• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Domestic Terrorism/Public Attacks on CAF Personnel

YZT580 said:
I see that Mr. Mulcair has called the shooter on Monday a criminal and not a terrorist.

By doing so, Mr. Mulcair may have actually done Cpl Cirollo's family a favour since most insurance policies will not pay out of the insured is killed in an act of war, including a terrorist attack.

Terrorist or criminal, the one definition we can all agree on is "nutjob".
 
Simian Turner said:
The difference...the difference is Mr. Muclair chose to run for politics and his constituents elected him.

Mr. 7-11 was not elected (although he may have run for office) and chose to sell Slurpees in a dangerous part of town.

But Muclair is not planning on paying for the security but you expect Mr Slupree to do so. No one forced Muclair to run for office either and they both get a level of taxpayer protection from the police and Muclair already gets an extra layer of the Parliament security, but that is not good enough for him. Anyway in Muclair mind it's purely a criminal matter he is free to call 911 next time. 
 
If there's a case to be made for Mulcair to be protected as a public figure representing Canada's elected will, then that case can be made for all elected politicians.

To me, the question seems to be more like:  how critical is the Leader of the Opposition to the running of government if something happens to the Head of Government and/or the Executive?  If you look at the latest (that I can find, anyway) "who's next if the guy ahead of me can't do the job?" list, even if Mulcair's a member of the Privy Council, I'm not seeing any Leader of the Opposition or leader of the third or fourth party there.
 
The leader of the opposition is the head of "the government in waiting", and under certain curcumstances it would be appropriate for the Governor General to request that the opposition leader organize a government.

According to "Victor Suvrov" in one of his books on the GRU, the Soviet Union had plans to decapitate Western governments by assasinating both Government and Opposition leaders, in order to prevent a nucleus of leadership from remaining and organizing the Western nations warfighting capabilities. While this might be taken with a grain of salt, there is an element of plausibility, since opposition leaders are well known enough that they could serve to rally the government and nation in the absence of the government leader. (The USSR might also have looked at the examples of "national unity" governments or wartime coalitions, as well as mirroring the weakness of their own highly centralized system). I would imagine terrorist organizations might come to similar conmclusions about Western democracies.

Whatever one may think of Mr Mulcair, his position is both high profile and the proverbial few steps away from the seat of power, so it is appropriate to think about the issue at the very least.
 
The thought of Muclair taking over the government even as an emergency step causes my stomach to churn. Democracies strength is that politicians are really quite expendable and we have a decent supply of them.
 
Thucydides said:
The leader of the opposition is the head of "the government in waiting", and under certain curcumstances it would be appropriate for the Governor General to request that the opposition leader organize a government.

(....)

Whatever one may think of Mr Mulcair, his position is both high profile and the proverbial few steps away from the seat of power, so it is appropriate to think about the issue at the very least.
While far from being a constitutional expert, based on my reading & understanding (and I stand to be corrected), the Leader of the Opposition, no matter what party s/he may be leader of, is far more than a "few steps" from becoming PM, given how many cabinet Ministers would have to be incapacitated before I think that would even be considered.
 
milnews.ca said:
While far from being a constitutional expert, based on my reading & understanding (and I stand to be corrected), the Leader of the Opposition, no matter what party s/he may be leader of, is far more than a "few steps" from becoming PM, given how many cabinet Ministers would have to be incapacitated before I think that would even be considered.
The point is that the governor general could (in theory) ask him to form a government tomorrow.  In the case of a minority, this is a very real possibility.

It isn't like the U.S where the leader can only be replaced at an election, even if that is the norm. The opposition could become the government if the governing party loses the confidence of the house. This would be particularly important if the governing party lost confidence during a time when elections wouldn't be immediately feasible like a war.

*at least, this how I understand the British parliamentary system.
 
Tcm621 said:
The point is that the governor general could (in theory) ask him to form a government tomorrow.  In the case of a minority, this is a very real possibility.
Even with a minority, unless every Cabinet Minister is unable to pick up the torch and most MPs wouldn't be able to do the work, I'm thinking the government in power would keep cobbling together an executive, no matter how much the opposition asks for otherwise.

Tcm621 said:
The opposition could become the government if the governing party loses the confidence of the house. This would be particularly important if the governing party lost confidence during a time when elections wouldn't be immediately feasible like a war.

*at least, this how I understand the British parliamentary system.
Not impossible (and I guess one would have to judge the potential of such a thing happening to assess the level of protection needed for the Leader of the Opposition), I guess, but pretty unlikely.

Then again, who'd have thought a month ago that an unarmed sentry could be executed in cold blood at the national cenotaph?
 
Senators and congressmen are entitled to protection  in the U.S. (googling that may put me on a watch list BTW). This through the auspices of the capital police. Why shouldn't we afford our lawmakers the same privilege? If it is a money thing.  Make parties pay a premium per MP to off set the cost. As long as it is reasonable and the same cross the board it should be fair. 1000 per year for put 300 grand in to security and that would be on the very low end of reasonable).  It would still be primarily funded by tax payers but it would show a willingness to contribute to their own security.

I also think the RCMP should give up the security of Parliament and politicians and turn it over to a dedicated force. Then that force could concentrate on being the best at protection rather policing and the protection.
 
:highjack:

For history wonks the "King-Byng affair" in 1926 is a perfect example of the GG using the reserve powers of the office to have a minority leader replaced by the opposition leader.

While perfectly correct under constitutional law, given the circumstances, King managed to spin the affair (Arthur Meighen was unable to maintain the confidence of the House after the GG had appointed him to take the helm), and won the election. This also ultimately resulted in the GG being less public about his/her role in government (the question of the actual extent of the GG's Reserve Powers have never been fully tested, which is probably for the good).

Given the examples of history (King-Byng; National unity governments and so on) the idea of providing protection to opposition leaders should be given some serious consideration.

 
I don't consider Thucydides' post a hijack at all. In fact, I believe his point is germane to the discussion.
 
But where do you stop?  What about spouses and children?  They are as much on the front line as their elected half. As the attempted assassination of Reagan showed, you can't prevent a nutcase from taking a shot.  Sadly, that is the price that a politician pays for being a politician.  I always feel for the guard on the gate at places like embassies and official residences.  The person standing guard has got to know that he is the first one that is going to be taken out in the event of any attempt and there is very little he can do about it.  I can see it for heads of state etc. but why should the life of the leader of the opposition be any more valuable than that of the guard at the gate.  He chose his occupation, the guard is following orders.  If his party wants him protected, they can pay for it.
 
Pulling it back a moment to the troops killed in the attacks - Prince Charles continues to show himself to be a class act ....
Prince Charles has made what is being described as a substantial donation to the families of the two Canadian soldiers killed recently in separate attacks.

Clarence House confirmed a donation was made to the True Patriot Love Foundation, which is managing the flood of money coming in through the Stand on Guard Fund. The contribution was made explicitly for the families of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent.

The Prince of Wales’ Charitable Foundation isn’t revealing the amount of the donation, but a source close to the matter called it “substantial.” ....
:salute:
 
Nearly 100 members of Edmonton's Muslim community held a prayer ceremony in front of the Alberta Legislature on Friday to express their condolences to the families of slain soldiers Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Cpl. Nathan Cirillo.

Vincent, a veteran soldier who was killed in a deliberate hit-and-run attack in St. Jean-sur-Richelieu, will be honoured Saturday with a military funeral. Cirillo, who was gunned down last week as he stood guard at the War Memorial in Ottawa, was laid to rest in Hamilton on Tuesday.

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the man who fatally shot Cirillo, was a recent Muslim convert. People like Zehaf-Bibeau who are radicalized "have a misunderstanding of what Islam stands for," said Murtada Shah with the Muslim Association of Canada.

"In my mind and the Muslim Association of Canada, Islam represents peace and our purpose is to contribute to the benefit of society wherever we are," said Shah, who helped organize Friday's ceremony.

Edmonton-Mill Woods MLA Sohail Quadri participated in the ceremony. He said the community of Cold Lake showed the generosity of Canadians when they painted over graffiti placed at a local mosque ....
A bit more here
 
This just out ....
Corporal Branden Stevenson issued the following statement:

    “Nathan Cirillo was my friend, though he was more like a brother. We met in Grade 9 and from that time on, we were pretty much inseparable. He was the first from our group of friends to join the Canadian Armed Forces and it earned him the nickname 'Army Nate.' It was his love of the Army that inspired me to join, and I remember going to his house to practice my swearing-in ceremony.

    “We did everything together from hanging at the mall to going on double-dates, so it was an incredible honour when we were both chosen to come to the National War Memorial to stand-to as sentries. We were very proud to be here together watching over the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, honouring all those who have fallen.

    “Over the past few years, Nathan and I would routinely drive around together, making jokes that no one else would understand. Neither of us had much of a voice, but that didn't stop us from singing along with every song on the radio, whether we knew the words or not. It seemed as if we were always laughing and joking about something. The morning of October 22 was no different. As we stood sentry and walked the beat, one of my socks was sagging. Nathan smiled and intentionally kept our walk going so my sock would fall a little more. He had such an amazing personality!

    “What happened shortly after left me in shock and grieving the loss of my best friend. My heart goes out to his family for the terrible loss they have to endure. I am still struggling to cope with everything that has happened. My family, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in Hamilton, and my extended family within the Canadian Armed Forces are helping me through this very difficult time. I am overwhelmed by the outpouring of support from across Canada and around the world.

    “In the coming days, I'll be resuming my duties at the National War Memorial. It will not be an easy task, but I am resolved to do it in honour of Nathan, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, and all those who stood, and continue to stand, on guard for Canada. I still believe Canada is a nation of peace where soldiers within its borders need not take up arms. My fellow soldiers and I remain proud and committed to watching over the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier as a strong, silent reminder of every person who made the ultimate sacrifice.

    “I now have to learn to live without someone who was closer to me than I can put into words. When I resume my post, I will not be conducting interviews with media. I appreciate, in advance, your consideration and respect for my privacy during this difficult time.

    “Nathan Cirillo was my friend, my best friend, my brother. I will miss him forever.”
 
When I read that today, I was so moved. That was his best bud he was guarding with, long time friends.
Good on him to go back when he's ready.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
More about this issue here. The knee jerk reaction is to:

    1. Think that counter-terrorism is more important than many, many other intelligence and security missions - I'm not sure that is the case, at all; and

    2. To want to expand CSIS, just because it's there; also a wrong answer.

I think we need a Secret Intelligence Service, separate from CSEC, the SIGINT service, and from CSIS, the counter-intelligence/security service. But: I doubt that CSEC or a new SIS would be focues much, and certainly not mainly, on counter-terrorism. CSIS has the authority to work overseas in support of its missions, it my need more capacity (money and people).

We need to also remember that CSIS is not a law enforcement agency; it does not bring people to the bar of justice; that's the job of national, provincial and local police forces and crown prosecutors ~ they too need more, better focused authority and resources (money and people).



This might have gone in our Killing With Keyboards thread, but it is germane to how we gather intelligence. This report is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Financial Times and it is accompaniued by a video report:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/c89b6c58-6342-11e4-8a63-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3I6MkvyJG
financialTimes_logo.gif

The web is a terrorist’s command-and-control network of choice
People do not want social media platforms to facilitate murder, writes Robert Hannigan

Robert Hannigan

November 3, 2014
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) is the first terrorist group whose members have grown up on the internet. They are exploiting the power of the web to create a jihadi threat with near-global reach. The challenge to governments and their intelligence agencies is huge – and it can only be met with greater co-operation from technology companies.

Terrorists have long made use of the internet. But Isis’s approach is different in two important areas. Where al-Qaeda and its affiliates saw the internet as a place to disseminate material anonymously or meet in “dark spaces”, Isis has embraced the web as a noisy channel in which to promote itself, intimidate people, and radicalise new recruits.

The extremists of Isis use messaging and social media services such as Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp, and a language their peers understand. The videos they post of themselves attacking towns, firing weapons or detonating explosives have a self-conscious online gaming quality. Their use of the World Cup and Ebola hashtags to insert the Isis message into a wider news feed, and their ability to send 40,000 tweets a day during the advance on Mosul without triggering spam controls, illustrates their ease with new media. There is no need for today’s would-be jihadis to seek out restricted websites with secret passwords: they can follow other young people posting their adventures in Syria as they would anywhere else.

The Isis leadership understands the power this gives them with a new generation. The grotesque videos of beheadings were remarkable not just for their merciless brutality, which we have seen before from al-Qaeda in Iraq, but for what Isis has learnt from that experience. This time the “production values” were high and the videos stopped short of showing the actual beheading. They have realised that too much graphic violence can be counter-productive in their target audience and that by self-censoring they can stay just the right side of the rules of social media sites, capitalising on western freedom of expression.

Isis also differs from its predecessors in the security of its communications. This presents an even greater challenge to agencies such as GCHQ. Terrorists have always found ways of hiding their operations. But today mobile technology and smartphones have increased the options available exponentially. Techniques for encrypting messages or making them anonymous which were once the preserve of the most sophisticated criminals or nation states now come as standard. These are supplemented by freely available programs and apps adding extra layers of security, many of them proudly advertising that they are “Snowden approved”. There is no doubt that young foreign fighters have learnt and benefited from the leaks of the past two years.

Link to FT video: UK spy chief pursues tech sector

GCHQ and its sister agencies, MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service, cannot tackle these challenges at scale without greater support from the private sector, including the largest US technology companies which dominate the web. I understand why they have an uneasy relationship with governments. They aspire to be neutral conduits of data and to sit outside or above politics. But increasingly their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism. However much they may dislike it, they have become the command-and-control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us. If they are to meet this challenge, it means coming up with better arrangements for facilitating lawful investigation by security and law enforcement agencies than we have now.

For our part, intelligence agencies such as GCHQ need to enter the public debate about privacy. I think we have a good story to tell. We need to show how we are accountable for the data we use to protect people, just as the private sector is increasingly under pressure to show how it filters and sells its customers’ data. GCHQ is happy to be part of a mature debate on privacy in the digital age. But privacy has never been an absolute right and the debate about this should not become a reason for postponing urgent and difficult decisions.

To those of us who have to tackle the depressing end of human behaviour on the internet, it can seem that some technology companies are in denial about its misuse. I suspect most ordinary users of the internet are ahead of them: they have strong views on the ethics of companies, whether on taxation, child protection or privacy; they do not want the media platforms they use with their friends and families to facilitate murder or child abuse. They know the internet grew out of the values of western democracy, not vice versa. I think those customers would be comfortable with a better, more sustainable relationship between the agencies and the technology companies. As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the spectacular creation that is the world wide web, we need a new deal between democratic governments and the technology companies in the area of protecting our citizens. It should be a deal rooted in the democratic values we share. That means addressing some uncomfortable truths. Better to do it now than in the aftermath of greater violence.

The writer is the director of GCHQ, a UK government intelligence and security organisation


I'm not going to comment, beyond saying that I think Mr Hannigan is right to make this problem public, even as I say that I also think that GCHQ and NSA and CSEC and all the other allied SigInt agencies are far, Far, FAR too public already. In my opinion I and you and all the other Canadians (and Australians, Brits and Kiwis and Americans, too) have no need to know about SigInt and no right to know about it either.
 
Well done ....
Canadian Armed Forces members deployed on Operation IMPACT are commemorating Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo by naming two of their locations after the members.

One of the locations of Air Task Force – Iraq (ATF-I) has been named Camp Vincent, in honour of Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Warrant Officer Vincent. Likewise, the operations base of Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM) in Iraq is now called Patrol Base Cirillo, in honour of Corporal Cirillo, a Canadian Army Reserve soldier with The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada.

Quick Facts

    The dedication of Camp Vincent and Patrol Base Cirillo by members deployed on Operation IMPACT is an initiative generated by the deployed CAF personnel intended to pay tribute to both Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo, as well as all those who died in service on home soil.

    The naming of Camp Vincent and Patrol Base Cirillo coincides with Remembrance Day, which is commemorated annually to remember Canadians who served in the military in past conflicts and especially those who paid the supreme sacrifice.

    RCAF Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, a member of the Joint Personnel Support Unit, Integrated Personnel Support Centre St-Jean, died as a result of injuries sustained in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, on October 20, 2014.

    Corporal Nathan Cirillo was a member of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise’s) based in Hamilton, Ontario. He died as a result of injuries sustained while on duty at the National War Memorial on October 22, 2014.

    Operation IMPACT is the Canadian Armed Forces contribution to the Middle East Stabilization Force, the international coalition assisting security forces in the Republic of Iraq who are fighting against the ISIL ....
:salute:  :salute:
 
Not a flattering article on the idiot shooter

I like this quote: He also says he doesn't believe that Zehaf-Bibeau owned a rifle or hunted.

"He didn't know even how to use a wrench. Mike was the kind of guy who you would send out of the tunnel to bring you a hammer, and he would come back half an hour later with a big wrench and say he couldn't find the hammer, but hey, this is big, why don't you hit it with that?"


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/michael-zehaf-bibeau-showed-b-c-co-workers-jihadi-videos-1.2838296
 
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/four-weeks-later-what-we-know-and-dont-about-michael-zehaf-bibeau

Four weeks later: What we know – and don't – about Michael Zehaf-Bibeau

Exactly four weeks ago Wednesday, gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau rushed onto Parliament Hill after killing a guard at the National War Memorial – only to be killed himself in the Hall of Honour inside the Centre Block.

But beyond their initial statements in the days immediately after the attack, police and security officials have revealed little about what they know. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has deemed the Oct. 22 attack a “terrorist” act, and the government is forging ahead with legislation on terror threats.

With national policies now being shaped in the aftermath of the shooting, here is what we still don’t know.

What is in the video Michael Zehaf-Bibeau allegedly took?
What we know: The RCMP last issued a statement Oct. 26. The next day, Commissioner Bob Paulson told a Senate committee that police recovered “a device” owned by Zehaf-Bibeau that contained a video. In that video, Zehaf-Bibeau appears “quite deliberate, he was quite lucid, and he was quite purposeful in articulating the basis for his actions. And they were in respect, broadly, to Canada’s foreign policy, and also in respect of his religious beliefs.” Paulson said the video had to be assessed before being made public.

The RCMP’s national and terrorism divisions both declined Tuesday to answer further questions about the video, citing the ongoing investigation.

What we don’t know: When, if ever, will the video be made public? Will the police have to suppress parts of it? Was it shot on a smart phone and if so, where did that come from?

How did he get his weapons?
What we know: The RCMP recovered a knife from Zehaf-Bibeau’s body, which they say he obtained from his aunt’s Mont-Tremblant, Que. home on the eve of the attack. The Citizen has learned that investigators believe Zehaf-Bibeau planned to behead a Canadian politician. The day of the attack, Zehaf-Bibeau used a .30-30 Winchester lever-action rifle.

What we don’t know: Is there more to the beheading theory? How did Zehaf-Bibeau obtain the rifle when he had been barred by court order from owning a gun in Canada? How much ammunition did he have? Did he own other weapons?

Did he have associates?
What we know: After saving money from working in the oilsands, Zehaf-Bibeau arrived in Ottawa on Oct. 2. He slept in a shelter, surfed the Internet there and at Ottawa’s public library, took a tour of Centre Block on Oct. 4, bought a car, visited his mother and had loud arguments in public. After the shooting, an undated photo of Zehaf-Bibeau holding a gun and wearing a keffiyeh scarf surfaced on social media sites promoting Islamist terror groups. After the shooting, police said Zehaf-Bibeau’s email was found in the hard drive of an unnamed person who has been charged with terrorism-related offences.

What we don’t know: How did Zehaf-Bibeau spend the bulk of his time in Ottawa? Did he meet with anyone or contact anyone about the attack? Where did the photo of him come from? Did he have any firm connections to extremists in Canada or overseas?

What were his motives?
What we know: Zehaf-Bibeau tried in early October to get a passport, but faced problems with background checks. RCMP Commissioner Paulson said the passport’s delay “was central to what was driving” Zehaf-Bibeau and “figured prominently in his motives.” He said the gunman had “radical views.”

Susan Bibeau, mother of the gunman, said a severe drug addiction plagued her son. He turned to religion and Islam to try to make sense of the world, she said. Susan Bibeau suspected that delays getting a passport made him feel “cornered, unable to stay in the life he was in, unable to move on to the next one he wanted to go to.”

In her opinion, his violent assault was likely more an act of desperation than one driven by ideology or political motive.

What we don’t know: Did Zehaf-Bibeau yell, “For Iraq,” while running from the war memorial, as one witness suggested? Did Zehaf-Bibeau leave behind any kind of manifesto or anything in writing? What evidence makes Paulson believe Zehaf-Bibeau “was an individual who may have had extremist beliefs?”

How are the police reviews going?
What we know: The Ontario Provincial Police is investigating how RCMP and Ottawa police officers responded to the attacks. “It’s very much continuing and ongoing at this time. There is no identified date of completion – it will be completed when it’s done,” OPP Sgt. Peter Leon said Tuesday. He added that any findings will be given to the RCMP, who will decide what becomes public.

Meanwhile, Ottawa police say they’re reviewing how well they responded to the shooting, but won’t release any information until the RCMP makes its findings public.

What we don’t know: Have security gaps been identified? How many shots were fired by police that day? What happens if the OPP finds problems with the response?

What about the security review of Parliament?
What we know: It took Michael Zehaf-Bibeau 83 seconds to get from the National War Memorial to the doors of the Peace Tower, over the course of which he hijacked a minister’s vehicle and approached the front doors of Centre Block, where an unarmed House of Commons guard was shot in the leg. A policeman tried to intervene but was stopped when a panicky tourist entered his car. Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers was part of the gunfight outside the Library of Parliament that killed Zehaf-Bibeau, but says he can’t yet talk about it. A House security review has been ordered, and it includes the video of Zehaf-Bibeau’s Oct. 4 tour of the Hill.

What we don’t know: When can Vickers give his version of events publicly? There are discrepancies in the account of Vickers’ role, though no one doubts he was a heroic player. When can the injured guard, or other guards, tell their stories? What new security measures are in place? Will Parliament Hill get a unified security force – three security teams are currently responsible – two years after the auditor general recommended such an approach? Was Parliament Hill security strengthened already after Canada decided to take military action against ISIL in Iraq?
 
Back
Top