• Canaconda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    This is why a full investigation must take place. Until then we have no proof that the meeting did not violate paragraph b.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Paragraph B is the kicker, because we do know they met with a foreign power that has stated it wants to expand into Canada.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Hi there, you seem to be confused about how laws work in Canada. See, unlike our neighbours to the south, we have this crazy notion that civil rights do in fact matter.

      That includes the right not to be subject to investigation without reasonable suspicion of a crime. There being no evidence that someone has not committed a crime is not a reasonable basis for an investigation.

      Do you drive? Prove you haven’t ever committed vehicular manslaughter. Do you own bolt cutters? Prove you’ve never used them to break and enter. Do you have alcohol or weed in your home? Prove you’ve never sold them to minors. Have you ever been near a school? Prove you’re not a child rapist.

      See how this works? Saying that someone was in a situation where they could have a comitted a crime cannot be the basis for a criminal investigation, or else we’d be investigating everyone, all the time.

      The Alberta separatists are pathetic scumbags, but they’re not automatically criminals just because you don’t like what they did. That’s toddler logic.

      • podian@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I think you’re mistaking “investigation” with “prosecution” or something else. The cops can investigate literally anyone. You can hire a PI to investigate anyone.

        There are limits however on what investigative actions can be legally taken by cops based on the evidence they have. Even with no evidence, they can still do things like interview people who know the POI, even follow them around in public. They can’t, for example, detain them and beat a confession out of them, or search their house willy nilly.

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It’s unlikely that these dorks are leakng military info, but they should definitely be investigated. I think the real question is whether the US are using “force or violence”, which would fall under C) and A)

      • Canaconda@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character

        I’m getting real sick of people ignoring 3/4 of the shit they’re supposedly quoting.

        For some reason a lot of y’all wanna bend over backwards to defend this shit.

        • cygnus@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          14 hours ago

          For some reason a lot of y’all wanna bend over backwards to defend this shit.

          🙄

          Pray tell, what would these dumbfucks even know about science enough that it’s worth leaking?