What do you think about that?

[yh_abc]

最初由 msft 发布
OK, can somebody tell me why what the RCMP did was unconstitutional? Everyone is talking about freedom of press, but this raid was to find out the source where the reporter obtained the information. A reporter is also a citizen. If a person got some classified information, there is nothing wrong for RCMP to serach his/her office/home to find out the source, as long as theRCMP has search warrant. If she were not a reporter, nobody would have noticed such a raid.

Once again, don't be mad, can somebody tell me why what the RCMP did was unconstitutional?

First, what is "classfied informtion" and esp. WHO has the RIGHT to define a piece of info as "classified info"?
Second, who issues the warrant? I hope this is not issued by RCMP itself.
Third, the whole case (reported by the reporter) is about what "bad" role RCMP may have played that led to the deportation of a Canadian citizen by US. It is under this context that RCMP conducted a move that has triggered people to think that RCMP wants to "kill" any further investigation done by a society member. In short, RCMP has conflicts of interests. On the other hand, if the reporter made a report that "accused" a third-party organization, let's say, Royal Bank, and then RCMP issued the warrant to search the report's home, I believe no one will cry wolf.
Hopefully, I made myself understood easily.

 

[visitor]

那个游牧了几千年的阿拉伯人的英雄--拉登，终于赢了。

 

[一把手]

最初由 yh_abc 发布

First, what is "classfied informtion" and esp. WHO has the RIGHT to define a piece of info as "classified info"?
Second, who issues the warrant? I hope this is not issued by RCMP itself.
Third, the whole case (reported by the reporter) is about what "bad" role RCMP may have played that led to the deportation of a Canadian citizen by US. It is under this context that RCMP conducted a move that has triggered people to think that RCMP wants to "kill" any further investigation done by a society member. In short, RCMP has conflicts of interests. On the other hand, if the reporter made a report that "accused" a third-party organization, let's say, Royal Bank, and then RCMP issued the warrant to search the report's home, I believe no one will cry wolf.
Hopefully, I made myself understood easily.

First, I believe the government has the right to define what is classified information.
Second, as long as the law permits the officer to issue the search warrant, then, the search warrant is legal.
Third, RCMP is investigating a case in which someone leaked classified information to an outsider, in this particular case, a reporter. In other cases, it could also be a terrorist.
What do you think RCMP should do if they suspect some insider is leaking calssified information? Or police in whatever country.

It was not about the reporter and her report, it was about how she got the classified information.

Don't be misled by Ottawa Citizen articles, it is their reporter who was searched. Their reports on this are biased. They are trying to disguise this case as police abuses their power, so that they can get sympathy. This is 100% reasonable, but we as outsiders shouldn't judge it only by their report.

Don't be naive that freedom of press is something that entitles you to unlawfully steal classified information and publicize it to make money. The reporter may turn out to be innocent, but remeber, RCMP has not charged her for anything wrong, just legally searched her office/home because she was involved in this case.

Again, from what was reported, RCMP did it legally. If you think the law and system is flawed, try to change the law and system. Isn't this democracy all about?

By the way, Visitor, I believe this is NOT what 拉登 is trying to achieve. What he wants to do is to export and enforce his ideology in civilized nations. He hasn't won.

 

[胡说之]

Looks like some NDPs are fighting against a communist.

 

[yh_abc]

最初由 msft 发布


....
Again, from what was reported, RCMP did it legally. If you think the law and system is flawed, try to change the law and system. Isn't this democracy all about?
......

Let's be straight, I am not arguing that RCMP did it "illegally", BUT what I am saying RCMP did it wrongly because it violated the law of "avoiding conflicts of interest" in a democratic society. If this kind of behavior cannot be stopped, the power of RCMP can be abused beyond imagination. The final vicitims will be those powerless people like you and me in this so-called democratic society. Most people love Canada more than some other countries because we will not be intimated by public serverants (like police), and the news media generally acts as a representative for the call of the society. If the representative is intimated, where else can you look for help?

 

[一把手]

Then, what, do you think, can RCMP do to find out who leaked the classified document? Ask the reporter and hope she will tell the police? Come on, RCMP has to do something to stop the leakage. If you are the officer, what will you do?

Let's face the reality. Criticism is a healthy thing to have, but this time, media is biased because it is the media that gets scrutinized - a reporter happens to be involved. It is not what she publicized, it is the way she obtained her information got her in trouble.

Yes, reporters are "king without crown", but after all, they are without crown. They don't have the right to avoid police investigation if they are involved in crime.

Anyways, don't want to argue with you guys on this topic any more because I am not a communist.

By the way, current NDP does not know what most Canadians think. You know why.

 

[oread]

Fine, go after the one who leaked the information, but not the reporter! Government doesn't have the right to invade people's privacy, particularly when it is garanteed by the consititution. Today even Martin said that Ms. O'Neil was not a criminal, that a public inquiry on the Maher Arar case is needed.

RCMP was way over the line. It was a phony charge that would never stand in the court of appeal.

 

[oread]

If you are still convinced that the government can just do anything it desires, watch this video footage, and tell me you are not chilled to the bones.

http://home.comcast.net/~e.franzen/224Helicopter_Kills.mpeg

On Dec 1, north of Baghdad, the pilots, from the Army's 4th Infantry Division, ask their commanders for permission to engage, then take the three men out one by one, using the Apache's devastating 30 mm cannons.

 

[一把手]

最初由 渐渐 发布
Fine, go after the one who leaked the information, but not the reporter!

Somebody steals money and a lady receives the money, now police searches the lady's home to find out evidence related to this theft, in an effort to locate that thief.
Oh, by the way, that lady is a reporter.

 

[linl]

When freedom conflicts with security, we need a balance. This time I am with the freedom. My concern is who and how to define the "classified info". I don't think it's government's right to do so. We should wait for a court decision.

 

[oread]

Maybe you should read the papers more carefully. When RCMP raided Ms. O'Neil's downtown home, they informed her that she could face a serious charge for up to 14 years in prison.

Oh by the way, Ms. O'Neil is a reporter, and oh receiving information, that's what reporters do.

最初由 msft 发布


Somebody steals money and a lady receives the money, now police searches the lady's home to find out evidence related to this theft, in an effort to locate that thief.
Oh, by the way, that lady is a reporter.

 

[oread]

Absolutely! The new information act that was passed after 9/11 should be under review. However the Martin government is resisting the review process now. We should make this an election issue.

Ms. O'Neil is only one of the many people under unlawful surveillance in this country. Imagine a bunch of police officers knocking on your door, it could happen to any one of us, particularly to the visible minorities. Just be careful on what we are asking for when it comes to so called "national security".

最初由 linl 发布
When freedom conflicts with security, we need a balance. This time I am with the freedom. My concern is who and how to define the "classified info". I don't think it's government's right to do so. We should wait for a court decision.