Dissent Is What Will Save Us

Agreed.

However, it would require first that we reacquaint ourselves with our responsibilities as citizens of democracies:

Living in a democracy is a right and a responsibility. And yes, this responsibility requires effort. But which is better: having your back bent by the effort required to keep on living in a democratic society, or letting leave for complacency and find yourself one day with a back bent under a totalitarian regime (however benevolent it may be)?

'Nuff said ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Iraq: The Proof Is In The Pudding - Or So They Say

As Britain's inquiry into the origins of the 2003 Iraq War goes ahead full steam, "shocking" revelations already abound.

I use the word shocking in quotes because, to be humbly honest, these revelations so far merely confirm what has been known for years: that the Bush administration had no valid reason to go to war with Iraq other than securing oil resources, and that the Blair government simply went along for the ride to get its fair share of said resources.

And everything else claimed by both governments as justifications for the Iraq war constituted nothing more than baseless sloganeering, propaganda, disinformation and lies.

Here's two such recent revelations that have come out of the Brisitsh inquiry. First, this (emphasis added):

Regime change 'may have been planned at ranch'

Tony Blair and George Bush may have agreed the need for regime change in Iraq in private discussions at the US president's ranch, the Iraq Inquiry heard today.

Sir Christopher Meyer, who was Britain's ambassador to the US between 1997 and 2003, said the April 2002 meeting in Crawford, Texas, appeared to be a major turning point.

He said in evidence: "I took no part in any of the discussions and there was a large chunk of that time when no adviser was there.

"I know what the Cabinet Office says were the results of the meeting but to this day I am not entirely clear what degree of convergence was, if you like, signed in blood at the Crawford ranch."

He said the change in stance was evidenced in a speech given by the Prime Minister the following day.

"To the best of my knowledge, I might be wrong, this was the first time that Tony Blair had said in public 'regime change'," Sir Christopher said.

"What he was trying to do was to draw the lessons of 9/11 and apply them to the situation in Iraq. which led - I think not inadvertently but deliberately - to a conflation of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

"When I heard that speech, I thought that this represents a tightening of the UK/US alliance and a degree of convergence on the danger Saddam Hussein presented."

Sir Christopher said that although "regime change" had been formal US policy since the Iraq Liberation Act passed by the Clinton administration in 1998, that had been of little interest to the Bush administration before 9/11.

(...) "By the time the president and the Prime Minister met at Crawford, they weren't there to talk about containment or sharpening sanctions.

"There had been a sea change in US administration to which the British Government, from October onwards, had to adapt to and make up its mind where it stood on these various issues.

"It was a complete waste of time in these circumstances, if we were to be able to work with the Americans, to go to them and bang on about regime change and say we can't support it."

Sir Christopher said Mr Blair had always been convinced of the need to deal with Saddam's weapons of mass destruction - giving a speech on the issue as early as 1998 - but prior to Crawford he had been largely quiet on the issue.

"Tony Blair was a true believer about the wickedness of Saddam Hussein," he said.

He said that after Crawford the priority for Britain was to go down the "UN route" and secure international backing in the Security Council for the return of weapons inspectors.

He said he had to stress to the US administration that it was in their own interests to do so - particularly the hawkish deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who was "viscerally" opposed to the UN.

"I had to put in those cynical terms to persuade him that this was not a limp-wristed, pitiful, European lack of will, pathetic type thing of which Europeans are frequently accused by the Americans," he said.

Although they succeeded in getting a resolution in the UN Security Council, the "real problem" was that the US military timetable for an invasion in March 2003 had been set before Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors returned to Iraq.

"It was impossible to see how Blix could bring the inspection process to a conclusion, for better or worse, by March.

"Because you cannot synchronise the programmes, you had to short-circuit the process by finding the notorious 'smoking gun'.

"We have got to try to prove that he (Saddam) is guilty and we - the British and Americans - have never recovered from that because, of course, there was no smoking gun."

Sir Christopher suggested if the military planning had been done on a longer timetable, it was possible that war could have been avoided.

"If we had planned for military action in the cool autumnal season of 2003 rather than the cool spring season of 2003, a lot of things might have been able to have been unwound," he said.

"The key problem was to let the military strategy wag the political and diplomatic strategy. It should have been the other way round."

He said in Washington, he found that British support for the war was quickly being "taken for granted" and he had trouble in persuading the Americans of the need for a Security Council resolution.

"The way I put it was if we didn't make a serious effort to go down the UN route, the first instance of regime change will take place in London," he said.

He expressed irritation that Britain was unable to gain much diplomatic leverage from its position as the US's chief ally in terms of issues such as the liberalisation of transatlantic airline service, or the need for post-war planning in Iraq.

If the Ambasador would have taken into account that the Bush administration was dead-set to go to war in Iraq regardless, then all of it makes compete sense - doesn't it? Except, of course, for all the civilian and military deaths which resulted from this gratuitous war of choice - now this will never make sense. Hence why it is important to fully expose the mendacity behind the origins of the war in Iraq: because in the end, it amounts to nothing less than criminal warmongering.

And then, there is this (emphasis added):

Blair knew Iraq had no WMD before war, inquiry hears
UK considered Iran, Libya, North Korea bigger threats than Iraq

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was told ten days before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs likely remained "dismantled," but the prime minister continued to insist that Iraq was producing chemical and biological weapons, a British inquiry heard Wednesday.

"With British and US troops massed on the border, the new intelligence was dismissed," reports the Times of London.

Sir William Ehrman, the director of international security at the UK's Foreign Office from 2000 to 2002, told the British government's inquiry into the Iraq invasion that "on March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn’t yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents."

The US and Britain led the Iraq invasion on March 20, 2003, ten days after that report. As the Guardian notes, "in the government's dossier on Iraqi weapons, published that month, Blair wrote that he believed intelligence assessments had established "beyond doubt" that Saddam was continuing to produce chemical and biological weapons – an assertion repeated up to the invasion."

(...) Among the things the Chilcot Inquiry, as it is known, is to determine is whether Blair misled the British public in the run-up to the war. Yesterday's testimony from Sir William increases the chances that the answer to that question will be yes.

The inquiry was also told that the UK's Foreign Office didn't consider Saddam Hussein's Iraq to be the biggest threat to global security.

"The inquiry was told that Iraq was ranked by the Foreign Office as only the fourth most dangerous of rogue states trying to develop weapons of mass destruction in 2001," reports the UK's Daily Telegraph. "Iran, North Korea and Libya were of greater concern to officials, who were confident that weapons inspections during the 1990s had dismantled Iraq’s nuclear capability."

According to the Times, the inquiry also heard that UN weapons inspector Hans Blix told the British government in February, 2003, that "Saddam might not have weapons of mass destruction. Mr Blair continued to say there was a risk to national security from WMD without mentioning the new intelligence."

Bush's poodle indeed ...

I can only imagine what else we would learn of the duplicity of the Bush administration should the Americans actually have the cojones to mount up a similar inquiry ...

But who am I kidding? They won't even investigate the Bush administration for authorizing torture.

Unfortunately, and sadly, enough.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The Afghanistan "War Speech" President Obama Should Give

President Barack Obama is set to give a presidential address next week on the matter of the war in Afghanistan. There are talks that President Obama will be at last outlining an exit strategy from Afghanistan in this so-called "war speech", perhaps including negociations with the Taliban. Then again, he is also reported to be mulling over sending some 34000 additional troops there, as a means to "surge" - as was done in Iraq in 2007.

Come what may, I stumbled upon the following little gem, care of Tom Engelhardt:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

A New Way Forward:

The President's Address to the American People on Afghan Strategy

Oval Office

For Immediate Release

December 2nd

My fellow Americans,

On March 28th, I outlined what I called a "comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." It was ambitious. It was also an attempt to fulfill a campaign promise that was heartfelt. I believed -- and still believe -- that, in invading Iraq, a war this administration is now ending, we took our eye off Afghanistan. Our well-being and safety, as well as that of the Afghan people, suffered for it.

I suggested then that the situation in Afghanistan was already "perilous." I announced that we would be sending 17,000 more American soldiers into that war zone, as well as 4,000 trainers and advisors whose job would be to increase the size of the Afghan security forces so that they could someday take the lead in securing their own country. There could be no more serious decision for an American president.

Eight months have passed since that day. This evening, after a comprehensive policy review of our options in that region that has involved commanders in the field, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Advisor James Jones, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, top intelligence and State Department officials and key ambassadors, special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, and experts from inside and outside this administration, I have a very different kind of announcement to make.

I plan to speak to you tonight with the frankness Americans deserve from their president. I've recently noted a number of pundits who suggest that my task here should be to reassure you about Afghanistan. I don't agree. What you need is the unvarnished truth just as it's been given to me. We all need to face a tough situation, as Americans have done so many times in the past, with our eyes wide open. It doesn't pay for a president or a people to fake it or, for that matter, to kick the can of a difficult decision down the road, especially when the lives of American troops are at stake.

During the presidential campaign I called Afghanistan "the right war." Let me say this: with the full information resources of the American presidency at my fingertips, I no longer believe that to be the case. I know a president isn't supposed to say such things, but he, too, should have the flexibility to change his mind. In fact, more than most people, it's important that he do so based on the best information available. No false pride or political calculation should keep him from that.

And the best information available to me on the situation in Afghanistan is sobering. It doesn't matter whether you are listening to our war commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who, as press reports have indicated, believes that with approximately 80,000 more troops -- which we essentially don't have available -- there would be a reasonable chance of conducting a successful counterinsurgency war against the Taliban, or our ambassador to that country, Karl Eikenberry, a former general with significant experience there, who believes we shouldn't send another soldier at present. All agree on the following seven points:

1. We have no partner in Afghanistan. The control of the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai hardly extends beyond the embattled capital of Kabul. He himself has just been returned to office in a presidential election in which voting fraud on an almost unimaginably large scale was the order of the day. His administration is believed to have lost all credibility with the Afghan people.

2. Afghanistan floats in a culture of corruption. This includes President Karzai's administration up to its highest levels and also the warlords who control various areas and, like the Taliban insurgency, are to some degree dependent for their financing on opium, which the country produces in staggering quantities. Afghanistan, in fact, is not only a narco-state, but the leading narco-state on the planet.

3. Despite billions of dollars of American money poured into training the Afghan security forces, the army is notoriously understrength and largely ineffective; the police forces are riddled with corruption and held in contempt by most of the populace.

4. The Taliban insurgency is spreading and gaining support largely because the Karzai regime has been so thoroughly discredited, the Afghan police and courts are so ineffective and corrupt, and reconstruction funds so badly misspent. Under these circumstances, American and NATO forces increasingly look like an army of occupation, and more of them are only likely to solidify this impression.

5. Al-Qaeda is no longer a significant factor in Afghanistan. The best intelligence available to me indicates -- and again, whatever their disagreements, all my advisors agree on this -- that there may be perhaps 100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and another 300 in neighboring Pakistan. As I said in March, our goal has been to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and on this we have, especially recently, been successful. Osama bin Laden, of course, remains at large, and his terrorist organization is still a danger to us, but not a $100 billion-plus danger.

6. Our war in Afghanistan has become the military equivalent of a massive bail-out of a firm determined to fail. Simply to send another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan would, my advisors estimate, cost $40-$54 billion extra dollars; eighty thousand troops, more than $80 billion. Sending more trainers and advisors in an effort to double the size of the Afghan security forces, as many have suggested, would cost another estimated $10 billion a year. These figures are over and above the present projected annual costs of the war -- $65 billion -- and would ensure that the American people will be spending $100 billion a year or more on this war, probably for years to come. Simply put, this is not money we can afford to squander on a failing war thousands of miles from home.

7. Our all-volunteer military has for years now shouldered the burden of our two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if we were capable of sending 40,000-80,000 more troops to Afghanistan, they would without question be servicepeople on their second, third, fourth, or even fifth tours of duty. A military, even the best in the world, wears down under this sort of stress and pressure.

These seven points have been weighing on my mind over the last weeks as we've deliberated on the right course to take. Tonight, in response to the realities of Afghanistan as I've just described them to you, I've put aside all the subjects that ordinarily obsess Washington, especially whether an American president can reverse the direction of a war and still have an electoral future. That's for the American people, and them alone, to decide.

Given that, let me say as bluntly as I can that I have decided to send no more troops to Afghanistan. Beyond that, I believe it is in the national interest of the American people that this war, like the Iraq War, be drawn down. Over time, our troops and resources will be brought home in an orderly fashion, while we ensure that we provide adequate security for the men and women of our Armed Forces. Ours will be an administration that will stand or fall, as of today, on this essential position: that we ended, rather than extended, two wars.

This will, of course, take time. But I have already instructed Ambassador Eikenberry and Special Representative Holbrooke to begin discussions, however indirectly, with the Taliban insurgents for a truce in place. Before year's end, I plan to call an international conference of interested countries, including key regional partners, to help work out a way to settle this conflict. I will, in addition, soon announce a schedule for the withdrawal of the first American troops from Afghanistan.

For the counterinsurgency war that we now will not fight, there is already a path laid out. We walked down that well-mined path once in recent American memory and we know where it leads. For ending the war in another way, there is no precedent in our recent history and so no path -- only the unknown. But there is hope. Let me try to explain.

Recently, comparisons between the Vietnam War and our current conflict in Afghanistan have been legion. Let me, however, suggest a major difference between the two. When Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson faced their crises involving sending more troops into Vietnam, they and their advisors had little to rely on in the American record. They, in a sense, faced the darkness of the unknown as they made their choices. The same is not true of us.

In the White House, for instance, a number of us have been reading a book on how the U.S. got itself ever more disastrously involved in the Vietnam War. We have history to guide us here. We know what happens in counterinsurgency campaigns. We have the experience of Vietnam as a landmark on the trail behind us. And if that weren't enough, of course, we have the path to defeat already well cleared by the Russians in their Afghan fiasco of the 1980s, when they had just as many troops in the field as we would have if I had chosen to send those extra 40,000 Americans. That is the known.

On the other hand, peering down the path of de-escalation, all we can see is darkness. Nothing like this has been tried before in Washington. But I firmly believe that this, too, is deeply in the American grain. American immigrants, as well as slaves, traveled to this country as if into the darkness of the unknown. Americans have long braved the unknown in all sorts of ways.

To present this more formulaically, if we sent the troops and trainers to Afghanistan, if we increased air strikes and tried to strengthen the Afghan Army, we basically know how things are likely to work out: not well. The war is likely to spread. The insurgents, despite many losses, are likely to grow in strength. Hatred of Americans is likely to increase. Pakistan is likely to become more destabilized.

If, however, we don't take such steps and proceed down that other path, we do not know how things will work out in Afghanistan, or how well.

We do not know how things will work out in Pakistan, or how well.

That is hardly surprising, since we do not know what it means to end such a war now.

But we must not be scared. America will not -- of this, as your president, I am convinced -- be a safer nation if it spends many hundreds of billions of dollars over many years, essentially bankrupting itself and exhausting its military on what looks increasingly like an unwinnable war. This is not the way to safety, but to national penury -- and I am unwilling to preside over an America heading in that direction.

Let me say again that the unknown path, the path into the wilderness, couldn't be more American. We have always been willing to strike out for ourselves where others would not go. That, too, is in the best American tradition.

It is, of course, a perilous thing to predict the future, but in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, war has visibly only spread war. The beginning of a negotiated peace may have a similarly powerful effect, but in the opposite direction. It may actually take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents on both sides of the Afghan/Pakistan border. It may actually encourage forces in both countries with which we might be more comfortable to step to the fore.

Certainly, we will do our best to lead the way with any aid or advice we can offer toward a future peaceful Afghanistan and a future peaceful Pakistan. In the meantime, I plan to ask Congress to take some of the savings from our two wars winding down and put them into a genuine jobs program for the American people.

The way to safety in our world is, I believe, to secure our borders against those who would harm us, and to put Americans back to work. With this in mind, next month I've called for a White House Jobs Summit, which I plan to chair. And there I will suggest that, as a start, and only as a start, we look at two programs that were not only popular across the political spectrum in the desperate years of the Great Depression, but were remembered fondly long after by those who took part in them -- the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration. These basic programs put millions of Americans back to work on public projects that mattered to this nation and saved families, lives, and souls.

We cannot afford a failing war in Afghanistan and a 10.2% official unemployment rate at home. We cannot live with two Americas, one for Wall Street and one for everyone else. This is not the path to American safety.

As president, I retain the right to strike at al-Qaeda or other terrorists who mean us imminent harm, no matter where they may be, including Afghanistan. I would never deny that there are dangers in the approach I suggest today, but when have Americans ever been averse to danger, or to a challenge either? I cannot believe we will be now.

It's time for change. I know that not all Americans will agree with me and that some will be upset by the approach I am now determined to follow. I expect anger and debate. I take full responsibility for whatever may result from this policy departure. Believe me, the buck stops here, but I am convinced that this is the way forward for our country in war and peace, at home and abroad.

I thank you for your time and attention. Goodnight and God bless America.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Torturegate Canada: Anatomy Of Incompetence In Action - Part II

In Part I of this three-part in depth analysis, the series of events which lead to the December 2005 bilateral Canada-Afghanistan detainee transfer agreement were outlined, as well why and how this agreement was fundamentally flawed - thanks to an initial incompetent exercise on the part of the LPC Martin minority government. However, from early 2006, the CPC Harper minority government came to power - but rather than accepting the agreement's flaws that were being pointed out throughout the year in order to remedy said flaws, this government instead acted incompetently in turn by simply posturing in defense of the agreement and politically attacking its critics, all the while relying on their utter ignorance (or lack of understanding) of the actual contents of the agreement, of what the ICRC can and can't do, and of Article 12 of Geneva III.

As previously stated: the table was fully set for our country to receive the first confirmed news of Afghan detainee abuses following their transfer to the Afghan government.

While the detainee transfer agreement was being rightfully and correctly criticized by opposition MPs, a then-newly arrived senior Canadian diplomat in Afghanistan, one Richard Colvin, began in May 2006 to send a series of urgent warnings about the treatment of transferred detainees at the hands of Afghan authorities (namely the NSD). Additionally, at the end of 2006, the Canadian Afghanistan diplomatic team's annual human rights report further informed the Harper government about systemic problems of torture in Afghan jails.

In between, in March 2006, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour reported on the NSD thusly (emphasis added):

The NSD, responsible for both civil and military intelligence, operates in relative secrecy without adequate judicial oversight and there have been reports of prolonged detention without trial, extortion, torture, and systematic due process violations. Multiple security institutions managed by the NSD, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Defense, function in an uncoordinated manner, and lack central control. Complaints of serious human rights violations committed by representatives of these institutions, including arbitrary arrest, illegal detention and torture, are common.

Then in June 2006, it was reported that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) had estimated that about one in three prisoners handed over by Canadians soldiers were beaten or tortured.

All these warnings were ignored by senior Canadian Forces and government officials - even though reports were widely circulated in the Foreign Affairs and Defense departments. Incidentally, the Canadian Forces erected a wall of secrecy around the practice of handing over detainees that was out of sync with Canada's NATO partners, refusing to share with both the Canadian public as well as NATO itself how many detainees the military had captured and transferred. Furthermore, there was also a wide-ranging deference to then-Chief of Defense Gen. Rick Hillier, who brushed off detainee torture allegations. The Red Cross was even compelled, despite their long-standing practice, to warn the Canadian army in Kandahar about what was happening to prisoners, doing so over three months in 2006 - but no one would even take their phone calls.

Thus Canada already there and then found itself in direct contravention to its legally-binding obligations under Article 12 of Geneva III (emphasis added):

Art 12. Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless, if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

Indeed, by ignoring all those warnings of detainee abuses, and consequently failing to investigate immediately any and all allegations to this effect, Canada, as the primary detaining power of Afghan prisoners, found itself in gross, negligent dereliction of its legal responsibilities over the transferred detainees.

Furthermore, Canada likewise found itself in direct contravention of Article 21 of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (emphasis added):

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article 3 that it recognizes the competence of the Committee (Against Torture) to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure:
   1. If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions of this Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months after the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, references to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending, or available in the matter.
   2. If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee by notice given to the Committee and to the other State.
   3. The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.
   4. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.
   5. Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in the present Convention. For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation commission.
   6. In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information.
   7. The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing.
   8. The Committee shall, within 12 months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report.
      1. If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.
      2. If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report.
   In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.

2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.

Both Canada and Afghanistan are not only "State Parties" of this convention, but furthermore ratified it. Hence, by failing to take seriously the abuse of detainees and, consequently, by likewise failing to communicate with the Karzai government to this effect, Canada found itself negligent of its legally-binding obligations regarding this convention as well.

After all, ignorance of the law does is no defense for breaking the law. And both Geneva III and the Convention Against Torture constitute the laws of our land.

Which brings us forward to February 2007, essentially a year after the Harper minority government came to power. Our country was then shocked when University of Ottawa Law Professor Amir Attaran produced documents (that he obtained under the Access to Information Act) which revealed that three Afghan prisoners in the custody of Canadian military police were brought in by their Afghan interrogator for treatment of similar injuries to the head and upper body, all on the same day.

Thus allegations of torture of transferred detainees came out publicly for the first time.

To the credit of then-Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor, his immediate (competent) response was to promise investigations (from the National Investigation Service and the Canadian Military Board of Inquiry) into these allegations. About the same time, Gen. Rick Hillier proclaimed his confidence that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were behaving appropriately and professionally, in addition to providing assurances that all prisoners were handled in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Not long after, the Military Police Complaints Commission launched its own investigation of the handling of Afghan detainees by the Canadian military - however, the three aforementioned abused detainees (along with a fourth one) would disappear ... while in custody of the Afghan National Army (ANA).

To make matters worse, it was reported that when the Harper government was asked to account for the location and condition of 40 detainees captured prior to April 2006 and several dozen taken since then, it refused to disclose what happened to them or even if it knew whether any had been tried, charged, or released, or how they were treated.

In any event, the episode of competence on the part of O'Connor was quite short-lived as he reverted to his default incompetence mode. To whit, the following February 13 and 21 (2007) exchanges in the House of Commons (emphasis added):

LPC MP Denis Coderre: "On the issue of the abuse that some Afghan detainees have suffered, the behaviour of the Minister of National Defense is cause for concern. He is in the know, he has received documents. There is proof that he receives reports every time detainees are transferred. Now, he is refusing to answer, because he is hiding behind the investigations. Given that he knows more than he is letting on, how will he respond to these investigations? Is he willing to testify? Is he willing to release the documents? Is he willing to tell us what he knows, or will he stick his head in the sand as usual?"

CPC Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor: "I can assure this House that at no time was I aware of any abuse of prisoners, period (...)"

BQ MP Caroline St-Hilaire: "The federal government committed to ensuring that Afghan prisoners would not be tortured and that they would be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention until their transfer to Afghan authorities. Amnesty International deplores the lack of compliance with that convention. Can the Minister of National Defense tell us why Canada refuses to follow the example of the Netherlands, which obtained the right to follow up on prisoners transferred to Afghan authorities, in order to ensure that they are treated humanely, that they are not tortured and that their rights are respected?"

Gordon O’Connor: "The current arrangement for detainees was made by the previous government. In that agreement, the International Committee of the Red Cross is mandated to visit and monitor detainees to ensure that they are treated in accordance with the standards of the Geneva Convention. The arrangement also recognizes the role of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission with respect to human rights and detainees. Last fall the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross said that Canada was scrupulous in notifying the Red Cross when it took prisoners and handed them over. We are satisfied with the current arrangements."

Caroline St-Hilaire: "In addition to Amnesty International, Louise Arbour, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that cases of extortion, torture, prolonged imprisonment without trial, and the systematic violation of the rule of law are frequent. The U.S. Department of State has reached the same conclusions. Given these worrisome findings, what is the Minister of National Defense waiting for to put an end to his wilful blindness and immediately emulate the approach taken by the Netherlands with respect to the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities?"

Gordon O’Connor: "We are in Afghanistan in support of the Afghan government. When lawbreakers come into our hands, we hand them over to the proper authorities. As I previously explained, they are handed over with all the protections of international laws on prisoners."

The only thing factual O'Connor said in these exchanges concerned the notification of any transfer of detainees to the ICRC. The rest was either pure ignorance-based incompetent balderdash and/or outright dissembling (see above and Part I) - especially regarding his statement that he never saw any reports on detainee abuses, even though the office of then-CPC Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay did in fact receive at least some of them. Of course, MacKay keeps denying it to this day - an obvious lie, considering that: A) detainee abuse reports were widely circulated in Foreign Affairs and Defense department (see above); and B) a December 2006 report from his department, written by the diplomatic corps in Afghanistan, actually asserted that extrajudicial executions, disappearance, torture and detention without trial were common occurrences in Afghan prisons (see again above).

Notice, however, the quiet establishment of a possible excuse: the agreement is a bad one because it was crafted by the previous LPC Martin government and the Harper government simply inherited it.

Typical incompetent reaction. And never mind that Harper and his government had a whole year already to remedy the problematic transfer agreement.

Feeling their feet to the growing fire, the Harper government then signed a deal with the AIHRC to monitor how detainees were treated and bring valid complaints to Canadian authorities - at last adding a layer of scrutiny to the transfer agreement. However, the efficacy of this new mechanism was immediately questioned, and has remained so to this day, considering that: 1) the AIHRC acknowledged that it lacked the necessary staff to monitor all the transferred detainees; and 2) our country had not provided any funding to the AIHRC since 2002. And still, no changes were made to the flawed transfer agreement iteself - especially regarding the absence of Canadian oversight and following-up of transferred detainees.

One step further in time, in the month of March 2007. With the detainee abuse scandal still very much alive, O'Connor went to Kandahar to meet with the leadership of the AIHRC, to ensure that the organization was indeed capable of monitoring the treatment of Taliban detainees handed over by Canadian troops to the Afghan government. We would learn more than two years later that he furthermore visited the prison in Kandahar, all the while escorted by "military officers and by political people", and that he "didn’t see any evidence of torture".

As if a guided visit could somehow allow anyone to stumble upon a detainee actually being tortured. Case in point: for a while, investigators of the AIHRC were initially not allowed to meet with prisoners while they were in the custody of Afghan intelligence officers, although they could meet detainees after they were moved to the regular prison system. Investigators were also denied access to detainees held by the NDS. What was the problem? A communications breakdown. Right. Fortunately, the matter would be resolved (not until April 2007) and thereafter AIHRC investigators would have full, unrestricted access to detainees. Still, this illustrates well the good faith and honesty of the Afghan security forces in the matter of torture, no?

Well, at least they could be quite cavalier in dissembling about it (emphasis added):

Colonel Shir Ali Saddiqui, human-rights ombudsman for the Kandahar police department, told The Globe that he was only aware of two complaints of abuse within the past year of prisoners in police custody.

He said police are taking steps to prevent such actions. He did however say that his colleagues at the NDS sometimes needed to get rough with detainees.

"In these cases, these people need some torture, because without torture they will never say anything," said Saddiqui.

Sadullah Khan, Kandahar NDS chief, initially denied any allegations of torture but eventually acknowledged that minor mistakes have been made.

"We never beat people," he said. "Maybe small things happened, but now we're trying to leave those things behind."

It goes without further comment, wouldn't you agree? And still - no one was aware of detainee abuses in the Harper government, let alone in the Canadian Forces?

Guess again (emphasis added):

None of the captured Afghans -- including those who clearly align themselves with the Taliban -- claimed abuse at the hands of Canadians.

In fact, Canadian Forces were often praised for gentle handling of captives and humane detention facilities.

However, one impoverished farmer, Mahmad Gul, 33, told The Globe that he was interrogated and beaten for three days in May 2006 by the Afghan police -- within earshot of Canadian soldiers who visited him between attacks.

"The Canadians told me, 'Give them real information, or they will do more bad things to you,' " said Gul.

The most gruesome stories come from those held in the cramped basement cells below NDS headquarters in Kandahar.

Most of them reported that they were whipped with electrical cables, some to the point of unconsciousness.

Other said they were stripped and forced to stand outside through cold winter nights in Kandahar, when temperatures drop below freezing.

All that and more - not counting those reports/emails Colvin had been sending to Ottawa (since May 2006 at that - see above). In between, the ICRC finally set O'Connor straight on what it did and did not do - thus forcing him to apologize to the House of Commons for having misinformed the House to this effect. And to think that all he needed have done was a thorough background research, i.e. actually doing his homework as Defense Minister - but alas, that is not how incompetents do things.

For indeed, the hard lesson was not learned and therefore it was incompetence as usual for O'Connor as well as for MacKay (emphasis added):

LPC MP Sue Barnes: "Britain and The Netherlands have agreements in place that allow them to verify that transferred prisoners receive proper treatment, but Canada does not. When will the defense minister take steps to give Canada the same authority as Britain and The Netherlands?"

CPC Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor: "Great Britain and The Netherlands use the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to monitor the activities of detainees in the Afghan system and we will also."

Sue Barnes: "Four prisoners are missing and Canada has no guaranteed system in place to ensure that prisoners are receiving proper treatment. The government and the defense minister owe Canadians and the House of Commons an explanation about what steps the government has taken to ensure that prisoners are not being mistreated. More particularly, what is the government’s plan if there is evidence that prisoners are being tortured?"

Gordon O’Connor: "The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission has assured us that it will report any abuse of prisoners. It is able to monitor all the prisoners. If it finds abuse, we have asked that it report that abuse to us and we will deal with the Afghan government."

LPC MP Dominic LeBlanc: "Now that the International Committee of the Red Cross has forced the Minister of National Defense to correct the record and confirm that it has no role in the monitoring of the Canada-Afghanistan detainee transfer agreement, can the minister tell Canadians what immediate steps he is taking to verify that detainees captured by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan and transferred to Afghan authorities are being properly treated?"

Gordon O’Connor: "We have engaged the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. It will monitor detainees within the Afghan system and it will report to us any abuses."

(...)

BQ MP Francine Lalonde: "Because the agreement between Canada and Afghanistan is inadequate, the Canadians Forces have no idea how the individuals they have turned over to Afghan authorities so far have been treated. Instead of directing his efforts at trying to justify his lack of action, what is the Minister of Foreign Affairs waiting for to follow the lead of the Netherlands and enter into an agreement with Afghanistan, whereby the government would be kept abreast of how the individuals captured are being treated and could intervene in this regard? It is the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to enter into such agreements. Let him take his responsibilities."

CPC Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay: "I believe that the Minister of National Defense has answered that question. The situation is clear. There is now more protection afforded to those in such situations in Afghanistan. I am convinced that the Minister of National Defense now has the control and information necessary to monitor the situation."

Francine Lalonde: "I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not want to get involved and would rather let his colleague, the Minister of National Defense, deal with the problem but, logically, the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be the one signing agreements with foreign countries. In fact, in the United States, Condoleeza Rice, whom the minister is rather fond of, is the one who signs those kinds of agreements. What is the minister waiting for to sign a comprehensive agreement with the Afghan authorities to meet our international obligations?"

Peter MacKay: "It was actually the Chief of the Defense Staff who signed the original agreement. Since that time, we know the Minister of National Defense has travelled to Afghanistan and met with the necessary officials from the human rights commission there. The Minister of National Defense has this clearly in hand. He knows now what the situation was that had to be addressed. He has taken action on that. The government stands four-square behind its Minister of National Defense who is doing a great job on behalf of Canadians."

And never mind that Canada continued to be derelict in its legally-binding obligations under Article 12 of Geneva III. Furthermore, it came out to light that since the February 2007 deal with the AIHRC, Canadian Forces simply didn't pass along to them any of the names of transferred detainees. Although the Canadian military convolutedly passed said names to the ICRC, let us not forget its long-standing procedure of not reporting back to a foreign power (i.e. Canada, here) on the fate of transferred detainees in custody of a detaining nation (i.e. Afghanistan here - see above and Part I). Furthermore, it appears that soldiers were not clear on what to do if they witnessed abuse or heard complaints of abuse, resorting to verbally advising Afghan interrogators (such as those of the NDS) not to mistreat anyone and explain about human rights and how to treat prisoners.

Consequently, the two layers of protection to transferred detainees, as repeatedly cited by O'Connor over essentially the whole of the past year (and supported by MacKay and the rest of the Harper government), were both flawed.

As the original transfer agreement itself.

Well, that is when Prime Minister Harper finally decided to intervene forcefully in this worsening debacle ... by behaving incompetently (emphasis added):

"I can understand the passion that the leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for the Taliban prisoners," Harper said. "I just wish occasionally they would show the same passion for Canadian soldiers."

(...) "I would like to see more support in the House of Commons from all sides for Canadian men and women in uniform," he said. "I think Canadians expect that from parliamentarians in every party. They have not been getting it, and they deserve it."

Indeed - rather than genuine leadership, than decisive direction in a proper course of action, the country instead got yet again typical Bushie-like talking points and cheap political attacks.

Thus back we returned to the House of Commons, with essentially the same talking points and blatant ignorance-based incompetence on the part of Harper's government:

LPC MP Denis Coderre: "With his disgraceful reaction to the issue of Taliban prisoners of war yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister once again tarnished Canada’s reputation on the world stage (...) Does the Prime Minister not realize that his disgraceful conduct yesterday sends the wrong signal to the international community that Canada does not respect the Geneva Convention? Does he not know that taking this position could put the lives of our soldiers in great danger by inflaming our enemies and turning the Afghan people against us?"

CPC Leader of the Government in the House of Commons Peter Van Loan: "We would send the wrong signal if we said, like the Liberal Party, that we do not stand behind our troops. We will stand behind our troops. We will ensure that they have in place what they need to protect themselves and ensure that they are protecting Afghan detainees under the Geneva Convention. That is why we are pleased that under this government an agreement was negotiated with the Afghan independent human rights commissioner in order to allow access to detainees and to report back on that to the Canadian government if there is any evidence of any mistreatment."

Denis Coderre: "Not only do we have an irresponsible Prime Minister, but we also have an incompetent, negligent Minister of National Defense who is incapable of handling matters transparently, who is incapable of fulfilling his duties, and who has deceived the people. I have here the Canadian Forces’ code of honour, which talks about duty, loyalty, integrity and courage, and, most importantly, about honour and duty with honour. This is the military ethic, the warrior’s honour. Will the Minister of National Defense practice what he preaches, act according to his military ethic, and prove that he still has a sense of honour by resigning?"

CPC Minister of Defense Gordon O’Connor: "I think I do follow that code and that is why I take responsibility. However, let me remind the member that we will protect detainees within the Afghan prison system. We have recently made an arrangement with the Afghan Human Rights Commission. It has undertaken to supervise the treatment of detainees and that will give us some degree of comfort."

(...)

LPC MP Marlene Jennings: "The minister’s incompetence is astounding. Yesterday, he affirmed that Canadian troops and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission were going to supervise detainees in prisons. Yet, the United Nations Secretary-General said, and I quote: Access remains a problem for the commission. The minister still does not know all the facts and continues to speak nonsense. When will he resign?"

Peter Van Loan: "The government is very proud of the excellent work of our Minister of National Defense and I think most Canadians are very proud as well. We have entered into an agreement that ensures that the independent human rights commission has the opportunity to investigate and report back to us on any reports or any questions on the treatment of detainees. Of course, the original agreement with the Afghan government ensured that the International Committee of the Red Cross also had the same type of access. As a result, we are satisfied that the protection of detainees is ensured under the Geneva Convention."

Incredible, isn't it - and yet quite predictable and expected when one takes into account the Eight Principles of Incompetence.

Be that as it may, as Harper and his cabinet kept being called out for such utter incompetence, the figurative bomb dropped on the collective heads of his government in the following month of April, 2007:

The Globe and Mail newspaper reported (...) that Afghans handed over to local authorities after being interrogated by Canadian soldiers say they have been beaten, whipped, starved, frozen, choked and interrogated by electric shock in Kandahar jails.

Including more than 30 face-to-face interviews with men recently captured in Kandahar province, the newspaper report chronicles claims of abuse by Afghan authorities.

In fact, said interviews uncovered a litany of gruesome stories and a clear pattern of abuse by the Afghan authorities who worked closely with Canadian troops, despite the previous assurances of Harper's government that the rights of detainees were protected.

The reaction of Harper's government to this bombshell? Incompetently predictable.

First were the denials and (of course) cheap counter-accusations - for example (emphasis added):

Prime Minister Stephen Harper described the published reports as "baseless allegations."

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day accused the opposition parties (...) of repeating "false allegations" of torture made by "suspected terrorists" who are turned over to Afghan officials by Canadian troops.

Mr. Day said yesterday that Canada corrections officials had not seen any evidence of torture. "Something the opposition should be aware of is that the Taliban has been told, trained and instructed to lie if asked about being tortured. As a matter of fact, Taliban are told directly to say they were tortured even if they were not. That makes it difficult," he said.

Both O'Connor and Harper rejected suggestions that the government intentionally buried the fact it was aware of allegations that prisoners were being abused in the hands of Afghan authorities.

Harper insisted his government received no specific reports on possible abuse of captured Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

Harper also went on to suggest that the opposition was taking a direct shot at Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan. "The real problem is the willingness of the leader of the Liberal party and his colleagues to believe to repeat and to exaggerate any charge against the Canadian military as they fight these fanatics and killers that are called the Taliban."

Harper surprised everyone by saying there were no problems in the first place. "We have consulted with the government of Afghanistan over the last several days," Harper said. "We have found no evidence that access is blocked to the prisons. In fact, not only are Afghan authorities agreeing to access to the prisons, they actually agree they will formalize (another) agreement so there is no potential misunderstanding."

The Prime Minister went on the offensive, demanding an apology from the Liberals for what he called "baseless allegations" that Canadians could not get access to prisons in Afghanistan. He then hinted at legal action if any member of the Liberal Party alleged he or any of his ministers had ordered bureaucrats to black out a number of paragraphs that alleged torture and extra-judicial executions of prisoners in a report released to media by the Department of Foreign Affairs under the Access to Information Act.

These were then followed/intertwined by pronouncements and lies that were not only contradictory with previous denials and even between themselves, but some actually further incriminated the Harper government - a few examples (emphasis added):

Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor announced Wednesday that a deal had been struck with Afghan intelligence to get access to prisoners to investigate allegations of torture. Today, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day stunned the opposition by saying corrections officers have always had access to Afghan detainees after they have been transferred to Afghan officials.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed on Thursday during question period that officials had yet to draft the aforementioned agreement. But he added that the government expects to "formalize" a deal soon.

The prime minister said the (2006 annual Foreign affairs human rights report - see above) mentioned in the newspaper is an annual report produced for the Foreign Affairs Department that talks about the general state of the Afghan prison system. However, he said the government has no evidence of specific allegations of abuse.

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said he didn't have a copy of the report on Monday, when he said he was unaware of any reports of torture. "I have now since reviewed the report," he said. "Having said that, of course we take these matters extremely seriously." He said he is in constant contact with officials in Afghanistan and has asked them to look into the claims of abuse.

"We take such allegations seriously," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said. "That's why we've concluded a deal with the Afghan government. It's why we'll be in discussions with them to pursue this matter."

"As I've said many times, the government takes these allegations seriously," Harper said. "We have agreements with the government of Afghanistan and also with the Afghan independent human rights commission. The knowledge we have at this point is that those agreements are operating as they should."

Needless to say, the incompetent Harper government was furiously scrambling around and about to save face - throughout calls for the resignation of O'Connor, accusations of cover-ups and outright incompetence.

And thus a new detainee transfer agreement was finally crafted and signed in May 2007, which guaranteed that captured fighters can be interviewed in private without the intimidating presence of their Afghan jailers, at any time and any place. In effect, Canada reclaimed its monitoring jurisdiction over transferred detainees - which had been previously relinquished illegally under the former agreement (see above and Part I). At the same time, the Harper government could feel being "in the clear" regarding Article 21 of the Convention Against Torture (see above), since the discussions and negociations leading to this new agreement could be construed as "communications" under 21.1.1 and 21.1.2 of said article. Same thing regarding Article 12 of Geneva III regarding enacting a primary detaining power's responsibility in rectifying matters if the detaining power to which detainees had been transfered had "problems" respecting Geneva III (again, see above).

In fact, Amnesty International opined that this second agreement may even be better than the other agreements that other NATO countries have individually entered into with the Afghan government.

Thus at last confirming O'Connor's previous, false, boasts to this effect back in April ... 2006 (see Part I).

So - all had become well and good after all - right?

Not so fast - for one, the fact remained that the Harper government still had contravened its legal obligations (Geneva III, Convention Against Torture) throughout the previous year and up to the signing of the second agreement in May 2007. For two, the central issue of whether the government had misled the House of Commons in its statements that torture allegations were merely Taliban propaganda, while at the same time being warned by its own bureaucrats that prisoners are at risk of abuse, remained an open question - indeed, improvements in the way information was communicated internally, implemented under former LPC Chrétien government Defense Minister Bill Graham, made it inconceivable that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) was not aware of such allegations.

And that they knew all along was evident on the very day of the announcement of the said second transfer agreement (emphasis added):

Ottawa negotiated the deal despite insisting that the allegations of torture were false.

"What we have done is enhance the 2005 agreement -- that is exactly what people were calling for," said Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.

For unbestknown to anyone, the PMO had begun a veritable campaign of smottering any further allegations of detainee abuse, in addition to begin a campaign of denial of any and all such allegations.

Need I say it - typical incompetent behavior.

And from there, it would only go further downhill ...

(Continued in Part III)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Climate Change: If Obama Goes To Coppenhagen ...

... as it has been announced today, does this mean that our Prime Poseur will be inclined to go as well?

We'll see, eh?

Indeed ... not.

(Addendum 11/26/09: oops - our Pime Poseur finally changed his mind - h/t)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Afghanistan: All For Absolutely Nothing Indeed

This was utterly predictable and expected (emphasis added):

Insurgents control most of Kandahar province: report

A wedding was called off because international troops killed the groom. A suicide bomber blew himself up in front of a police patrol. An old woman was beaten by the Taliban after she tried to stop them from taking her son.

And all of this happened in just two weeks in the same place -- Kandahar.

The fight for Kandahar, Afghanistan's second largest city, shows some of the biggest hurdles faced by the U.S. as it tries to implement a strategy of winning over the ordinary people of Afghanistan.

Kandahar, a city of an estimated 800,000 people in the south, is an important piece in the battle for Afghanistan, and losing control of it would be a huge blow to the coalition. Yet by some accounts, including that of military officials, religious insurgents already control most of the 17 districts in Kandahar province. Kandahar was the headquarters of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and the presence of Taliban there is growing.

The outgoing NATO commander for southern Afghanistan told The Associated Press that troops need to secure the exits and entrances to Kandahar city itself if the provincial capital is to be protected from infiltration and an eventual Taliban takeover.

"Will Kandahar fall? Every two or three weeks people tell me Kandahar will fall. I think the way forward is to secure the approaches to Kandahar city," said Dutch Maj. Gen. Marc C. De Kruif.

But the strength of the insurgents is only part of the problem. The other part is the local people's mistrust of the U.S. and the Afghan government with which it is partnered. Without trust, the residents cannot be counted on to tip off authorities to the militants' presence.

"Progress is hindered by the dual threat of a resilient insurgency and a crisis of confidence in the government and the international coalition," said Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, in an August report.

McChrystal, who is asking for thousands more soldiers, has warned that the war can be lost unless the U.S. and the Afghan government win back the trust and support of ordinary Afghans. But in Kandahar, the U.S. is fighting an overwhelming belief that the war is aimed at ethnic Pashtuns, who are the backbone of the Taliban and who dominate in the south and the east of the country where the insurgency and military action are fiercest.

(...) Another hurdle is the lack of confidence of the people in their own government, and by extension the coalition.

Government corruption, not the Taliban, is keeping businesses from flourishing in Afghanistan, said Ahmed Shah Lmar, regional manager for one of the country's leading cellular telephone companies. Lmar said businesses lose hundreds of millions of dollars to corruption, development plans sit in government offices gathering dust, and incompetent government officials delay projects until they become financially untenable.

"The government is more of a headache for us than the Taliban," said Lmar, interviewed in an office at the end of a long hall protected by armed men and closed circuit televisions.

After eight years and little sign of progress, the yawning chasm between Kandaharis and the international coalition has widened, with the Taliban outdistancing the coalition in the propaganda war for the hearts of the people.

Quelle surprise.

Meanwhile, President Obama quietly deployed an extra 13000 troops over there just last month. There are currently 68000 US troops in Afghanistan and President Obama is currently mulling over sending yet another 30000-34000 more. Because he says he wants to finish the job. In between, Blackwater (yes, that very same corrupted mercenary company) is running a classified, secret war in ... Pakistan.

On the faint hope side, there are talks that President Obama will be at last outlining an exit strategy from Afghanistan in his so-called "war speech" next week, perhaps including negociations with the Taliban. I wonder if the overall exit strategy will be the same as proposed here (via here).

Incidentally, the usual warhawks and chickenhawks are not amused - because they would rather have the US surge into the abyss over there.

They would rather drive the US further down that bottomless pit of deficit war-spending, instead of actually spending on critical things like health care and job recovery.

Funny how an "exit date" is working more or less smoothly in Iraq, despite their own previous dire warnings that it would not. Why would things turn out differently in Afghanistan, then?

Of course, they are never asked such questions.

Afghanistan - all for absolutely nothing, indeed ... yet, looks like this quagmire-turned-FUBAR will keep on going for years to come - regardless that it is a complete, utter, shameful waste.

As a matter of fact, this war has been as such right from the very beginning.

And it is going to get only worse - as if this was possible, and yet there it is already.

I wonder whether our Prime Poseur is paying any attention to all of this ... or not.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Torturegate Canada: Anatomy Of Incompetence In Action - Part I

The abuse of Afghan detainees after being transferred by Canadian Armed Forces on mission in Afghanistan is not new. Concerns about such abuses is not new either. And the recurring incompetent behavior of the Harper government regarding said abuses is likewise becoming quite familiar - if not actually expected.

Herein is Part I of a three-part in depth analysis of this matter which is critical not only for our national soul, but for our very Canadian identity as well.

It began all the way back in 2004, when numerous cases of mistreatment of detainees at various detention sites in Afghanistan began to surface - all instances reportedly perpetrated by U.S. military and intelligence personnel. In fact, it turned out that such abuses had been occurring since 2002 and had already resulted in the death of some detainees. This was a serious concern for Canada, considering that Canadian Armed Forces on mission in Afghanistan automatically turned over captured Afghan fighters (Taliban and/or al'Qaeda) to the Americans for detention.

Incidentally, two years earlier, concerns were already raised in Canada about the transfer of Afghan detainees to the Americans, because they, already there and then, refused to recognize these as prisoners of war by conveniently reasoning out the application of the Geneva Conventions. The LPC Chrétien government at the time was consequently rocked by scandal because then-Defense Minister Art Eggleton failed to immediately inform his Prime Minister of the capture and turn over of Afghan detainees by Canadian soldiers, in addition to dissembling about the whole affair before the House of Commons. However, since at the time there was no valid reason to even imagine a possible abuse of Afghan detainees by the Americans (especially considering Section 3 of Bush's Presidential Military Order of 11/2001), the matter quietly faded away - and after all, weren't the Americans good guys?

(Disclosure: sadly enough, yours truly stood among those whom naïvely thought as much, back then)

Which brings us back to 2004. About a year earlier, and thus about a year after the Eggleton scandal, the first reports of torture of detainees in Iraq became public. It was therefore no surprise when it came out later on that Afghan detainees were likewise abused by the Americans. So, the Americans were not good guys after all - however much they denied such abuses (yet gradually coming around over the subsequent years to actually publicly justify the torture of detainees, especially after the outing of the torture memos - yeah, all around good guys indeed).

These reports of detainee abuses (as well as renditions and indefinite detentions) by the Americans prompted Canada to craft a detainee transfer agreement with the Afghanistan government of Hamid Karzai by the end of 2005. The then-LPC Martin minority government at the time was worried by the prospect that Afghans captured by Canadian soldiers might end up in the limbo of Gitmo or Bagram. Under this agreement, detainees transferred by Canada were to "be afforded treatment consistent with the standards set out in the Third Geneva Convention, regardless of the legal status of those detainees", and that information on detainees would "be passed along in a timely way" to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), "which has the mandate and resources to track prisoners of war and detainees captured during armed conflict." However, this agreement had four fundamental flaws: A) it was not specified that the Red Cross had to report back to Canada on the condition of the detainees; B) unlike similar agreements reached by the Dutch and British, the agreement did not contain a guarantee that Canadian officials would follow up on transferred detainees; C) the agreement did not contain any right of notification or veto if Afghanistan wanted to transfer a detainee to a third country; and therefore D) Canada effectively relinquished jurisdiction over the detainees once the handover was made.

In other words: Canadian soldiers would transfer detainees to the Karzai government with only the Afghan government's word that the detainees would be treated humanely - and no more questions asked thereafter.

This was incompetence on the part of the Martin government, as this transfer agreement conveniently (but illegally) set aside Canada's legally-binding obligations under Article 12 of Geneva Convention III (emphasis added):

Art 12. Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless, if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

In short: Canada remains legally responsible for any detainee transferred to another detaining power (i.e. Afghanistan, here).

Now - granted that Afghanistan is indeed a party of the Geneva Conventions. However, the Martin government and the Canadian military brass (namely then-Chief of Defense Gen. Rick Hillier) knew that under their detainee transfer agreement, Canadian Forces were to typically hand over prisoners to the National Directorate of Security (NDS) - Afghanistan's notorious intelligence police.

Whether or not the Martin government would have acted to correct such incompetence on their part, we would never know - for the transfer agreement was signed without fanfare in December 2005, during the general election campaign which would oust Martin's Liberals and consequently install the CPC Harper minority government in early 2006.

And from the original incompetent transfer agreement by the Martin government, Canada would be thereafter served with nothing but rampant incompetence on the part of the Harper government regarding the abuse of Afghan detainees.

It began innocently enough, when in April 2006 the following occurred during a question period in the House of Commons (emphasis added):

NDP defense critic Dawn Black: "Why does a very similar agreement signed with the Netherlands allow its government to ensure full compliance with all international conventions while ours does not?"

CPC Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor: "This is a more mature arrangement than the Netherlands has. Nothing in the agreement prevents the Canadian government from inquiring about prisoners. We are quite satisfied with the agreement. It protects prisoners under the Geneva agreement and all other war agreements."

Dawn Black: "The agreement does nothing to stop prisoners from being transferred to a third party. Once Canadians hand a prisoner over to the Afghan government we wash our hands of the entire matter (...) Will the minister ensure that Canadian government officials have the same rights as Dutch officials when it comes to tracking, interviewing and ensuring that no human rights violations or torture will take place? When will the minister redraft the agreement to better reflect our values as Canadians?"

Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor: "We have no intention of redrafting the agreement. The Red Cross and the Red Crescent are charged with ensuring that prisoners are not abused. There is nothing in the agreement that prevents Canada from determining the fate of prisoners so there is no need to make any change in the agreement."

This was pure ignorance-based incompetence on the part of O'Connor - on several counts: 1) the ICRC's was indeed not responsible for monitoring the Canada-Afghanistan detainee-transfer agreement (see also above); 2) the ICRC has a long standing procedure of not notifying any foreign government of detainee abuses, other than the detaining government; 3) the Canadian transfer agreement was severely flawed (see above) regarding all other points raised by O'Connor in defense of the agreement. Incidentally, O'Connor reiterated the same ignorance-based fallacies in a subsequent question period some six days later.

One step forward in time, to May 2006, after Lt.-Gen. Gauthier (now retired), then the commander of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, stated that Afghan detainees "are not entitled to prisoner-of-war-status but they are entitled to prisoner-of-war treatment. The regulations apply in an armed conflict between states, and what's happening in Afghanistan is not an armed conflict between states. And therefore there is no basis for making a determination of individuals being prisoners of war. Our default setting is to transfer. We haven't held anybody for more than a few hours and we would prefer not to." Talk about wanting fervently to wash your hands off the hot-potato-detainees.

In any case, the consequent following exchange ensued in the House of Commons (emphasis added):

BQ MP Francine Lalonde: "General Gauthier says that Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan do not have to follow the Geneva Convention with respect to individuals who are taken prisoner because the conflict in Afghanistan is not—or is no longer—the result of a state of war between conflicting nations. Can the Minister of Defence guarantee that Afghan combatants who are taken prisoner will receive the same treatment they would have been entitled to as prisoners of war?"

CPC Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor: "That is a standard procedure for our military no matter what operation it is on throughout the planet. When it takes prisoners, it will always follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. There is no lower standard than that. That is in every case whether the operation is under the Geneva Convention or not."

Francine Lalonde: "Under these conditions, can the minister explain why Canada did not follow Holland’s example and sign an agreement with the Afghan government to allow continued contact with prisoners for constant information on their fate? What is the government waiting for to renegotiate this agreement?"

Gordon O’Connor: "The agreement we had with the Afghan government fulfills the needs that we have from the point of view of security of the prisoners. The Red Cross or the Red Crescent is responsible to supervise their treatment once the prisoners are in the hands of the Afghan authorities. If there is something wrong with their treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action."

And thus once again O'Connor spoke out of utter ignorance, visibly having been not inclined to actually get fully informed on: A) what the transfer agreement actually said (see above); B) what the ICRC does and does not (see above); and C) the fact that the transfer agreement effectively relinquished Canadian responsibility of detainees after their turn over, in clear breach of Article 12 of Geneva Convention III (see above).

We now step further forward to October 2006, while the U.S. Military Commission Act was being passed by Congress. As we know all too well, this act did more than allow the U.S. President to determine all by himself the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions - it also striped U.S. courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation. Hence the ensuing exchange in the House of Commons (emphasis added):

NDP defense critic Dawn Black: "Canadians recognize that this government is too close to George Bush, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Incredibly, the U.S. Congress is passing a law that will give the President the power to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva conventions. Documents show that this government is fully aware of the fact that prisoners we hand over to the Afghans can be given to U.S. authorities. What assurances is this government seeking that prisoners handed over to Afghan authorities are not sent on to Guantanamo Bay or to secret U.S. prisons?"

CPC Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defense, Russ Hiebert: "We signed a bilateral agreement with the government of Afghanistan. We have been assured by them that any time a prisoner is detained that they will be held under the Geneva conventions to the highest standards. As well, the International Red Cross will be monitoring these detainees and will keep track of them at every possible opportunity. I urge the member from the NDP to provide some support for our troops in Afghanistan. That party is the one that is calling for our troops to cut and run."

Dawn Black: "The previous Liberal administration took the U.S. on its word and look what happened to Maher Arar. The Canadian government has not asked to follow up on one single detainee. Canadians want assurances that our soldiers’ values and international law are not compromised if Afghani authorities hand over prisoners captured by Canadians to the U.S. In light of what happened to Mr. Arar, does the government really trust the U.S. administration to tell the truth about where it holds Canadian captured insurgents?"

Russ Hiebert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): "As I outlined in my earlier answer, we have an agreement with the government of Afghanistan. When detainees are captured they are passed on to this particular government. We have been assured by the President of Afghanistan that all necessary treatment and standards are kept so that these detainees are not injured or harmed and that they are kept out of harm’s way."

More ignorance-based incompetence, this time on the part of Hiebert. Not only were we parotted the same fallacies, we were then also served with throws of cheap Bushie-like "support the troops" and "no cut and run" political slogans in lieu of actual, factual, answers.

And thus the table was fully set for our country to receive the first confirmed news of Afghan detainee abuses following their transfer to the Afghan government ....

(Continued in Part II)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Reloaded: The Bull(y) In The China Shop

Last year, I wrote "The Bull(y) in the China Shop", regarding human rights vs "business wants". In the end, it's all about self-serving, hypocritical double standards - and President Obama, as well as our very own Prime Poseur, played right into these again recently.

Hence, I will only reiterate the following:

Unfortunately, Big Business lobbying and pressure on our elected representatives over the last 15 years or so, coupled to our own sleeping-at-the-switch on this matter as citizens, allowed for trade mission after trade mission to go to China in order to further open business over there - with virtually no strings attached with regards to democracy, freedom and/or human rights (some examples here, here, here and here).

In short: China opened its door to Big Business and everyone scrambled to be the first there to take advantage of its market and its affordable work force.

The result? China is now a major owner of the U.S. national debt, while manufactured goods and products made in China litter our store shelves - from your neighborhood cornerstore to Walmart and beyond. And that is not counting the number of jobs outsourced from here to over there.

Consequently, it may be now simply too late to enact any "strings attached" trade laws to force China to change its ways - because of political cowardice, electoral apathy and Big Business "anything-goes-or-works" opportunism for profits.

We do not hesitate to bitch slap countries that are smaller and/or less powerful that our own (Nicaragua, Bermuda, Iraq, Afghanistan, et al., anyone?), all the while beating our chest proudly that we are spreading democracy. We either invade or enact tough, knee-jerk, choking "no-trade" laws against such smaller countries.

But against those countries that may be able to hit back (like North Korea) or those that we know can hit us back hard (Russia, China), we content ourselves with empty posturing ... all the while acting the lap dogs to Big Business by allowing them to do business with no strings attached, still deluding ourselves that Big Business will somehow create democratic changes in countries like China in our stead.

Which, of course, will never happen as long as the nature of the capitalist beast continues to run unchecked and with no (political) direction other than keeping its eyes on the bottom line - need I remind you folks again about Microsoft and Google?

Isn't it ironic that communist China ever understood better the nature of the capitalist beast, knowing that it could get richer without changing its ways, while our great capitalist thinkers have kept harping about the Noble Values and Virtues of the Free Market as a democratizing force?

So in the end, we turn out to be nothing more than hypocritical cowardly schoolyard bullies - taxing and beating up the smaller and weaker, ego-stroking posturing against those that may hit us back, and mumbling under breath while "hanging out" with those that can stand up to us and actually give us a beating.

(...) War is wrong and wasteful. Responsible, pro-active, forward-thinking trade laws, on the other hand, have ever remained our best bet.

We want to promulgate real change in China? Then let's stop giving our democratic powers to those who would sell it away cheap and instead give it to those who will have the courage to enact progressive, forward-thinking trade laws which will encourage positive change in countries like China. Let us stop electing people who do not represent us and our interests, but rather only their own and those of Big Business. Let us get involved once and for all and live up to our responsibilities as citizens.

And first and foremost: let us abandon the barbaric ways of enhanced interrogation techniques and extraordinary renditions, while at the same time re-instating the full standing of our Constitutional laws here at home.

If we are not ready to do this, then let us cease our hypocritical, cowardly, mindless carpings about China's human rights and whatnot.

Let's face it: with regards to China, we missed the mark. We dropped the ball. We flunked out.

Just like we did with our own democracies in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., etc.

And so here we are, left with nothing but to hope for the best that some day, somehow, some way, China will significantly improve on its human rights records ... in the same manner we are left hoping that some way, somehow, some day, things will improve over here at home after years of neglect on our part.

Once again: mea culpa, mea culpa vox populi.

And as further evidence to support these more-than-one-year-old points, I give you this, and that, and this, and that. Oh - and this as well.

'Nuff said - sadly enough.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Reloaded: Terrorism, Anyone?

Following up from back there:

Aryan Guard Founder Kyle McKee Wanted For Attempted Murder

The Calgary Police Service is seeking public assistance inlocating two men wanted for attempted murder, in connectionwith an explosives call over the weekend.

On Saturday, Nov. 21, 2009, at approximately 7:15 a.m.,police responded to a complaint of gunshots in the 5300 blockof Rundlehorn Drive N.E. When officers arrived, they weredirected to a suspicious device in a large parking lotbetween two apartment complexes. The device appeared to be anImprovised Explosive Device (IED) that had detonated.

Tactical Unit officers were called to assist at the scene.During the evidence-gathering phase, all of the apartmentunits facing the parking lot were evacuated. A second devicewas located close to the scene and this device had also detonated. The occupants of the apartment suite where the devices werefirst observed have being questioned by police. Investigatorsbelieve this was a targeted attack.

Kyle Robert MCKEE, 24, and a 17-year-old male, who cannot be named under provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, are each wanted on warrants for attempted murder, possessing,making or controlling explosives, and possession of a weapon or imitation for a dangerous purpose.

MCKEE is a Caucasian man, 5’9” tall, 140 pounds, with a slimbuild. He has blue eyes and has a shaved head. A photo ofMCKEE will be sent to the media via e-mail

Which makes me reiterate:

I won't hold my breath waiting for the usual right wingnuts braying, ranting and raging against such acts.

Why?

Because only islamofascist/Muslims/Islamists do terrorism - dontcha know?

But good, pure-blooded, white folks? Nah. They're just being patriotic, ya know?

Right.

Indeedy.

'Nuff said.

(h/t)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Oh, Canada ...

Following up on this previous post ...

Welcome to the 'Burbs, Meet the New Homeless
Their ranks are growing in cities like Surrey, as the working poor slip their grip.
By Monte Paulsen

Sherry and Chris spent the past few years "just getting by." The couple paid $420 a month to share a house in Surrey. The rent cost more than half their income. And yet, as Sherry put it, they got by.

Until they didn't.

Sherry, Chris and their many cats were evicted in September. Since then, they've camped out behind an abandoned strip mall a short distance from their former home.

When they stepped across their threshold for the last time, they left behind the 1.5 million Canadian families that are "just getting by" -- the federal government describes these as households in "core housing need" -- to join the ranks of the estimated 300,000 Canadians who are homeless.

Their story helps illustrate why homelessness is growing so rapidly in sprawling suburbs such as Surrey, which may already host more homeless people than Vancouver. And a day on the road with a pair of homeless outreach workers shows what suburban homelessness looks like -- when you can see it.

"We're in a situation that could happen to anybody," Sherry told me. "We're not staying out here for very long. We'll do whatever we have to do to get our own place."
Now playing at the Vancity Theatre.

That was two months ago.

Working poor pushed out of Vancouver

"It's a known pattern. The working poor are getting pushed out of Vancouver, out to the suburbs," said Rich, an outreach worker, as he drove across Surrey. "A lot of these people, when they move here, they are like one pay cheque away from becoming homeless."

Rich and his colleague Lori work for Options, a society that operates the Hyland House shelter among other community services. (The Tyee agreed not to publish Rich and Lori's last names in order to protect their privacy.) Surrey is one of 49 communities served by homeless outreach teams under contract to BC Housing.

They work a territory that includes most of Surrey as well as Cloverdale, Ladner, Tsawwassen and White Rock. They drive a minivan packed with supplies: snacks, soap, water, juice and high-protein drinks. Their job is help the homeless find housing and other support services.

"There are two categories of homeless that seem to outweigh the rest. One being young adults who don't have employment and don't have a clue as to where to go or what to do. They're just not prepared for life," Rich explained.

"On the other side of the scale, we have quite a few people who are on the top edge of middle age. They've worked hard all their lives. But now they've lost their employment, and they don't have a clue as to how to jump through the hoops to get the support services necessary to keep going," he continued.

'The mindset that society is against them'

The Options minivan rolled to a stop at the edge of a small wooded lot. There was a shopping mall on one side of the lot, and a row of expensive-looking townhouses on the other.

Rich and Lori led me through the brush to a small campsite near the centre of the lot. Rich called out to anyone who might still inside the tent, but no one replied. I reached down and placed my hand over the propane cook stove. It was still hot.

Rich joked that they've been finding "a better class" of homeless people this year. By that he meant people who are still working, and who had not yet slipped into the well of addiction or mental illness.

"They're just poor," he said. "They simply don't earn enough money to live in this society."

From where I squatted, I could see into the living rooms of the townhouses across the street. Had I been there at night, I probably could have smelled what they ate for dinner, or watched them watching TV.

"When they are living in this condition, and they see the guy across the street in the expensive home -- the guy who's not doing anything to help them -- you can see how they begin to develop the mindset that society is against them," Rich said.

I asked whether they thought the families across the street watched back.

"I doubt it," Lori replied. "Most people just don't realize how close to their backyard other people are sleeping."

Only two beds left

When Surrey residents do come to realize how close the homeless are sleeping, they typically call the RCMP or the city bylaw enforcement office. Those organizations, in turn, often call the outreach team.

As Rich drives to the next campsite, Lori sits in the back seat with a telephone. It rings every 10 minutes or so. Some calls come from concerned residents. Others come from the soon-to-be-homeless, looking for a bed.

One such call came from an elderly woman who said she wanted to leave a Vancouver shelter where other clients were using drugs.

"That lady who just phoned?" Lori said. "She was born in 1937. Do the math. Wow."

Another call came from a man who said he needed a place to stay for a week while he waited to get into a recovery program.

"We get that a lot," Rich said. "They cycle through recovery programs. Once they are out of the recovery program, if they can't find a place to live, they feel hopeless and a lot of them wind up using again. Then they start the cycle all over again."

Surrey's outreach team is modeled loosely on the outreach program pioneered in Vancouver. But whereas Vancouver outreach workers have literally thousands of shelter beds and government-owned hotel rooms into which to place homeless clients, the Options team has just 35 beds at the Hyland House shelter and sometimes a few more at smaller shelters nearby.

On this particular day, only two beds are available. If both of the homeless people who called Lori this morning show up this afternoon, those beds are already full.

I look at my phone. It's not yet 11 a.m.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Fighting Climate Change: More Of This, And Less Of The Other, Please

Encouraging news from my home province (emphasis added):

Quebec vows ambitious cuts to greenhouse gas emissions

Quebec Premier Jean Charest unveiled an ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020, setting a target similar to what the European Union has adopted.

The stringent new goal would place Quebec among North American leaders with the lowest level of emissions per habitant on the continent.

Because of the province's reliance on hydro-electricity, Quebec already has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions in the country at 11 tonnes per habitant, about half the Canadian average. Mr. Charest made the announcement before the Montreal Council on Foreign relations as he prepares to attend next month's United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Quebec plans to reach its objective by investing in public transportation while adopting tougher regulations to reduce automobile emissions, similar to the strict standards set in California. The province is also relying on the rapid evolution of new technologies in electric cars. Mr. Charest explained that the new target was defined in co-operation with other members of the Western Climate Initiative. The plan would require Quebec to significantly reduce its dependency on fossil fuels.

Environmental groups applauded the initiative and said they would fully co-operate with the government in helping to achieve the goal, insisting that Quebec could go even further.

“While science requires reducing emissions by 25 per cent to 40 per cent under 1990 levels by 2020, we believe that it is possible to go even further and do even more. We will work with the Quebec government and the rest of civil society to propose certain actions and additional measures to improve on the objectives,” a coalition of environmentalist groups stated Monday.

Canada needs more of this ... from all provinces, eh?

But not from Harper and his Harpies - for one, remember that our Prime Poseur won't even attend the Coppenhagen conference by himself.

And meanwhile (emphasis added):

Oilsands impact left unchecked, study finds
Tories failing to enforce laws to protect water, environmental groups report

The Harper government is failing to enforce federal law and exercise its constitutional authority in at least 10 different aspects of monitoring the exploitation of Alberta's oilsands and its impact on water, says a new report to be released today.

The study, prepared by seven environmental organizations and obtained exclusively by Canwest News Service, highlights key testimony from recent federal hearings that revealed a failure to crack down on major water diversions, regulate toxic pollution and leakage as well as the absence of legislation to reduce acid rain and regulations to address climate change.

"While the federal government is already engaged in some areas related to oilsands activity, it fails to adequately utilize or enforce federal laws designed to protect public health and the environment," said the report, Watered Down: Overcoming Federal Inaction on the Impact of Oilsands Development to Water Resources.

The report says the federal government has the authority to crack down on operations that threaten public health under existing fisheries and environmental-protection legislation as well as its constitutional power to "make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada."

However, the expanding oilsands operations in Western Canada and their impact on water resources are not being properly monitored or regulated, the report said.

"Oilsands activity is projected to result in the clearing of 4,802 square kilometres of forests and wetlands for mining pits and also for the construction of roads, well sites, and pipelines that destroy the land's ability to maintain ecosystem health by storing and filtering water," it said.

The report also criticizes Environment Canada officials for testifying in parliamentary hearings that toxic water from oilsands operations is not leaking into the environment -- despite reports from the Alberta government and the industry itself that acknowledge seepage into groundwater and surface water.

"If you really look at all the testimony (from federal hearings) the overwhelming response was the feds are not doing enough," said Danielle Droitsch, lead author of the report and the executive director of Alberta-based Water Matters. "In fact, in some cases, it's almost like they are looking the other way."

Which brings me back to this old post ... as put in a more recent context with these newer ones.

'Nuff said.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Climate Change - Shlimate Change!

Here's the thanks we get from nature for us doing nothing about climate change (emphasis added):

Oceans rising faster than expected as climate change exceeds grimmest models

Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated — beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.

As the world has talked for a dozen years about what to do next, new ship passages opened through the once frozen summer sea ice of the Arctic. In Greenland and Antarctica, ice sheets have lost trillions of tons of ice. Mountain glaciers in Europe, South America, Asia and Africa are shrinking faster than before.

And it's not just the frozen parts of the world that have felt the heat in the dozen years leading up to next month's climate summit in Copenhagen:

The world's oceans have risen by about an inch and a half.

No surprise there.

Maybe we need to fudge further the science of climate change in order to finally manage to shape the reality that we want?

I suppose we'll finally accept the fact that we should've done done something about this catastrophe once we'll be several feet under water ...

(Cross-posted at The Peace Tree)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Because Down Is Up, Bad Is Good And Wrong Is Right

We "enlightened", "civilized", "rule of law" societies have been either torturing, promoting torture, enabling torture, defending torture and/or justifying torture, all the while turning a blind eye to it all in order to pretend - and convince ourselves - that we are the noble ones, the "good guys". Hence, that is why there is no need to "look back", to "investigate", to "prosecute" or to "shed the light on" all those renditions, secret prisons, indefinite detentions and detainee abuses - i.e. torture.

Besides - we're dealing with "the worst of the worst" (like this genuine s.o.b.) and these without-a-doubt guilty bastards don't deserve any rights, let alone due process or justice. That's right - no justice whatsoever for them, since they deserve nothing but military tribunals, indefinite detention and/or termination with extreme prejudice. And if some of them get tortured after we've handed them over to other, "less enlightened" folks than us, well, it's just plain too bad - and never mind our ratified and legally-binding international conventions and treaties to this effect.

Again - we're the good guys and we can do no wrong. Only unpatriotic, bleeding heart morans would think and say otherwise. Just ask the MSM "enlightened" folks.

We are definitely better - contrary to some of these other lawless countries gripped by extremist, ideologue and irresponsible politicians and activist courts and judges, such as this one. These become even more roguish and dangerous to the rule of law when they band together. Well, here's yet another example of such a dangerous, lawless, rogue nation:

Rule-of-Law Extremism Engulfs Primitive Eastern Europe
by Glenn Greenwald

Lithuania is currently embroiled in a bizarre and deeply confusing political controversy which reveals what happens when a country becomes gripped by extremist ideologies. Evidence has emerged that Lithuanian intelligence agencies allowed secret CIA prisons to be maintained in their country during the Bush era. Just because such prisons would be "illegal" under the so-called "law" of Lithuania and various international conventions to which that nation is a signatory, irresponsible leaders of that country are demanding "investigations" and even possibly legal consequences if it turns out crimes were committed. What kind of a backwards, primitive country would do something like this?

[I]ncreasingly, after years of issuing denials, Lithuania's leaders are no longer ruling out the possibility that the CIA operated a secret prison in this northern European country of 3.5 million people, and that its government will have to deal with the fallout.

Last month, newly elected President Dalia Grybauskaite said she had "indirect suspicions" that the CIA reports might be true, and urged Parliament to investigate more thoroughly.

What sort of a newly elected President would get into office and then start demanding that actions From the Past -- rather than the Future -- be investigated, just because they might be "criminal"? This deeply irresponsible Lithuanian leader apparently doesn't care about inflaming partisan divisions, and worse, appears blind to the dangers of criminalizing policy disputes. Even more outrageously, Lithuania faces one of the steepest recessions in all of Europe; obviously, this is a time, more than ever, that Lithuanians should be Looking to the Future, Not the Past. Instead, they're wallowing in deeply inflammatory, partisan and extremist rhetoric like this:

Valdas Adamkus, who was president when the CIA prison was reportedly in operation, from 2004 until 2005, said he had no personal knowledge of the covert program. But he raised the possibility that Lithuanian security officials could face prosecution if the reports are confirmed.

"If this actually did occur, and it is grounded with proof, we have to apologize to the international community that something like this went down in Lithuania," he told the Baltic News Service. "And those who did it," he added, "in my eyes are criminals" . . . .

Dainius Zalimas, a legal adviser to the Lithuanian Defense Ministry, said the existence of a covert prison would violate both Lithuanian statutes and international human rights conventions that the government signed. If firm evidence is gathered by the Parliament, he said, prosecutors would be obliged to open a case and could target both Lithuanian and U.S. officials.

"From a legal point of view, it would mean that Lithuania, along with the United States, was contributing to quite serious violations of human rights," said Zalimas. . . .

"Criminals"? "Prosecutions"? "Obliged to open a case"? "Violations of human rights"? Just because they maintained a few secret prisons in violation of domestic and international law? What kind of crazy, purist, Far Leftist utopians are running that place? They need a heavy dose of pragmatism so they can understand all the reasons why so-called "crimes" like this can be overlooked -- just blissfully forgotten like a bad dream. Even worse, with intemperate and shrill language of the type they're throwing around, it's seems clear that the Lithuanian press is sorely in need of some David Broders, Fred Hiatts, and David Ignatiuses to explain to them that subjecting law-breaking political officials to "investigations" and "prosecutions" is quite disruptive and unpleasant when those crimes involve matters other than consensual sex between adults.

Even more alarming, this "rule of law" and "human rights" fetish seems to be spreading: "In neighboring Poland, prosecutors in the capital of Warsaw have opened a criminal probe into reports that the CIA operated a prison for al-Qaeda suspects near a former military air base." Last month, an Italian court convicted 22 CIA agents of the so-called "crime" of kidnapping someone off their street and sending him to Egypt to be tortured. And the British High Court this week released its written Opinion -- over the objections of British and American officials -- ordering the release of details of Binyam Mohamed's torture at the hands of U.S. agents.

Thankfully, the U.S. remains a bastion of pragmatic sanity in this rising sea of accountability extremism. Unlike those strange Eastern Europeans and absolutist Western European purist judges, we know there are far more important priorities than "investigating" war crimes, compelling transparency, and holding political criminals accountable. As the rest of the world gets distracted by all this chatter about The Past, our President gallantly protects us from such divisive unpleasantries by aggressively blocking any war crimes investigations and concealing evidence -- even modifying decades-old transparency laws to do so if necessary. Even more inspiring, our patriotic media enthusiastically plays a crucial helping role; The Washington Post has known since 2005 in exactly which countries the CIA maintained its illegal, secret prisons but still refuses to say, even though they've now been banned by Executive Order and even though Lithuania and Poland are launching investigations which the Post could easily answer, but chooses not to.

When President Obama was in China last week, he proudly boasted of the American commitment to transparency and lamented that China lacked such values. Fortunately, he doesn't get carried away with "principles" the way that these short-sighted Lithuanians and Polish and others do. Unlike those unhinged primitive nations with no democratic traditions, we understand that government crimes should be disclosed, investigated and punished only when they occur during a time other than the Past. It's vital that we maintain our leadership role in teaching this critical value to the world, lest the type of crazed accountability/rule-of-law fetish currently engulfing Lithuania spreads even further like some uncontrollable virus.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Late Friday Night Ode To ... Let Us Never Forget

Another Remembrance Day has come and gone. But with the current torturegate cutting through our national soul, perhaps we should reacquaint ourselves once again with our noble principles of human rights, of keepers of peace, of human decency, of upholding the Geneva Conventions.

But this time, let us never forget these principles again - especially in light of our current most important Canadian endeavor.

And let the memory, of all those whom have been tortured and/or killed (innocent and "guilty" alike) since the beginning of this insane "War on Terror", forever remain.

Oui, je me souviendrai.

So let's hear it from Metallica - The Memory Remains:

Yes indeed, let us begin to reclaim ourselves by never forgetting the tortured and the dead - or else, we will have the privilege and pride of calling ourselves Canadians no more.

Let us never forget again who we are.

In the meantime - keep on rockin'.

(And I'll be seeing you back Monday, folks)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

... And The Continuing Blackmail Con Game Keeps On Going!

Read it and weep, folks:

Banking, pt 3 of 4: Show us the money

Starting next week, Canada’s big banks will report multibillion-dollar annual profits that are among their best ever.

It comes against the backdrop of a Canadian economy that has just experienced one of the worst 12-month stretches in its history. But while credit quality has been under stress from the aftermath of the global credit crisis, the banks are expected to add only modest growth in provisions for bad loans.

Analysts say strong capital-markets profits, rising net interest margins and even some domestic loan growth will likely more than offset any damage from expected defaults.

According to analysts’ estimates, the big six Canadian banks will report net earnings for fiscal 2009 of about $15-billion, slightly behind the record haul they reported in fiscal 2007.

(...) UBS analyst Peter Rozenberg predicts the main issue for the banks over the next few years will be what to do with the heap of excess capital they are sitting on, predicting it will grow to $40-billion by 2012.

The money will likely be used to “drive acquisitions, dividends and buy backs, however, we expect banks to remain cautions in the short term due to continued economic and regulatory risk,” he said in a note to clients on Thursday.

I have an idea about what the Canadian banks can do with the "heap of excess capital they are sitting on" - how about: A) reimburse the bank welfare bailout monies they received from the Harper government; and B) further free credit from the current, persisting crunch, for small businesses and individuals (as the were supposed to do in the first place with the bailout monies, instead of using these as capital for their own greedy use).

And on a related note:

Recession or not, Canada's rich keep getting richer

It takes money to make money -- especially in a recession, according to the Canadian Business 2009 list of the richest Canadians. It shows that the rich kept getting richer despite the economic downturn that has cost 400,000 Canadians their jobs in the past year.

Robber class indeed.

Meanwhile ...

Conclusion: the continuing blackmail con game still keeps on going - and so I reiterate:

We must be lu-uving this game a whole damn lot, considering that we keep on playing it again and again and again - just like gambling addicts that keep on playing the roulette in casinos, thinking that this time, they'll hit paydirt.

At least, casinos dish out complimentary drinks and snacks ...

Bartender? Where's my drink already?


(see also pogge)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The Most Important Canadian Endeavor ...

...is our current mission in (the) Afghanistan (quagmire) - so said our Prime Poseur.

Sure ...

'Liberation Was Just a Big Lie'
Outspoken Afghan MP says Canadian mission is a big waste of time
by Olivia Ward

She sleeps in safe houses, with a rotating squad of bodyguards securing the doors. She goes out only in a billowing burqa. Even her wedding was held in secret.

Elected the youngest member of the Afghan parliament – and suspended for her outspoken criticism of the country's top officials – Malalai Joya has been labelled the bravest woman in Afghanistan.

Small, soft-spoken and now 31, she has survived at least four assassination attempts and is angry at the oppressive life she is forced to lead, dodging enemies she has denounced as bloody-handed warlords and drug kingpins.

As Afghan President Hamid Karzai is inaugurated Thursday for another four years in office after a fiercely disputed election, she says his term is already tainted by the corruption, criminality and violence of those around him.

"(Prime Minister) Stephen Harper says this election was a success," she said. "But Karzai has not only insulted, but betrayed the Afghan people."

Karzai has vowed to launch anti-corruption investigations under pressure from Washington. But, Joya insists, Canada is wasting blood and treasure on keeping his government in power.

"Canada should pull its troops out now," she said in Toronto on Wednesday, where she was promoting her book A Woman Among Warlords, co-written with Canadian peace activist Derrick O'Keefe.

And, she says, U.S. President Barack Obama, who is considering a surge in troop levels to battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban, should think again.

"The United States should go, too. As long as foreign troops are in the country we will be fighting two enemies instead of one."

Yes, she says, there is a risk of civil war, as happened when the Soviet Union gave up the fight against U.S.-backed Afghan Islamists 20 years ago. But it would still be better than "night raids, torture and aerial bombardment" that killed hundreds of Afghan civilians while the Taliban made steady gains.

"Liberation was just a big lie." Joya believes Afghans are now better prepared to battle the Taliban alone – if the warlords are disarmed, and the international community helps build a society that can push back against extremism.

It is a tall order, she admits. But "resistance has increased, and people are becoming more aware of democracy and human rights. They need humanitarian and educational support."

But not, she adds, at the point of a gun.

Joya has firsthand experience with the Taliban, as well as the brutal warlords who forced her family into refugee camps after the exit of the Soviets in 1989.

As a teacher in the secret schools that educated girls – strictly banned by the Taliban – she walked around western Afghanistan at the end of the 1990s with books hidden beneath the enveloping burqa.

"Once we were stopped and searched but the burqa saved me," she recalled in her book. "They ordered me to stretch out my arms but because they did not pat me down they never found the school books."

But after the Taliban's violent repression of women, Joya says, Karzai's Afghanistan has done little to ease their plight.

Religious extremism is rife, and even a 25 per cent quota for women in parliament has produced few female politicians who are willing to fight for women's rights.

That is what makes Joya an inspiration for those who greet her tearfully on her heavily guarded visits to clinics, community groups and an orphanage she supports.

It has also made her a target for radicals, as well as the warlord factions she denounces. Since she called for the prosecution of highly placed warlords and drug smugglers in a landmark 2003 meeting on the country's constitution, the threats have not stopped.

(Keep reading ...)

Here's an interesting solution:

Declare Victory, Leave Afghanistan
by Helen Thomas

The Nobel Peace crown lies uneasy on President Barack Obama's head as he ponders the next U.S. move in Afghanistan, with hints and leaks showering down to tell us that he will eventually send thousands more troops there.

His decision -- which could be announced soon -- was triggered by the request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal for 40,000 more troops to secure the cities and protect the citizens of Afghanistan, in addition to the 68,000 U.S. troops there now.

Obama has been reviewing the U.S. role in Afghanistan for months, a time-consuming study that has led to accusations from conservative pundits that he is "dithering" and afraid to make a decision. Few, if any, of those pundits have been to war.

By taking time and seeking opinion from all sides, this president actually looks careful and deliberate, compared to his predecessor, who rushed to invade Iraq under wrong pretexts.

It's easy for Obama to appease the armchair hawks-- critics like former Vice President Dick Cheney, who managed to dodge the draft as a student during the Vietnam War era. All Obama has to do is give the go-ahead for more drone-dropping bombs on Taliban and al Qaida leaders.

The tougher decision is whether to bolster the numbers of GIs in Afghanistan. And the answer to that question depends on what the U.S. strategy is there.

The reason we have fighting forces in Afghanistan is that, 10 years ago, it was a failed state where the 9/11 plotters could practice their evil in a vacuum, without fear of local authorities.

Withdrawal from the Afghanistan quagmire is not an option for Obama. Even though he inherited the war, the president has embraced it. And he has done so without a whiff of domestic political protest. There are no visible peace makers, no loud protesters chanting "how many kids did you kill today?"-- those painful anti-Vietnam war slogans Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon were forced to endure daily in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

More poignantly in the aftermath of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama attended two national memorial services -- one for the victims of the Fort Hood massacre and the other for the dead in all wars at the Nov. 11 Veterans Day ceremonies.

Those provided opportunities for the president to announce that the U.S. would not be a party to further mayhem and that we would be a leader in the search for peace, a word not heard in the White House in recent years.

If Obama cannot learn from the lessons of Vietnam, he is bound to repeat the mistakes from that debacle that besmirched two presidents.

As Obama weighs Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops, he should recall what President Johnson told reporters. All he ever heard from the generals, LBJ said, was "more, more troops" and we will win the Vietnam War. Well, we didn't.

U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry -- a retired general who had been the top military commander in Afghanistan up to 2007-- has reportedly sent two cables to Obama objecting to the dispatch of more troops.

Matthew Hoh, a State Department official in Afghanistan quit his post to protest the reality that Americans were dying there, "fighting and dying for the Karzai regime."

Both Eikenberry and Hoh said they were concerned about corruption in the Karzai regime.

The president should listen to these men who have been there and who are sending warnings to him against escalating the war.

He also should consider the high human cost of war on all sides, in terms of Americans killed by

Taliban and al Qaida and in terms of the innocent Afghan civilians who happened to be too near a bomb target.

This war looks like an expensive, endless gopher hole where we can pour our blood and our treasure that could be used to help the Afghan poor and the American people suffering from job loss and poverty.

(Keep reading ...)

Perhaps our Prime Poseur should listen carefully, here ... but I seriously doubt he ever will.

And so it goes.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Mindboggling, Self-Serving, Hypocritical Double Standard

So, let me get this straight:

A) The Harper Government, along with LPC and NDP MPs, have formed the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA) which is currently holding an inquiry into what they call the "new anti-semitism", as defined by them thusly: "Anti-semitism is an age-old phenomenon, yet it is always re-invented and manifested in different ways. For example, while accusations of blood libel are still being made against the Jewish people, instead they are being directed against the State of Israel, such that anti-Zionism is being used as a cover for anti-semitism.". However, there is no evidence or links to any evidence to support such a claim.

B) The Harper government has flatly rejected calls for a public inquiry into the allegations and testimonies that Ottawa has been aware of routine torture practices in Afghanistan, and yet still turned over detainees to local authorities. The reason for rejecting the formation of an inquiry commission or something to that effect? Defence Minister Peter MacKay said there is "no evidence" to support said allegations and testimonies.

Anyone else see the blatant contradiction, here?

I reiterate:

The Harper Government: a sorry gang of pathetic, hypocritical, mendacious, ideology-driven incompetents who are clueless and keep on making (sh)it up as they go along?

Absolutely.

Definitely.

(And oh yes - there will a whole lot more from me concerning the torture of Afghan detainees ... but only begining next week due to uptick in work-related stuff, unfortunately)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Fudging Science On Climate Change: Here We Go Again

More evidence that the "Obama Era" is changing absolutely nothing (emphasis added):

U.S. pressures International Energy Agency on peak oil timeline

Why would Western industrialized countries want to downplay the arrival of peak oil? There are two related reasons: First, as consumer nations they want to keep the price of oil low and second, they want to delay taking any action on climate change including spending hundreds of billions on shifting their economies to alternate fuels.

The United Nations climate-change summit in the Copenhagen next month has already been declared a failure -- at least insofar as reaching any kind of agreement on capping emissions of greenhouse gases. Now the only hope is for an agreement on "principles" -- whatever that means. It is clear that the Western industrialized nations are simply not prepared to sacrifice their prospects of economic growth or, more to the point, the potential profitability of their corporate sector and the wealth of their shareholders.

The U.S. is by far the biggest player on the issue and behind the scenes is putting enormous pressure on the International Energy Agency (IEA) to fudge the numbers to make it look as though peak oil is a long way off.

So say a couple of articles in the Guardian newspaper. The first, published just a day before the IEA released its yearly World Energy Outlook report, quoted a IEA whistle-blower -- a senior official who stated: "The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the U.S. has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves."

Three days later the paper published a follow-up article reporting on a Swedish study out of Uppsala University which delivered a "scathing assessment" of the IEA's predictions of oil production, use and discovery between now and 2020.

(...) The main reason for the U.S. pressure on the IEA was revealed by Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France who stated: "If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets ... in the end that would suit no one."

First - Q.E.D. once again regarding running in circles around climate change.

Second - well, here we go again fudging/re-writing factual science to better suit one's purpose ... especially pertaining to climate change. Remember this, from April 2008?

(...) Kyoto was never ratified by the U.S.A., in large part due to Climate Change denialism and economic scare tactic-driven arguments. Furthermore, President Bush - like a good neocon - double-talked the nation into confusion: his "global warming is real but not man-made" proclamation has become infamous to this effect. Likewise, his so-called initiatives with regards to the environment have typically proven to constitute nothing more than shams, the usual (neo)con games forte we have become used to. For instance, his Clear Skies Act of 2003 was an obvious fraud - albeit very much approved by Big Oil and Big Corporation interests, not surprisingly - and its "improved", somewhat less laughable 2005 version has remained in legislative limbo. In an obvious attempt at rendering the Kyoto process moot, Bush and his Bushies promoted the downward redefinition of the ways to reduce climate change outside of Kyoto, without any reinforcement measures but with much "voluntary measures" - winkwink.

(...) In this respect, the Bush environmental circus has kept on going and going, to this very day.

And how about this, then?

On top of all of this, the Bush administration established and enacted a policy of systematic censorship, re-writing, controlling, falsifying, fund cutting, hiding, lying and spinning the de facto science underlying the reality of Climate Change

Bravo, President Obama, for your demonstrated incompetence. You not only join George W. Bush (yes, this G.W. Bush) with this policy of yours, but you also join by default the following luminaries of our time:

Glenn Beck;

Steve Doocy;

Sean Hannity;

Sen. James Inhofe;

Rush Limbaugh;

Mary Matalin;

Lt. Col. Oliver North (retired);

Gov. Sarah Palin (resigned);

Gov. Tim Pawlenty;

George Will.

(Note that these are all Republicans/conservatives ...)

So - congratulations, President Obama! You are now in quite good company indeed.

Stephen Harper and his Harpies must be giddy right about now. Because, let us not forget their own sins in this respect:

Indeed, and just as in the U.S.A., typical neocon pro-Big Oil and pro-Big Business scare tactic-driven, false and hypothetical arguments were used to belittle Kyoto, including outright disinformation and the promotion of climate change denialism. Not counting simple lack of concern. Furthermore, actually going outside of the Kyoto process was floated, in an obvious attempt at following in the footsteps of The Leader. Even environmental funding designed to meet the Kyoto standards was cut, including programs aimed at monitoring industries. In addition, outright scaling back of funding for climate science and adaptation programs was enacted by The Mini Leader's government - again, obviously in order to follow the "lead" of The Leader. The last nail in the coffin of Canada's commitment to Kyoto was hammered in whenthe Harper government flat out announced that Canada would not meet its targets under the Kyoto accords. In the end, Harper and his Harpies came up with what I have come to call Kyoto-Ultra Light - which was such a fraud that it prompted opposition parties in the House of Commons to put forth legislation (bill C-288) in order to force the Harper government in meeting Kyoto targets by 2012. However, Harper and his Harpies resorted to the usual economic scare tactics (same ones they used against Kyoto) to debunk the bill which, since then, has remained essentially lettre morte and unlawfully ignored by the Harper government.

(And we also have this, of course - not counting this, and that, and this, and that ... and so on and so forth)

Hell - it is now no wonder that Harper and his Harpies are intent of first negociating a climate change treaty with the Obama administration before enacting any climate change laws in Canada ...

WIBDI? indeed ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

"Lie And Cry" - The John Baird Edition

Back there, Transport Minister John Baird (yes - this same John Baird) was caught privately encouraging Canada's big airlines to step up their lobby campaign in order to kill a proposed "passenger bill of right" while his predecessor, then-Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, publicly supported such legislation - in the name of the Harper government, of course.

Like the true incompetent that he is, Baird's reaction to being so caught was not to apologize profusely and making an honest mea culpa, but rather to enact full tilt the Fourth Principle of Incompetence:

Incompetents never take responsibility for their wrongdoings, or those of other incompetents within their "circle". This is what I wrote before: "Incompetents will do and say anything to defend themselves and other incompetents, including disassembling, obfuscating, lying and blaming others". Here's something else that I also wrote previously: "They lie, they misrepresent, they use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. For them, the use of duplicity, of secrecy, of arguments of (non-existent) conspiracy, of fact (and non-fact) selectivity/cherry-picking, of quacks/fake experts, as well as putting forth logical fallacies, are simply means to an end." For incompetents, everything is about spin and truthiness - never about facts and truth. Even when they are blatantly caught, incompetents continue to react and reason with their intellectual sloth-driven infantile/adolescent immaturity - they will deny that they did anything wrong or that they have lied, then they will blame/attack (read: character assassinate) their "accusers". I call this: "Lie and Cry".

And here is the evidence to that effect (emphasis added):

Transport Minister John Baird says he didn't pander to airlines with passenger bill

Transport Minister John Baird on Wednesday denied any collusion with the major airlines to stymie a passenger bill of rights, saying the government has simply "been working constructively" with the industry.

Internal government documents obtained by Canwest News Service show the transport minister's office privately pleaded with Canada's major airlines to step up their lobby campaign "to stop this motion in its tracks" even as the minister at the time, Lawrence Cannon, publicly supported it.

The motion passed unanimously in the House of Commons in June 2008 with the support of Cannon and Baird, who failed to bring forward legislation when he succeeded Cannon as transport minister in October 2008.

(...) Baird said there's nothing nefarious about the relationship, adding "we're been working constructively with the airlines."

"Working constructively with the airlines"? To kill the bill, yes indeed.

Here is tangible proof again:

Let us pay closer attention to the very first sentence of the first highlighted paragraph in this email of Baird to airline VIPs:

You're going to have to do some lobbying to stop this motion in its tracks.

Now, let us look at this other sentence in the same email:

If you don't lobby the grits and the Block, we're going to find ourselves in a position where we are outvoted by the Opposition Parties.

So what do we have here?

A) a minister (Baird ) is telling airline VIPs what to do in order to kill a motion regarding a "passenger bill of rights";

B) said same minister (Baird), is explaining to those same airline VIPs why the minority government of which he is part can't by itself kill the motion, and thus explains why this requires airline lobbying of MPs from Opposition Parties in order to ensure that a majority of MPs would end up turning down the motion - all the while keeping the minority Harper government "in the clear". In other words: "help us help you".

Put A and B together, and what you have here is a bona fides "behind-the-door" (i.e. secret) agreement between two parties for a deceitful purpose.

A connivance.

And in the reality-based world we live in, folks, that is the very definition of collusion!

Period.

If for whatever reason you remain unconvinced of this, then here's the clincher (emphasis added):

The (Harper minority) Conservative government launched Flight Rights Canada last September to inform air travellers of their rights, but only after airline executives reviewed several drafts, provided input, approved the final product, and signed off on the minister's speech to launch the program — a process that raised the ire of a top bureaucrat involved, the documents show.

(...) In the House of Commons, Baird confirmed Wednesday he doesn't support the bill, but defended the Tory record on the file, saying the government has "put forward new public policy" (Flight Rights) in the area of passenger rights.

Once again, what we have here is "a secret agreement between two or more parties for a deceitful purpose".

A connivance.

A collusion.

And what Baird is now doing is lying and crying about it.

The Harper Government: a sorry gang of pathetic, hypocritical, mendacious, ideology-driven incompetents who are clueless and keep on making (sh)it up as they go along?

Absolutely.

Definitely.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Meanwhile, Back In Judea ...

Same as it ever was.

Hence, the following is offered as additional food for thought on this matter:

The New State Solution
By Chris Hedges

The collapse of the Palestinian Authority, the result of Israel’s 42-year refusal to implement a two-state solution, leaves the Palestinians no option but to unilaterally declare an independent state. Israel acted unilaterally when it announced independence in 1948. It is the Palestinians’ turn. It worked in Kosovo. It worked in Georgia. And it will work in Palestine. There are 192 member states in the United Nations and as many as 150 would recognize the state of Palestine, creating a diplomatic nightmare for Israel and its lonely ally the United States. Israel will face worldwide censure if it attempts to crush the independent state by force and very likely be subjected to the kind of divestment campaigns and boycotts that brought down the apartheid government of South Africa.

The two-state solution, long held up as the way out of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, flickered and died with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. No Israeli leader since, including Ehud Barack, has shown any interest in its implementation. Israeli governments have instead cynically used the promise of negotiations as a cover to steadily expand settlements, evict Palestinians from their homes, carry out egregious acts of violence and repression against Palestinians and steal huge swathes of the West Bank, including most of the aquifers.

The death of the two-state solution is not news to those of us who have spent years in the Middle East. What is news is the public acknowledgement by the Palestinian leadership. Mahmoud Abbas, the compliant and discredited president of the Palestinian Authority, who has announced he will not run for another term, has uncharacteristically blasted Israel for deceiving the Palestinians. The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, who says that the effort to negotiate a solution to the conflict with Israel is dead, has called on Palestinians to declare statehood.

The disarray within the Palestinian Authority has led to the cancellation of the Palestinian elections in January, although the elections were already in jeopardy. The militant group Hamas, which took over Gaza in 2007 after thwarting a coup attempt led by Abbas’ Fatah party, said it would not allow the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza to vote.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is counting on the Obama administration to thwart a declaration of Palestinian independence, will have difficulty finding a Palestinian stooge as complaint as Abbas. Abbas’ time in office has been marked by repeated and humiliating concessions to Israel, including deferring, at Israel’s request, the vote at the United Nations on the Goldstone report, which documented human rights abuses during Israel’s offensive in Gaza last December and January. Israel has shown its appreciation by ignoring Abbas’ protests for a halt on settlements and dismissing his calls for negotiations. It is hard to imagine any Palestinian leader, at least one with a shred of credibility, agreeing to take Abbas’ place. The only alternative left to most Palestinians, unless an independent state is declared, will be endless war and an embrace of Islamic extremism.

A declaration of independence, based on the 1967 demarcation lines between Israel and Palestinian territory, should cover East Jerusalem among other areas and the several hundred thousand Jewish settlers living in settlements in the West Bank. These Israeli settlers would instantly become citizens in the new country, replicating the experience of many Palestinians who suddenly found themselves counted as Israelis in 1948.

“When he declares independence, Abbas should call upon the Jews living in the state of Palestine to preserve the peace and to do their part in building up the new country as full and equal citizens, enjoying fair representation in all of its institutions,” Yossi Sarid, who supports the independence movement, wrote in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “David Ben-Gurion would not have been upset by such a pretty act of plagiarism from his Declaration of Independence.”

The Israelis have orchestrated acute misery and poverty in the Palestinian territories over the past two decades in an effort to subdue and ethnically cleanse the captive population. They have reduced Palestinians, many of whom now live on less than $2 a day, to a subsistence level. They have created squalid, lawless and impoverished ghettos in the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli soldiers, who ring these ghettos, have the ability to instantly shut off food, medicine and goods to perpetuate the misery. Israel, when the Palestinians grow restive, drops 1,000-pound iron fragmentation bombs and artillery shells—as they did a year ago in Gaza—on the concrete hovels that pack neighborhoods. The Israeli objective is to turn the Palestinian territories into a hell on earth. This policy has, however, swollen the ranks of radical Islamists in the occupied territories and throughout the Middle East.

The refusal by the Obama administration and nearly every member of the U.S. Congress to defend the rule of law and basic human rights for the Palestinians exposes our hypocrisy. It also perpetuates the absurd pretence that it is Israel, not the Palestinians, whose security and dignity are being threatened. The F-16 jet fighters, the Apache attack helicopters, the 250-pound “smart” GBU-39 bombs used on Palestinian civilians are part of the annual $2.4 billion in military aid the United States gives to Israel. Palestinians are slaughtered with American-made weapons provided to Israel with taxpayer dollars. Israel, an international pariah, would be unable to carry out these atrocities without our financial and moral support. Mix this toxic brew with the illegal wars we wage in Iraq and Afghanistan and the United States becomes a satanic force in the eyes of many Muslims.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Reloaded: Serve Us, Not The US!

Oh, this is too rich:

Canadian corporate tax cuts hand $4-6 billion to U.S. treasury: study

Planned federal and provincial corporate tax cuts will transfer $4-6 billion of annual revenue from Canadian governments to the U.S. treasury, concludes a study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

The study, by economist and CCPA Research Associate Erin Weir, explains that the U.S. taxes its corporations on a worldwide basis. When an American corporation repatriates profits from Canada to the U.S., it pays the 35% American federal corporate tax rate minus a credit for taxes already paid in Canada. Given a Canadian corporate tax rate below 35%, American corporations will have to pay the rate difference back to Washington.

“For American corporations, the only effect of deep federal and provincial corporate tax cuts will be to transfer some of their tax payments from Canadian governments to the U.S. treasury,” observes Weir. “Canadian governments can ill afford such revenue losses, particularly given concerns about the prospect of ongoing budget deficits.”

Furthermore, cutting corporate taxes is unlikely to attract investment or jobs.

“If American corporations must pay the U.S. federal tax rate on their Canadian profits, a lower Canadian tax rate will not make their existing Canadian assets more lucrative, let alone induce them to invest more in Canada,” Weir says.

The report recommends that Canada enact a combined federal-provincial tax rate of at least 35% to retain revenue that will otherwise be shifted to the U.S. treasury. Canadian corporate taxes would still be lower than the combined U.S. rate because all but three states apply additional corporate taxes over and above the 35% American federal rate.

I guess it's official, now - Canada is a vassal of the American Empire.

Thanks to those superbly fiscally responsible, capable, serious, knowledgeable, thoughtful, steadfast, clear-headed, honest-to-a-fault and sharp Harper conservatives and their ilk ...

(Just as quite recent examples: how about wasting millions on private security no-bid contracts in Afghanistan, and a now $500 billion ballooning national deficit, folks?)

Are we having fun, yet?


(Addendum: meanwhile - "fiscal child abuse" indeed ... all the while wasting money on signs about signs. Oh, the incompetence!)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Harper Government Hypocrisy: Yet One More Example

Once again, Harper and his Harpies are caught saying one thing while doing the exact opposite:

Transport minister opposed passenger rights bill contrary to public stance

The federal transport minister's office privately pleaded with Canada's big airlines to step up their lobby campaign to kill a proposed passenger bill of rights even as the minister publicly rallied behind the popular initiative.

And here's the proof:



Then, there is this also-recent example.

The Harper Government - a sorry gang of pathetic, hypocritical, mendacious, ideology-driven incompetents who are clueless and keep on making (sh)it up as they go along?

You betcha - yet again.

(see also here)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)