a treaty for almost 200 years, following a war during which there were armed hostilities between us and said friendly nation, that specifies that we are NOT to have armed vessels in boundary waters. Duh.

  44. Well, why didn’t you just save us both a lot of time by just putting that up front?

    George Bush is bad. This is something happening on his watch. Therefore, it is bad.

    Trying to come up with cover justifications that will stand scrutiny (it’s a WAR WITH TEH CANADA!!!!) is just a waste of energy.

  45. Robert, you blithering idiot, it’s more than just “happening on his watch.”

    He fucking. decided. to. change. the. treaty.

    It’s HIS baby. This is causation, not correlation.

  46. Yeah, I get that, Zuzu. But every justification you or others have come up with for why this is a bad decision on the merits has either been laughable, or wrong on its face.

    We don’t have to worry about the Canadians, they’re more secure than we are. BZZZ – no, they aren’t.

    Heavily arming these ships will anger our Canadian partners. BZZZ – no, this is light weaponry, and it isn’t pissing off anybody but you.

    The northern border isn’t in danger and nothing bad comes across it. BZZZ – look, terrorist infiltration on a regular basis.

    Most fucktardedly of all, “King George” will be using the newly militarized Coast Guard detachment – possessing all the firepower of a small Texas gun club – to stop Americans from fleeing his dictatorship into Canada. BZZZ – time to take your lithium.

    Now, these didn’t all come from you – but the only people you’re arguing with are the ones saying “you know, 11 machine guns isn’t such a big thing, and our northern border does need more security”. The only argument you’ve made has turned out to boil down to: George Bush Is Bad.

    Well, congratulations. As I said, if that’s all you wanted to say, why go through the dog and pony show of pretending to have an issue? Because they issue you picked is one where you’re basically wrong, and where you’ve demonstrated more or less total ignorance of the actual facts involved.

    Save yourself the trouble next time.

  47. This seems to be a lot about nothing. Why not give the 11 boats something more than pistols? Especially if Canada interprets the treaty the same way.

    I loathe George Bush and his policies and think he has spent an inordinate amount of money on things making us less safe. But this seems like a sensible and cheap way to make the Northern border more secure from all threats (smugglers, terrorists, etc.).

    Btw, if I were a terrorist, I would sneak in from the North, probably in canoes loaded with bad stuff.

  48. Eleven M240’s or maybe Ma Dueces? Ptaw! Waste of time. I’m holding out for black helicopters.

  49. The northern border isn’t in danger and nothing bad comes across it. BZZZ – look, terrorist infiltration on a regular basis.

    Fuck off, Robert. You’re once again misstating my arguments. I have never once claimed that the northern border isn’t in danger and nothing bad comes across it. I do question whether things have gotten so markedly bad that this is necessary.

    Moreover, you’re the one who seems to think that while the problem with “terrorist infiltration” is due to Canada handing out asylum like candy, enabling anyone to just walk up to a US Customs checkpoint and get waved through, the solution is not to clamp down on the checkpoints but to put guns on boundary waters.

    BZZZ – time to take your lithium

    I’ve had enough of your ad homs and your trolling.

    Btw, if I were a terrorist, I would sneak in from the North, probably in canoes loaded with bad stuff.

    Why? There are plenty of places in the US that are supermarkets for weapons, and just about anything you could need to build a weapon of some sort is available right here. Why import?

  50. Why? There are plenty of places in the US that are supermarkets for weapons, and just about anything you could need to build a weapon of some sort is available right here. Why import?

    True enough. Once in, I guess you could just go to a gun show and get some assault rifles.

    But as far as getting humans across, I’ve always thought that canoing across the boundry waters, or somewhere in the midwest, would be the best way to go undetected.

  51. If the point is to increase national security and stop terrorists from entering the country, isn’t it generally understood that there are many other steps that should be taken first? Why are we spending money on this?

    It seems to me like the border patrols on both sides of the line should work together to stop terrorist flow. Throwing a few guns into some lakes isn’t the answer.

Comments are currently closed.