[908B64B197]

> The fed-created bombing attempt was in 1974. Unless the RCMP has a time machine, I don't think the invocation of the WMA or the POA can be blamed on Robert Samson.

They were caught in 1974. That doesn't mean (and Samson's testimony corroborated that) they didn't plant bombs or fake threats before. Ted Bundy wasn't caught the first time he murdered someone.

> but it did get overturned in 2008.

Thankfully, some still read the constitution.

[vkou]

Do you also think they kidnapped and murdered Pierre Laporte, which is what precipitated the use of the WMA? How far down does this conspiracy theory go, exactly? Are we just going to, without any evidence, blame everything on the RCMP boogieman?

> Thankfully, some still read the constitution.

Did you miss the second part of this equation, where martial law is still a thing, it can still be declared by state governors, and will happily suspend your rights?

The only thing that happened in the lead-up to 2007 and again in 2008 was a change to who can declare it.

That's the other problem with 'reading the US constitution'. It's not exactly clear on the subject of when it can be set aside. The 68 invocations of martial law make it crystal-clear that it can be set aside, and does get set aside whenever someone feels like it [1]. But you're not going to find a single word in the constitution that explains why, who, and in what circumstances it can be set aside.

At least the CORAF is clear as on the subject of what it takes to set it aside - an Act of Parliament, and which parts of it can be set aside (Sections 2, 7-15 - pretty much all the important bits, aside from elections, and language rights).

[908B64B197]

> Do you also think they kidnapped and murdered Pierre Laporte, which is what precipitated the use of the WMA?

They apparently got a confession from the alleged murderer (of course, one might question a confession obtained while the suspect's constitutional rights were suspended) but couldn't even place him at the scene of the murder.

And let's be honest, once you admit to planting evidence, there's not a lot of credibility left...

> How far down does this conspiracy theory go, exactly?

People said the same thing about the lab leak hypothesis back in 2020.

> The only thing that happened in 2007 and 2008 was a change to who can declare it.

As with any law, let's see if it stands the test of courts.

[vkou]

> They apparently got a confession from the alleged murderer (of course, one might question a confession obtained while the suspect's constitutional rights were suspended) but couldn't even place him at the scene of the murder.

> And let's be honest, once you admit to planting evidence, there's not a lot of credibility left...

The most likely and obvious conclusion of this is that they got the wrong guy for the murder, not that they killed him.

> People said the same thing about the lab leak hypothesis back in 2020.

'People' also say smoking doesn't cause cancer, marijuana causes reefer madness, and that Bigfoot is real. 'People' believe and say all sorts of stupid things. You're going to need a better argument.

> As with any law, let's see if it stands the test of courts.

The application of martial law in the US has already stood the test of 68 invocations. How many more invocations are you going to need before you are convinced of the basic fact that the US constitution can and has been suspended during states of emergency?

And you're pointing fingers at Canada for invoking the WMA three times, and the Emergencies act once? [1]

This is a completely ridiculous double standard. Please open your eyes.

[1] When the Canadian CORAF has explicit, clear provisions for when those kinds of acts can be invoked, and by whom?

[908B64B197]

> The most likely and obvious conclusion of this is that they got the wrong guy for the murder, not that they killed him.

"No, your honor, we planted evidence on a different black man. No this one we really did find evidence. Just trust us".

[vkou]

Good thing that courts usually don't operate on one side saying 'just trust us', and everyone going home.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all you have is... Well, not even any circumstantial evidence, it's just conjecture. Just 'they could have done it, so they did it!'.

Just because things may not have turned out one way doesn't mean that you can come in and insist that they actually turned out a different, particular way - without anything to support it. And then base the rest of your argument on that.

(This is also a complete tangent.)