🚀 go-pugleaf

"Joey Jolley" <johnmunch@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<qx9pd.32$xk7.1119@news.uswest.net>...
> Every city in the US and Canada, and all over the world, are going 
> car-free as ecological sustainability happens the world over. Europe and 
> Canada will lead the charge.


Nope - Canada will end its idependence and be Part of the US!

The following article is taken from the web site of the Centre for 
Research on Globalization (November 23, 2004)
Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda?
by Michel Chossudovsky 

Introduction

For nearly two years now, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-
reaching military cooperation agreement, which allows the US 
Military to cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, 
in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian 
territorial waters. This redesign of Canada's defense system is 
being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the 
Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US 
Northern Command (NORTHCOM).
The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a 
blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial 
sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced 
unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over 
the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented 
with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined 
by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of 
Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous 
waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the 
Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.
NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for 
[continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support 
for [the] nation's civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership � July 2003, Canadian 
American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-
lagasse1.htm 
Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM � with all of 
North America as its geographic command � 'is part of the greatest 
transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception 
in 1947.'" (Ibid)
Following Prime Minister Jean Chr�tien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a 
high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG), 
operating out of the Peterson Airforce base, was set up in late 
2002, with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to 
[land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in 
Canada or the United States".
The Liberals under Prime Minister Paul Martin as well as Canada's 
Defense establishment at DND are fully supportive of this 
initiative, which essentially consists in integrating the military 
command structures of the two countries:
"The DND/CF in Canada and the US DoD recognize that a neighborhood 
watch or collective security arrangement is essential. But, we need 
to take it slowly and understand all the ramifications� To that end, 
the BPG allows some Canadians and Americans to work together in 
Colorado Springs to explore that collective security arrangement."
(statement by L. Gen. Findley 
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/html_files/html_view
_e.asp?page=vol7-29p6-7 )
No debate in Parliament. In fact, with some exceptions, backbench 
MPs do not even know about these procedures, which have a direct 
bearing on Canada's sovereignty as a nation. An atmosphere of 
secrecy prevails. The tendency in Ottawa is "hush-hush". No 
government pronouncements: public opinion has been held in the dark. 
Moreover, the issue has barely been mentioned in the Canadian press.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Paul Martin has been busy restraining 
potential anti-Bush sentiment within the Liberal Caucus as well as 
in the ranks of the opposition parties, in the months leading up to 
president George W. Bush's address to Canada's parliament on 
December 1st.

The Binational Planning Group (BPG)

Removed from the public eye, the "Group" is more than an ad hoc 
consultative body. It was set up as an interim military authority in 
December 2002, following the refusal of Prime Minister Jean Chr�tien 
to join the new regional command: US Northern Command (NORTHCOM). 
The latter was established in April 2002 to "Defend the Homeland" 
against presumed terrorist attacks.
Canadian membership in NORTHCOM would have implied the integration 
of Canada's military command structures with those of the US. That 
option was temporarily deferred by the Chr�tien government, through 
the creation of the so-called Binational Planning Group (BPG).
The Binational Planning Group's (BPG) formal mandate was to:
"improve current Canada�United States arrangements to defend against 
primarily maritime threats to the continent and respond to land-
based attacks, should they occur."
The BPG extends the jurisdiction of the US-Canada North American 
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to cover land and sea.
The "Group" is described as an "independent" military authority 
which is "not integrated into either command [NORAD or NORTHCOM] � 
it simply shares the same headquarters [at the Paterson Air Force 
base]". Yet this statement blatantly contradicts the original 
dispatch following the creation of the BPG (9 December 2002):
"The head of the Planning Group will be the Deputy Commander, who 
will operate under the authority of the Commander of North American 
Aerospace Defense." ( See US State Department 
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/15783.htm 
NORAD has become and Appendage of NORTHCOM
In practice, the "Group" functions under the jurisdiction of US 
Northern Command, which is controlled by US DoD. Moreover, the 
existing bilateral agreement under NORAD is virtually defunct. NORAD 
has become an appendage of NORTHCOM.
In fact, the command structures of NORAD, NORTHCOM and the BPG are 
fully integrated: the commanding officer of NORAD, Lt. General Ralph 
E. "Ed" Eberhardt, is the commander of U.S. Northern Command 
(NORTHCOM). In turn, the (Canadian) Commander of NORAD, Lt. General 
Rick "Eric" Findley, heads the Binational Planning Group (BPG).
And, Lt. General Eberhardt, who is commander of both NORTHCOM and 
NORAD, has the mandate to ensure "liaison" between the 
binational "Group" and the US government, including, of course, the 
DoD and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), headed by Tom 
Ridge.
In turn, both the "Group" and the DHS are in permanent liaison with 
Canada's new Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 
which is a Canadian "copy and paste" version of Tom Ridge's 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In other words, the 
integration of Canadian and US military command structures is being 
achieved in close coordination with the binational integration of 
civilian police, judicial and intelligence structures. The 
integration of US, Canadian and Mexican intelligence structures is 
part of a parallel initiative under the same broad military agenda.
What this integration means in practice is that Canada's military 
command structures would in practice be subordinated to those of the 
Pentagon and the US DoD. Operating under a "North American" emblem 
(i.e. NORTHCOM), the US military would have jurisdiction over 
Canadian territory from coast to coast; extending from the St 
Laurence Valley to the Parry Islands in the Canadian Arctic. It 
would allow for the establishment of "North American" military bases 
on Canadian territory. From a military standpoint, it would 
integrate the Canadian North, with its vast resources in raw 
materials with Alaska.
Bearing in mind that similar binational negotiations are being 
conducted between US and with Mexico, the US military would exert 
strategic control over an area (air space, land mass and contiguous 
territorial waters) extending from the Yucatan peninsula in southern 
Mexico to the Canadian Arctic, representing 12 percent of the 
World's land mass.
In fact, a "continental" military command structure (based on a 1999 
US Army College Blueprint) which has been under discussion for 
several years, "would use the North American Free Trade Agreement as 
a basis� link[ing] U.S., Mexican and Canadian forces against 
terrorism in a way that NAFTA has linked North America's economies. 
(See http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2498/newsletter_info.htm )
Needless to say, this initiative is consistent with the broader 
objective of "integrating" defense structures in The Western 
Hemisphere under US military dominance, which is being implemented 
in parallel with the Free Trade Area of the Americas Initiative 
(FTAA). Although not officially on the FTAA agenda, the 
militarization of South America under "Plan Colombia" renamed "The 
Andean Initiative" as well as the signing of a "parallel" military 
cooperation protocol by 27 countries of the Americas (the so-called 
Declaration of Manaus) is an integral part of the process of 
hemispheric integration. In it worth noting that FTAA Trade 
Negotiator Richard Zoellnick is a member of Bush's National Security 
Council.

Washington's "Military Road Map"

The BPG Agreement has a direct bearing on Canada's role in the US 
led war in the Middle East. "The Group" was created barely four 
months before the invasion of Iraq. While Canada is not officially 
part of the Anglo-American military axis, its command structures are 
in the process (under the BPG) of being integrated into those of the 
US.
While it has no troops in Iraq, Canada has a significant military 
presence in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops are, in practice, 
operating under US Command. Canadian warships were sent to the 
Persian Gulf in October 2001 and have from the outset collaborated 
with the US led military operation in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(See Michel Chossudovsky, Extending the War to Iraq? Canada 
sends "Gun Boats" to the Persian Gulf 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111B.html ). (See 
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1044964458943_10/
     See also Heritage Foundation, 
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm )
Canadian military planners were actively "involved in contingency 
planning for war on Iraq", operating out Central Command in Tampa, 
Florida. When CENTCOM headquarters were transferred to Qatar in the 
months prior to the invasion, the senior Canadian military planners 
(under US Command) joined their US counterparts at the new 
headquarters. Canada was also involved in a Naval Task Force Command 
in the Persian Gulf coordinating the entry of coalition war ships 
into the Persian Gulf.
This "integration of Canada" must be seen as part of Washington's 
broader military agenda, in different parts of the World, its so-
called "global leadership" in military affairs, as defined by the 
Project of the New American Century (PNAC). (See 
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf )

The Mandate of the "Group"

The BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative 
military body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, 
it is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian 
House of Commons. According to the defense policy journal Canadian 
American Strategic Review, the BPG is "more than 'just an informal 
discussion group' � it seems to show some signs of evolving into a 
formal command in its own right."
(quoted in DND CF at http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/canada-
us/pentagon2_e.asp )
The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military planners", 
who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying 
the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command 
structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S. 
Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called " panel 
responsible for detailed joint military planning".
Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building 
blocks: the Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance 
Plan (CAP).

The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions

As part of the Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is also involved 
in supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement 
and judicial functions in both the US and Canada. This process is 
consistent with the "Big Brother initiatives" already carried out 
under Homeland Security and the Patriot Acts in the US.
In Canada, similar activities have been launched under the Anti-
Terrorist Legislation (Bills C-36, C-22, C-35, C-42 and C-7). The 
new Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was set up 
in close consultation with the Us Department of Homeland Security.
(See Canada Department of Justice 
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_28217.html , See 
Rocco Galati, 
http://www.911review.org/Wget/scienceforpeace.sa.utoronto.ca/Special_
Activities/Galati_Page.html 
The BPG's has established "military contingency plans" which would 
be activated "on both sides of the Canada-US border" in the case of 
a terror attack or "threat". Under the BPG's Civil Assistance Plan 
(CAP), these so-called "threat scenarios" would involve:
"coordinated response to national requests for military assistance 
[from civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil 
emergency in the US or Canada."
In other words, the Military would "support" and "assist" civilian 
organizations including government bodies and agencies such as 
municipalities, etc. This process implies the militarisation of 
civilian functions.
The BPG does not mince its words: military commanders would:
"provide binational military assistance to civil authorities."
In the case of a Red Code alert, these so-called "requests" (e.g. 
from a Canadian municipality) could result in the deployment of US 
troops or Special Forces inside Canadian territory. In fact, with an 
integrated command structure, Canadian and US servicemen would 
operate in the same military operations.
Moreover, the BPG has been actively involved in joint exercises with 
civilian police and intelligence, involving the participation of 
State and city governments. It has developed a system of "eight 
threat scenarios, focused on weapons of mass destruction, terrorists 
and natural disasters that are being used as planning tools"
(See 
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/html_files/html_view
_e.asp?page=vol7-29p6-7 )
Northrop Grumman Information Technology, a subsidiary of one of 
America's largest defense conglomerates, is on contract with the 
BPG, providing it support services in "strategic and operational 
planning, research, analysis, information technology and 
coordination to meet current and evolving mission requirements." 
(See http://www.tasc.com/ )
Northrop`s mandate is to provide expertise to the BPG in support of
"coordination and implementation of comprehensive enhanced military 
cooperation and interagency products, including detailed contingency 
plans, consultation/decision-making protocol recommendations, 
aerospace, maritime and land defense plans, and Consequence 
Management guidance."
(See: https://www.ditco.disa.mil/public/discms/ENCORE/00323_01.doc )
Martial Law
The circumstances under which martial law can be declared in the US 
are clearly enunciated by the Federal Emergency Management Authority 
(FEMA)
(See http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/security.pdf , See also 
Michel Chossudovsky, 
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html , on Militarization 
see Frank Morales, September 
2003http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR309A.html ).
In the case of a Red Code Terror Alert, US Northern Command would 
take over. Several functions of civilian administration would be 
suspended, others could be transferred to the jurisdiction of the 
military. More generally, the procedure would disrupt government 
offices, businesses, schools, public services, transportation, etc.
Under the present BPG arrangement, Canada is a de facto member of 
NORTHCOM. In other words, some of these martial law procedures could 
be applied in Canada. Under an integrated North American military 
command structure --with Canada part of NORTHCOM--, martial law 
procedures in Canada would conform to those applied in the US.
In May 2003 a major "anti-terrorist exercise" entitled TOPOFF 2 was 
conducted under the auspices of US Homeland Security. Canada fully 
participated in this initiative. In fact, the exercise was conducted 
with the support of NORTHCOM and NORAD, with the BPG playing a key 
role.
TOPOFF 2 was described as "the largest and most comprehensive 
terrorism response and homeland security exercise ever conducted in 
the United States." It was a military style exercise involving 
federal, State and local level governments including Canadian 
participants.
TOPOFF 2 was carried out on the same assumptions as military 
exercises in anticipation of an actual theater war, in this case, to 
be waged by foreign terrorists, examining various WMD attack 
scenarios and the institutional response of State and local 
governments. The simulations of "what was happening in Seattle" were 
carried out in the Situational Awareness Center (SAC) at Peterson 
Air force Base in Colorado. (For further details See Aviation Week & 
Space Technology, June 23, 2003)

Towards a North American Big Brother

In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian 
government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security 
Tom Ridge, entitled the "Canada-US Smart Border Declaration." 
Shrouded in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the 
Homeland Security Department, confidential information on Canadian 
citizens and residents. It also provides US authorities with access 
to tax records of Canadians.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration established its controversial 
Total Information Awareness Program (TIAP), headed by former 
National Security Adviser ret. Admiral John Poindexter, who was 
indicted on criminal charges in the Iran Contra scandal during the 
Reagan Administration.
TIAP operated in the offices of the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (DARPA), a division of the Pentagon in Northern 
Virginia. The Information Awareness Office (IAO), was to oversee a 
giant Big Brother data bank. (See Washington Post, 11 Nov 2002 at 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40942-2002Nov11 )
Under pressure, Pointedexter subsequently resigned from TIAP and the 
program was "officially" discontinued.
(See Pointedexter's PowerPoint presentation at 
http://www.darpa.mil/darpatech2002/presentations/iao_pdf/slides/poind
exteriao.pdf .
IAO's stated mission was "to gather as much information as possible 
about everyone, in a centralized location, for easy perusal by the 
United States government." This would include medical records, 
credit card and banking information, educational and employment 
data, records concerning travel and the use of internet, email, 
telephone and fax.
While the IAO no longer exists, at least officially, the initiative 
of creating a giant data bank has by no means been abandoned. At 
present, several US government bodies including Homeland Security, 
the CIA, the FBI already operate "Big Brother" data banks. The 
controversial Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange ( 
MATRIX), for instance is defined as "a crime-fighting database" used 
by law enforcement agencies, the US Justice Department and Homeland 
Security. More recently in the context of The National Intelligence 
Reform Act of 2004 -- currently debated in the US Senate, discussion 
has centered on a so-called 'Information Sharing Network' to 
coordinate data from 'all available sources.'" The proposed network 
would bring together the data banks of various government agencies 
under a single governmental umbrella. (Deseret Morning News, 29, 
2004).
Under the ongoing US-Canada integration in military command 
structures, "Homeland Security" and intelligence, Canadian data 
banks would eventually be integrated into those of the US. Canada 
Customs and Revenue has already assembled confidential information 
on travelers, which it shares with its US counterparts. In early 
2004, Ottawa announced under the pretext of combating terrorism 
that "U.S. border agents will soon have access to the immigration 
and tax records of Canadian residents".
This merger of tax and immigration data banks is consistent with the 
process of binational integration occurring at the level of military 
command structures. It suggests that the Canadian border is 
controlled under a binational US-Canada arrangement, where US 
officials have access to Canadian immigration files on Canadian 
residents.
Moreover, under Canada's Bill C-7, the Public Safety Act of 2004, 
Canadian police, intelligence and immigration authorities are not 
only authorized to collect personal data, they also have the 
authority to share it with their US counterparts
(Text of the C-7 Public Safety Act at 
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-
7/C-7_3/C-7TOCE.html , see also 
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?Parl=37&Ses=3&ls=c7 and 
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?
pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Arti
cle&cid=1074294906470 )
What these developments suggest is the process of binational 
integration is not only occurring in the military command structures 
but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The 
question is what will be left over within Canada's jurisdiction as a 
sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of binational 
integration, including the sharing and/or merger of data banks, is 
completed?

What Next? Canadian Membership of NORTHCOM

The two year mandate of the BPG expires on the 9th of December 2004. 
Coinciding with president Bush's November visit to Canada, a 
decision to renew the BPG arrangement until Spring of 2005 has 
already been announced, at which time a decision pertaining to the 
formal integration of Canada into NORTHCOM will be made. This 
decision would essentially formalize a fait accompli.
In this regard, the BPG has already prepared a comprehensive report,
"recommending how the two countries' militaries can work together 
more effectively to counter these [terrorist] threats. In many 
cases, � the recommendations will involve formalizing cooperation 
already taking place on an informal basis." (Statement of BPG 
spokesman, US Department of Defense Information, November 3, 2004)
Whether this report will be debated in the House of Commons remains 
to be seen. What is absolutely essential at this critical juncture 
in our history is that Canadians mobilize from coast to coast 
against the militarisation of Canada.
The Canadian Prime Minister is anxious to avoid public debate and 
discussion on what constitutes the most significant encroachment on 
Canada's sovereignty since Confederation.
The Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute among others are 
pressuring Ottawa to:
"bring all land, sea and air forces devoted to such defense under 
one new bi-national command system that will operate in tandem with 
the United States' NORTHCOM." (http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/CCCE%
20Report.pdf )
The Bush administration has its supporters in Canada, in the Liberal 
government as well as in the ranks of the Conservative party and of 
course within the Canadian business establishment. Washington is 
lobbying for a consensus on Canada's entry into NORTHCOM.
Canadian companies are vying for lucrative multimillion 
dollar "reconstruction" contracts in war torn Iraq. Canada's defense 
contractors, which constitute an appendage of the US-military 
industrial complex, are of course part of this consensus building. 
Their lobby group, which favors the integration of military command 
structures, is the Canadian Defense Industries Association. 
(http://www.cdia.ca/ ). In the words of General Dynamics (Canada):
"The combination of heavy U.S. spending on the war in Iraq and 
against terrorism and a new Liberal prime minister apparently ready 
to spend more on defense equipment is improving business optimism." 
(See 
http://www.gdcanada.com/company_info/articles/body_art2004apr22jm2.ht
ml 
Canadian weapons producers, many of which are affiliates of US 
defense conglomerates expect to be granted lucrative contracts upon 
Canada joining NORTHCOM. Among major players in Canada's defense 
industry are General Dynamics (Canada), Bell Helicopter Textron 
(Canada), General Motors Defense, CAE Inc, Bombardier, SNC-Lavalin 
Group, etc.
(For further details see http://www.cdia.ca/public/index.asp?
action=profiles , see also Project Loughshares at 
http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/MONITOR/mond02i.html#Table%201 
"Integration" or the "Annexation" of Canada?
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern 
history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens 
the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an 
imperial project of World domination. This is not a rhetorical 
issue. This project is confirmed by official military and national 
security documents. The military blueprint for global US domination 
is outlined in the Project of the New American Century (PNAC).
(see 
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf )
Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial 
control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military 
agenda. It is worth recalling in this regard, that throughout 
history, the "conquering nation" has expanded on its immediate 
borders, acquiring control over contiguous territories.
Military integration is intimately related to the ongoing process of 
integration in the spheres of trade, finance and investment. 
Needless to say, a large part of the Canadian economy is already in 
the hands of US corporate interests. In turn, the interests of big 
business in Canada tend to coincide with those of the US.
Canada is already a de facto economic protectorate of the USA. The 
US-Canada FTA and NAFTA has not only opened up new avenues for US 
corporate expansion, it has laid the groundwork under the existing 
North American umbrella for the post 9/11 integration of military 
command structures, public security, intelligence and law 
enforcement.
No doubt, Canada's entry into US Northern Command will be presented 
to public opinion as part of Canada-US "cooperation", as something 
which is "in the national interest", which "will create jobs for 
Canadians", and "will make Canada more secure".
Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada's participation in the US 
Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context,  
may serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental 
issue of North American military integration which implies Canada's 
acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the 
entire US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense 
spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program 
controlled by the Pentagon.
And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada 
will cease to function as a Nation:
�    Its borders will be controlled by US officials and 
confidential information on Canadians will be shared with 
Homeland    Security. 
�    US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as 
a result of a binational arrangement. 
�    Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on 
behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa. 
But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and 
understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as nation.
The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have 
embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" 
in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and 
intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of 
George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly 
participate, through integrated military command structures, in the 
US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the 
massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, 
the establishment of concentration camps, etc.
Under an integrated North American Command, a North American 
national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be 
obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, 
including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, 
which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003.
(See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the "War on 
Terrorism" http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004)
Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, 
immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the 
anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the 
US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic 
profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-
war activists.


Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of 
Ottawa. He has taught as Visiting Professor at academic institutions 
in Western Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia, has acted as 
economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has 
worked as a consultant for several international organizations 
including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the 
African Development Bank, the United Nations African Institute for 
Economic Development and Planning (AIEDEP), the United Nations 
Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Labour Organization 
(ILO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations 
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).
Dr. Chossudovsky is past President of the Canadian Association of 
Latin American and Caribbean Studies. He is member of a number of 
research organisations including the Committee on Monetary and 
Economic Reform (COMER), the Geopolitical Drug Watch (OGD) (Paris)
and the International People's Health Council (IPHC).



To view the Oread Daily go to 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OreadDaily/ 
Subscribe to the Oread Daily at OreadDailysubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
Contact the Oread Daily at dgscooldesign@yahoo.com