And it's 1,2,3...what are we fighting for? (part trois)

The neverending war in Afghanistan is on the brink, and it's really not too surprising that NATO are forces are staying away in droves if they have to deal with this kind of thing.

In a pebble-strewn river valley enclosed by bare jagged mountains, smiling Afghan boys run alongside the foreign soldiers, as boys often do. The foreigners are US Marines and the boys often ask them for a dollar, a biscuit, a pen. And they ask: "How are you?"

On this day a Marine gives his standard reply to a mate, who records it on video.

"I'm on a field op. I have no f---ing money." As for the biscuit: "Do I look like Little Red Riding Hood, carrying around a load of biscuits? What the f---?"

What about the pen? "What the f--- they want a pen for?"

And how is the Marine doing? "I'm doing bad. That's how I'm doing. I'm in this shit-faced country."

The scene, and what it revealed about the attitudes of US troops, shocked US officers when it was posted on Liveleak.com, a video website, earlier this year.

In the video a Marine says to one of the boys: "You know your country stinks like ass? What you think about that? You think it sucks? You stink like ass, too."

The same Marine gives a group of boys an impromptu English lesson, and they recite after him: "I am an idiot! We beg too f---ing much! F--- this country!"

One one level, the video is harmless. Soldiers grumble, their humour is raw. The Marines are young, tired, not knowing what they are doing so far from home, and the Afghan boys seem not to know that they and their country are being mocked.

While world attention is focused on Iraq, experts are warning that the US and its NATO allies risk losing another war.

..."[A]fghanistan is in danger of capsizing in a perfect storm of insurgency, terrorism, narcotics and warlords," according to US experts Thomas Johnson and Chris Mason, writing in Orbis, a US foreign policy journal.

"The US is losing the war in Afghanistan one Pashtun village at a time," they write, "bursting into schoolyards full of children with guns bristling, kicking in village doors, searching women, speeding down city streets, and putting out cross-cultural gibberish in totally ineffective InfoOps (information operations) and PsyOps (psychological operations) campaigns — all of which are anathema to the Afghans."

NATO's efforts are also under domestic political threat, with European and Canadian public opinion increasingly questioning the involvement in Afghanistan.

The trouble, the MPs said, is that the 37 countries contributing to NATO's International Security Assistance Force lack a "well defined strategic vision for its presence" in Afghanistan. While NATO troops performed "brilliantly at the tactical level, the alliance does not yet have a sufficiently explicit goal for what it wants to achieve".

Training Canadian forces, one Blackwater mercenary at a time

The Canadian Forces are using a controversial private security firm to train some of its troops sent to Afghanistan.

Select Canadian soldiers have been sent to Blackwater U.S.A. in North Carolina for specialized training in bodyguard and shooting skills. Other soldiers have taken counterterrorism evasive-driving courses with the private military company now at the centre of an investigation into the killings of Iraqi civilians and mounting concerns about the aggressive tactics of its workers in the field.

Critics of Blackwater label the firm as a mercenary organization and question why a professional military such as the Canadian Forces can't do its own training in specialized areas.

Thank goodness for Dawn Black.

Still, Dawn Black, the NDP's defence critic, questioned the need for Blackwater to be involved in training Canadian troops.

"My understanding is we have some of the best-trained forces in the world, and great trainers, so why do we need our armed forces personnel to be trained by a mercenary organization?"

But unfortunately, she doesn't have the Public Safety job. That belongs to Stockwell Day, who doesn't have a clue.

Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day, when asked whether the training in Blackwater is appropriate, defended the Forces.

"Our forces are dedicated individuals. Their training covers a lot of different areas and the Minister of Defence certainly is advised and apprised of the situations that they have to deal with and the situations they face," said Day.

"We're very proud of the work they do."

That's nice, Stockwell, but that wasn't the question you were asked.

Meanwhile, this is where Canadian soldiers and Candian taxpayer money is going.

The company, based near the Great Dismal Swamp in North Carolina, was co-founded by Erik Prince, a billionaire right-wing fundamentalist. At its HQ, Blackwater has trained more than 20,000 mercenaries to operate as freelancers in wars around the world. Prince is a big bankroller of the Republican Party - giving a total of around $275,550 - and was a young intern in the White House of George Bush Sr. Under George Bush Jr, Blackwater received lucrative no-bid contracts for work in Iraq, Afghanistan and New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. His firm has pulled down contracts worth at least $320 million in Iraq alone.

Right-wing billionaire fundamentalists. Oh, wonderful. Now that's the kind of values we want to support and instill in the Canadian forces.

Scahill says the firm is "the front line in what the Bush administration views as the necessary revolution in military affairs" - privatisation of as many roles as possible. Senator John Warner, former head of the Senate armed services committee, once called Blackwater the "silent partner in the global war on terror"

Scahill went on to call Prince a "neo-crusader, a Christian supremacist, who has been given hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts this is a man who espouses Christian supremacy, and he has been allowed to create a private army to defend Christendom around the world.

Blackwater has exploited the Bush presidency's desire to out-source government functions. Dan Guttman, a fellow at Johns Hopkins University and a consultant on private security firms for the Centre for Public Integrity, says firms like Blackwater are now "part and parcel of Pentagon operations ... performing what citizens consider the stuff of government: planning, policy writing, budgeting, intelligence gathering, nation building". How taxpayers' money is being spent, however, seems to have been overlooked.

He's talking about the American taxpayers, but I think Canadians have a right to know that their money is going to a right-wing fundamentalist group with a lot of guns and a desire to rule the world.

Putting Canada on the terror checklist

Tell me something I didn't know already, Mr. Day.

Day warns Canada of terror backlash

"The potential of a terrorist backlash at home from a recent explosion of anti-Canadian hostility in Afghanistan can't be dismissed, federal Safety Minister Stockwell Day said in Calgary yesterday."

Yeah, we know that, Mr. Day. We've known it for months. Did you just find out?

"Speaking at a security conference, Day acknowledged an Afghan protest Wednesday following the deaths of two villagers in a raid by foreign soldiers involved the chanting of "death to Canada."

The regular soldiers occupying the region are Canadians. The soldiers who raided the village and killed two clerics were part of the U.S. Special Forces who are ripping through the region killing anything that moves. But to the Afghan civilians, the soldiers are Canadians. So, who is really putting the Canadian soldiers at risk here?

But he said Canadian troops have received a generally favourable reception from Afghans, adding protest in the war-ravaged country shows progress.

"I'd say it's a sign of robust democracy, that protest can take place," he said.

Yeah - "death to Canadians" is a sign of real progress. So actually carrying that out would be a sign of a huge leap forward in that progress, would it?

"Day reiterated that Canada is on the list of countries targeted by terrorist group al-Qaida and that Canadians can't be complacent about the threat.

"Canada's the only one on that list that hasn't been hit," he said.

Thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Day. Just in case al-Qaida had misplaced their checklists and forgotten about us, they will be oh-so-grateful for you reminding them.

But hold on. I thought Canadian soldiers were there to fight the Taliban. Never mind. All the same to you, eh?

Discussions are taking place in Ottawa, said Day, about expanding the reach of the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency not only at home but overseas.

Dear God! With the sterling success of CSIS ballsing up the Air India investigation and their way-too-eagerly handing over Maher Arar to the CIA and thence to Syria for torture, you want to let these guys loose on the rest of the world?

And when did they become Canadian Security Intelligence Agency? If you write it down, you'll see. CSIA. When the two groups are finally merged, all Canada loses is an "S".

"Whether legislation is required to do so is one of the questions," Day explained.

Legislation, schlesiglation. Who the hell cares about the law? The new Canadian government can do anything it wants to. The law is for wimps.

A one-time CIA analyst who attended the conference, Dr. Paul Pillar, said the role of western foreign policy in provoking terrorism can't be overlooked.

"There's no question it has an effect on recruitment of terrorists and certainly Iraq and the rendition of people to countries where tortured is used are parts of that," said Pillar, who's with the security studies program at Georgetown University.

At last - the sweet voice of reason. But I doubt Stockwell Day is listening.

His job is protecting the security of Canada. His remarks show that he is completely incompetent for the job.

Blame the Liberals

Since the (neo)Conservative party never take responsibility for anything, always saying that everything is the fault of the previous government, I guess they're going to have to blame the Liberals for this, too.

Flaherty, Harper announce $13.8 billion surplus

Puppet governments

It gives a whole new meaning to puppet governments.

Canada wrote Afghan leader's speech, NDP says

The NDP says it has documents that show the Canadian military effectively wrote Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to Parliament last year.

The party's defence critic, Dawn Black, says the papers indicate Karzai's address was an "elaborately staged political stunt."

Yup. Just like the war.

...[S]he quoted a situation report from Task Force Afghanistan as saying: "Team prepared initial draft of President (Karzai's) address to Parliament 22 Sep."

In the speech, Karzai thanked the families of soldiers killed in combat and painted an optimistic, but not rosy picture of his country's future.

I thought that was a weird thing to say at the time. Why should anyone feel wonderful that their son, daughter, husband or wife had died for a country that most Canadians can't even find on a map?

He also took direct aim at NDP Leader Jack Layton's opposition to the war, saying that those who believe the mission was weighted too heavily toward combat and not enough toward reconstruction were wrong.

I doubt whether Karzai even knows or cares who the NDP are, and why should he? But the Department of Defence sure does, and doesn't like it when fightin' wars aren't very popular any more (most sensible human beings having moved on from that by now) and the NDP are the only party to come right out and say it.

"I never thought that the Canadian military would go this far. This raises serious concerns about the independence of the Afghan president and origin of his recent comments to Canadian media in Kabul."

Oh, yeah. We're all a bit more wary of government, military, police etc. when they try to whip us into a frenzy of bloodlust and militarism in support of something we know is wrong, if we know anything about it at all.

And that last "spontaneous" press conference with the Canadian media by Karzai? Fakest damn thing I ever saw.

Mr. Harper is pursuing his objections

Our glorious leader Stephen Harper has once again shown the complete lack of vision and total disconnection with the concerns of Canadians that have become his hallmarks. After all, it's his country now, and we'll just have to go along with it.

He signed up for Kyoto Lite - which really means Kyoto-nothing.

I'm not sure whether this quote is a misprint, a mis-speak, or a Freudian slip. (Bold typeface is mine.)

"This will be another important forum where Canada can pursue its objections in fighting climate change," Harper said after addressing a high-level summit on climate change.

Pursue its objections? I'd like to pursue my objections too, Mr. Harper - to you, your regressive and bellicose policies, your pursuit of goal that most of the people in this country do not share, and your misrepresentation of all of us to the world. You shame me deeply by not representing me and endangering this country, as Bush and Howard have done to their countries.

Once again, the NDP have Mr. Harper's number on this one. Stevie is becoming more of a bubble-boy all the time.

"NDP MP Nathan Cullen called it an "insult" for Harper to announce participation in the APP while at the UN.

"He has quickly joined Mr. Bush in completely embarrassing himself and dragging Canada's reputation down with him," Cullen said. "We know the one thing we can't afford is delay and unfortunately this is the Conservatives' only offer. The UN Secretary General urged us to action and Mr. Harper chose to run in the opposite direction."

And on behalf of all Canadians who can't be included under the "young" Canadian umbrella, I offer my sincere apoligies for what Stephen Harper is doing to the country the young will inherit. I didn't, nor will I ever, vote for the likes of Stephen Harper. But I only have one vote. Now, you younger people, get out there and vote this guy off the island.

P.J. Partington of Toronto, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition, said Canada, the U.S. and Australia have a "dearth of imagination or leadership" on the climate change file.

"While my government prefers to play the blame game domestically, others have moved on," he said. "Like young people in these three laggard countries, the rest of the world is moving on and moving forward. I, for one, am sick of being ashamed of my country and its poor behaviour on the world stage."

Support the troops...by getting rid of those bloody yellow ribbons

As the militarization of our society continues apace, yellow ribbons are blooming all over municipal vehicles like toadstools after rain. Yellow ribbons mean supporting the Harper Conservatives and their neverending War in Afghanistan, a branch plant of War on Everything (U.S.). As if the recent revelations about the RCMP and the Sureté Québec aren't bad enough, we are now seeing the military solution as the only solution to everything, including domestic policing.

So, what happens now? Like the Toronto Police Union campaign to sell window stickers to show support for them, one wonders what happens if you don't buy one. More tickets? Less action if the car should be stolen? No help if the police see a motorist in trouble who doesn't carry a sticker?

Transfer that into people who don't sport yellow ribbons, wear red on Fridays (my favourite colour, by the way, and I'm intensely angry that it has been co-opted by the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later brigade), or other knee-jerk (with emphasis on the "jerk") reactions to pronouncements from Our Glorious Leader.

From the Coucil of Canadians:

There is a growing trend among municipal and local governments across Canada to endorse the “Support our Troops” campaign by placing decals on ambulances, fire trucks, police cars and other municipal vehicles, or by supporting “Wear red Fridays” and other similar actions. At our latest count, 18 local councils have either passed resolutions, had city management allow the decals—usually yellow ribbons that say “Support our Troops”—on government-owned vehicles, or are considering allowing them.

This is disturbing considering that the “Support our Troops” message is a political statement of explicit support for the current mission in Afghanistan – support that isn’t shared by a majority of Canadians.

The Council of Canadians opposes the “Support our Troops” decals because it is unacceptable for public vehicles to carry any political message, let alone one that promotes the views of the governing party. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said that “Support our Troops” implies support for the current mission in Afghanistan. In other words, the campaign excludes people, like the Council, who support our troops by demanding that they be brought home immediately.

...[T]he Council of Canadians is also deeply concerned that the use of public resources to endorse the war in Afghanistan represents a militarization of our society. Propaganda expert and University of Carleton professor Randal Marlin told The Hill Times recently that the overall impact of the “Support our Troops” message is “the suppression of dissent… and encouraging military solutions to problems.”

Write now and let your majority voice be heard. No more U.S. wars, no more punching above our weight, no more of this crap. Stop it now, get our soldiers back where they belong so they can protect us if we need them, not in some desert somewhere learning how to be good snipers.

And it's 1,2,3...what are we fighting for? (part deux)

Today, Stephen Harper insists we must "finish the job" (or some other inane drivel) in Afghanistan. Just for the record, what was that job again?

From Scott Taylor at the Halifax Chronicle Herald:

Tub-thumpers at DND stop drumming for now

As public support for the mission dissipates with each new casualty, politicians and generals have stepped up their efforts to convince us that the sacrifice of our soldiers is justified by the progress made in our reconstruction efforts.

...Just last month, the Senlis Council breezed into Ottawa to once again debunk the mythical aid and development progress claimed by Canadian officials.

...Unable to counter the Senlis claims, the choir of military cheerleaders picked up their well-worn tubs and began drumming out a different tune.

....The new line was more or less a sudden abandonment of the reconstruction fable that became a hasty retreat to the bastion of our military successes.

....In a detailed account of an incident that occurred on Aug. 7, the [New York] Times alleges that Canadian forces failed to support an Afghan police unit engaged in a firefight with insurgents. As a result of that abandonment, 16 policemen were killed, and the incident led to some animosity towards the Canadians. It was also reported that checkpoints established during NATO offensives last year and recently handed over to Afghan security forces have been attacked and captured by the Taliban. In other words, even the military progress we’ve been making is being reversed by a resilient Taliban.

Now I know we're really screwed (excuse my language)

Rumsfeld calls Afghanistan "a big success"

In an interview billed as his first since leaving the top Pentagon post, Donald Rumsfeld calls Afghanistan "a big success...[I]n Afghanistan, 28 million people are free. They have their own president, they have their own parliament. Improved a lot on the streets," Rumsfeld says in the October issue of GQ magazine.

Another poor judgement call:

He also said he believes Bush "is a lot more intelligent and curious than people give him credit for."

He's also having a little trouble with his memory.

Rumsfeld said he couldn't recall the last time he and the president spoke.

At least he's got this part right. It must be all that vegging out on his ranch in Taos.

Do you miss him? "Um, no," Rumsfeld said.

Asset stripping - R - US

Selling Canadian property (read, property of Canadian citizens) for less than its true value and leasing it back, ensuring that the buyers will live off Canadian taxpayers for at least 25 years. The only way we get it back is if the deal is bad for us.

Protecting Canadian interests. Yeah, right!

From the Harper Index:
Privatizing federal buildings a "sweet deal" for new owners

...[T]he nine federal properties in different parts of Canada were sold to Larco Investments for $630 million less than assessed market value, according to the National Union of Public and Government Employees (NUPGE). Larco is a Vancouver- based company whose holdings include hotel and casino interests in Las Vegas.

...[I]n total, the Conservatives plan to sell off some 40 federal properties, carrying out an exercise started but not completed by the Martin Liberals.

...[S]enator and public works minister Michael Fortier said, in a statement that it was "a fair deal for taxpayers" because the $1.64 billion sale price was $400 million higher than the assessed value of the properties.

...[C]ontrary to government claims, the buildings were assessed independently by Informetrica at $2.3 billion, meaning that they were sold off at $630 million less than their fair market value," said Patty Ducharme of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC).

...[T]his is a give-away of colossal proportion," said Ducharme. "In addition to ceding ownership of nine premium properties, the federal government has, in effect, written a $630 million cheque signed by Canadian taxpayers."

...[T]his a sweet deal for the new owners and a lemon for taxpayers. It's a 25-year guarantee of steady profits. Taxpayers will pay extra operating and maintenance costs, and the federal government will be able to buy back the buildings only if taxpayers do not benefit financially," Ducharme said.

Also, this report from the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE).

Nuclear waste? Sure. Just dump it here.

As far as I can tell, the deal reduces to this. Because of behind-the-scenes deals some Canadian governments have cut with the U.S., they can have as much of our oil and water as they want, and are even allowed to use a pre-emptive strike if their energy "security" is compromised (read, they can use as much energy as they want and the rest of us can freeze in the dark). In return, we are required to deal with their nuclear waste because nuclear disposal sites are unpopular in the U.S.

Well, guess what? They're not very popular here either.

Canada to decide within days whether to join new U.S.-led nuclear initiative
By BRUCE CHEADLE

SYDNEY, Australia (CP) - Canada will make a decision on joining a new U.S.-led nuclear initiative "within a matter of days," Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier said Thursday at a summit of pan-Pacific leaders.

The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is denying reports that it has been suppressing information about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership after documents obtained by The Canadian Press showed negotiations between Canada and other governments have been ongoing for at least a year.

If it's denying the reports, you can be pretty sure they are very, very miffed about being found out.

...The GNEP, initiated and funded by the U.S. government, is controversial because it proposes that uranium exporting countries bring back spent nuclear fuel for long-term storage.

Harper has made one public statement on the initiative, 15 months ago, in which he promised to defend Canadian interests.

I wish I could believe that, but I'm afraid I simply don't. The defense of Canadian interests only comes out when they've been exposed as clearly not doing that.

...Last week, the government issued a statement saying it had been invited to Sept. 16 talks in Vienna on the GNEP but still hadn't decided whether to attend.

Yet documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show that the Canadian government has been actively considering the initiative since at least March 2006. Negotiations with the United States began as early as May 3, 2006, and the government had internal talking points praising the GNEP proposal as worth pursuit.

Liar, liar...need a fire extinguisher for those pants?

...[A government briefing document prepared by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, dated March 31, 2006, states that dealing with spent U.S. nuclear fuel is "the main driver" of the proposal:

"With regard to the proposed GNEP fuel cycle, we understand the main U.S. driver is to avoid the difficult issues associated with finding waste disposal sites beyond Yucca Mountain," a former nuclear test site in Nevada that is home to America's nuclear waste repository.

Why would anybody think that any U.S. proposal has anyone's else's interests but theirs at the forefront?

...[The Harper government has yet to publicly state whether the disposal issue is negotiable for Canada or is a non-starter.

That's because they were hoping nobody would find out. They'll probably try to put a positive spin on it by saying it will provide jobs for Canadians. Mmmm...dealing with spent nuclear fuel. Now that's something we need to do more of.

I'm thinking of the nightmare of transporting highly toxic nuclear waste back to its country of origin. Apart from the very real risk of accidents schlepping this stuff all over the world, any such transport would be a target for terrorist activity. Sounds like a win-win deal for Canada to me.

Sorry, Mr. Harper, but I think most Canadians would rather refine their own oil rather than sending unrefined bitumen to the U.S. - value added jobs and all that. We don't even have a very satisfactory long-term strategy for our own nuclear waste. It would be a good selling point in the U.S., though. Build as many nuclear plants as you want, guys. We'll dump all the lethal waste in Canada.

...[Australia, by contrast, has been forthright that nuclear waste repatriation is not on:

"We won't agree to do that, and we've always made that clear, we're not planning and we've never planned and we've never said we would," Downer said Thursday.

Until Harper and the crew say that, I won't believe anything else they say. Even if they were to say that, I'm not sure they'd be able to convince me.

...[C]anadian officials have already indicated Canada is ready to join the AP-6, a climate change group that some environmental groups see as a rival to the UN-mandated Kyoto process for reducing greenhouse gases.

Meanwhile, they'll just get on with destroying Kyoto and the environment we all have to live in and making us look like regressive fools.

Conservative appointees have nothing to hide

If the Conservatives don't like your MP, they'll appoint their own.

From the Harper Index:

Ethical issues haunt Conservatives after campaigning on accountability

On August 21, Conservative Dick Harris, MP for Cariboo- Prince George, issued a news release naming Houston (BC) Mayor and Conservative candidate Sharon Smith as "the person residents of neighbouring riding Skeena-Bulkley Valley should contact with concerns or issues with the federal government." What makes this news is that the federal seat of Skeena-Bulkley Valley is held by New Democrat Nathan Cullen. Smith attracted national and international attention four years ago after a photo of her, sitting naked in the Mayor's chair and wearing the chain of office, was circulated on the Internet. (Bold typeface mine.)

Maybe it's an attempt to show that Conservative appointees have nothing to hide.

Credibility problem

Investigations held in secret, run by the RCMP, and returning a "not guilty" verdict against Canada's top military cop.

Hmmmm....secret, RCMP, top cop not guilty. Do they see why there might be a bit of a credibility problem here?

Top military cop cleared in secret investigation into Afghan detainees
By MURRAY BREWSTER

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's top military cop was cleared Tuesday of potential criminal wrongdoing in the ongoing legal controversy involving Afghan detainees.

The Canadian army says there's no evidence to support a prosecution of naval Capt. Steve Moore, the provost marshal.

The conclusion was reached following an investigation by two senior RCMP officers, who'd been called in by the military after allegations of abuse of Taliban prisoners surfaced last winter.

...[A]mnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association complained last February to the Military Police Complaints Commission, accusing military cops of exhibiting "a wilful blindness to the consequences of transferring detainees and that they may have aided or abetted the torture of detainees."

"...[A]mir Attaran, the University of Ottawa law professor who's been pushing the issue of detainee rights, was mystified at how RCMP investigators could clear the provost marshal when Defence Minister Peter MacKay acknowledged the alleged cases of abuse last spring, when he was foreign affairs minister.

"Peter MacKay has said Canadian investigators have heard, quote, serious allegations of torture; he called them serious, that was his word," said Attaran.

Paul Champ, a lawyer for Amnesty, said in addition to fighting for the Afghan documents, his group has launched a charter challenge, hoping to quash the government's power to force secret hearings on court applications.

"The government secrecy privilege is an exceptional power that should only be used sparingly in a democracy," he said.

"Holding hearings in secret doesn't allow for oversight by the justice system, the media and the public."

What did the Canadian government know, and when did it know it?

If Harper's government didn't know what was going on, why not?

If it did and said nothing, or was complicit in the crimes by handing over prisoners without any guarantee that they would be treated humanely, then the government and the military leaders in Canada should be right up there beside the U.S. officials who condoned and carried out these crimes.

From Nat Hentoff at Village Voice:

History Will Not Absolve Us
Leaked Red Cross report sets up Bush team for international war-crimes trial

"If and when there's the equivalent of an international Nuremberg trial for the American perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Guantánamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the CIA's secret prisons, there will be mounds of evidence available from documented international reports by human-rights organizations, including an arm of the European parliament—as well as such deeply footnoted books as Stephen Grey's Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program (St. Martin's Press) and Charlie Savage's just-published Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy (Little, Brown).

"... [I]f we, the people, are ultimately condemned by a world court for our complicity and silence in these war crimes, we can always try to echo those Germans who claimed not to know what Hitler and his enforcers were doing. But in Nazi Germany, people had no way of insisting on finding out what happened to their disappeared neighbors.

"We, however, have the right and the power to insist that Congress discover and reveal the details of the torture and other brutalities that the CIA has been inflicting in our name on terrorism suspects."

Canada regrets - but I'm sure the Korean hostages don't

These are the guys who thought that Israel's massacre of Lebanese civilians in their last (undeclared) war and the effective mining of southern Lebanon with unexploded cluster bombs was a "measured response".

Excuse me if I don't think much of your judgement.

Canada regrets S. Korean handling of Afghan hostage crisis

So says the newly shuffled Foreign Affairs minister, the guy pulled from Quebec, appointed to the senate and then the cabinet, never elected by anyone, and then given the job to "sell the war" to Quebeckers.

"We do not negotiate with terrorists, for any reason," said a statement issued by Bernier's office.

"Such negotiations, even if unsuccessful, only lead to further acts of terrorism."

Bernier was shuffled into the Foreign Affairs portfolio this month and touted as an ideal point man for communicating with Canadians - especially Quebecers - about the mission in Afghanistan.

South Korea will pull its troops out, something it was going to do anyway, and will no longer allow its nationals to perform Christian missionary work in Afghanistan.

"...Under the deal reached Tuesday, South Korea reaffirmed a pledge it made before the hostage crisis began to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by year's end. Seoul also said it would prevent South Korean Christian missionaries from working in the Muslim country."

Other relief agencies in Afghanistan do not put their people in areas where there is open conflict or danger of kidnapping for purely practical reasons. It's not a feel-good jaunt for these people, but a measured and careful commitment.

"...McCort said CARE takes what it calls an acceptance and integration approach in Afghanistan and the other countries where it has a presence. Workers gain protection of local communities by keeping them informed and getting their acceptance. They also live in those communities and employ a lot of local staff."

"We don't need to change our practice because what they (the South Korean missionaries) did, we would never do," he said.

"If you look at what we do in terms of our acceptance and integration strategies, sending a busload of people down to Kandahar is neither of those . . . We feel that our staff and safety precautions are fairly good so we're not really looking at learning much from their experience."

No such thing as a good war or a bad peace

From Seamus Milne in the Guardian:

How can this bloody failure be regarded as a good war?

"For Afghans, six years after they were supposed to have been liberated, life is getting worse. As the International Committee of the Red Cross reported two months ago, the humanitarian situation is deteriorating and civilians are suffering "horribly" from growing insecurity and violence in an increasingly dirty war. The fighting in the south has driven 80,000 from their homes, and the civilian casualty rate has doubled over the past year: more than 200 were killed by US and other Nato troops in June alone - far more than are estimated to have been killed in Taliban attacks. The savagery of indiscriminate US aerial bombardments provoked violent demonstrations and is widely seen as having increased support for the Taliban's armed campaign.

Given the manifest failure of the occupation to bring either peace or development to Afghanistan, it's not immediately obvious why it's still considered by some to be a good war - though a majority of Britons, Canadians, Italians and Germans, it should be said, want their troops withdrawn."

...[O]f course there was a time, in the 1970s and 1980s, when girls were encouraged to go to school and university in Afghanistan, women accounted for almost half the country's teachers and civil servants and the government redistributed land to the rural poor. But the US spent billions of dollars to destroy it in a cold war coup de grace and laid the foundations for the jihadist Frankenstein of al-Qaida in the process. Gordon Brown now claims Afghanistan is "the frontline against terrorism". In reality, the key to the al-Qaida threat lies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the dictatorial regimes the west sponsors there, while its support is fuelled by the occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories.

He points out that the majority of citizens in the U.K., Canada, Italy and Germany want their soldiers out of there - now. But why listen to the citizens, eh? After seizing the reins of power, they will have to be "pried out of their cold dead hands". Being able to strut about the world stage is more important than dead soldiers and Afghan civilians, shattered families, destroyed homes and livelihoods, ruined countries, and wasted resources.

The sickening brutality of war: how we fight

A war of aggression, killing citizens in their own country, with a weapon whose brutality is sickening.

Canadians are there and supportive, and are therefore complicit.

From Global Research :

British Army deploys new weapon based on mass-killing technology
Parliament not told, minister says

by John Byrne

"A new 'super-weapon' being supplied to British soldiers in Afghanistan employs technology based on the "thermobaric" principle which uses heat and pressure to kill people targeted across a wide air by sucking the air out of lungs and rupturing internal organs.

"...[A] second DIA study said, "shock and pressure waves cause minimal damage to brain tissue... it is possible that victims of FAEs are not rendered unconscious by the blast, but instead suffer for several seconds or minutes while they suffocate."

There were more protesters at the SPP meeting

Red Friday Rally in support of Canadian troops attracts 1,000 to the CNE

Even with a captive audience at the CNE, there were only 1,000 at the rally. I guess that just means Canadians don't respond to jingoistic propaganda.

There were even words of "wisdom" from the Rick Hillier.

Among the dignitaries in attendance was Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, who delighted the crowd before his speech when he removed the top of his camouflage suit to reveal a bright red T-shirt underneath.

“From the soldiers' perspective, we do not believe a group of people who will whip women for wearing heels that click on pavement should be allowed to reassume control of their country and the lives of those people in it,” Gen. Hillier said in an interview.

They even put two of the badly injured soldiers on stage. What an awful thing to do. It might have inspired pity, horror or sorrow, but it won't stir up any support for the war. And we all know that this is what it's all about. There was never an question of support for the military in Canada. We hired them and we'll take care of them, but we don't support sending them somewhere where they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, even if we knew exactly what form "winning" would take.

I wonder if Stephen Harper turned his nose up at the spectacle and called it "...sad".

Okay, now that you know we're lying, we'll tell the truth

How are you supposed to trust people like this?

And they're the ones with the guns and the power.

Of course, the minister for Public Safety, Stockwell Day, tells the protesters to file a complaint and refuses to have anything to do with it himself. Who exactly is he protecting? Don't tell me - I already know, and it sure as hell ain't us.



From the Toronto Star this morning.

With the proof caught on video, Quebec provincial police were forced to admit yesterday that three undercover agents were playing the part of protesters at this week's international summit in Montebello, Que.

But the Quebec police force denied they were attempting to provoke protesters into violence. Rather, they said the three were planted in the crowd to locate any protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating. Police said the trio's cover was blown when they refused to toss any objects.

... [T]he police said after viewing a video clip from YouTube.com and video shot by police officers, they were able to confirm the three were Quebec provincial police officers.

Earlier, both Quebec police and the RCMP denied any of their officers were involved.

Earlier yesterday, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day rejected opposition calls for an inquiry into the role of suspect agents at the North American leaders summit.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much

Guess they did it, then.

Police deny using 'provocateurs' at summit

The Mounties and Quebec provincial police deny using agents provocateurs at this week's Montebello summit, despite video evidence that suggests undercover cops tried to incite violence.

The denials Wednesday did nothing to quell mounting outrage over police tactics. Anti-globalization and union activists joined with opposition politicians to demand an independent investigation.

They also questioned whether police were acting on orders from the Prime Minister's Office and called on both Stephen Harper and Quebec Premier Jean Charest to denounce the use of agents provocateurs.

Photos of the men lying on the ground show the three were wearing combat boots with identical markings to the ones worn by an SQ officer kneeling beside them.

Video also shows the three eventually being led quietly away to police vans. By contrast, Coles said four legitimate protesters – whom police say were the only people arrested and charged at the summit – were "roughed up pretty good and dragged away."

Security and Prosperity Partnership in a nutshell

From Ish Theilheimer at Straight Goods:

What the Security and Prosperity Partnership means for Canada:

• our Canadian laws must conform with their American laws
• we will only let in people they will let in
• our military will be led by their military
• our energy is their energy, and that
• any laws that hurt the corporations' ability to earn profits must be struck down.

What's not to love about a deal like that?

Stirrers were probably QPP

It seems like the agents provocateurs were probably QPP (Quebec Provincial Police). Note the yellow octagon logo on the arrested "protester" on the ground and the matching logo of the cop to the left of him.

I laughed so hard, I thought I'd never start

From a New York Times report on the SPP meeting in Montebello. Interesting to see that they had to put a hot link to Canada in the report, just in case any of the readers weren't exactly sure where or what it was.

Steven Harper does stand-up. (Don't give up your day job, Stevie. What am I saying? Please, please give up your day job.)

“A couple of my opposition leaders have speculated on massive water diversions and superhighways to the continent — maybe interplanetary, I’m not sure, as well,” Mr. Harper deadpanned.

Praetorian Guards, Part 2

It appears that agents provocateurs, planted by the RCMP, the QPP or CSIS, were trying to stir up trouble at the SPP protest in Montebello yesterday. While unions, student groups, and others were there to make a peaceful protest, even if the ever-arrogant Harper is unlikely to listen, the agents were hoping that any resulting violence would give the heavily armoured police a reason to use tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets - which they did.

There are a group of anarchists, the Black Bloc, who show up at protests all over the place. The police/government plants were apparently trying to pose as one of these. The "real" Black Bloc pointed them out as "policier".

If the RCMP have anything to do with this, their already in-the-tank reputation could drop even further, if that's possible.

A developing story - wonderful. I hope it comes back to bite those arrogant men on their collective, considerable and unlovely asses.

From the Harper Index:

Agents provocateurs active at Montebello?

"...[S]tuart Trew, of the Council of Canadians, saw the video and spoke with people who were there. "You'll hear them [the real "black flag anarchist" protestors from Quebec] screaming 'Policier, policier!' [police]. Eventually Coles looks the guy in the eyes and says 'You're a police officer'."

As Trew said, "They slip behind and start nudging the police line, you can't see if they're saying anything because of their bandanas, the police let them through eventually and take them down to the ground, and appear to arrest them." Trew points out that two agitators had matching bandanas and that there was "a substantial size difference, and what looks likes an age difference" from other anarchist protestors, but admits it is almost impossible to prove they were police officers.

The protest legal aid committee, however, received no report from authorities of their arrests, lending further credence to allegations the two were not genuine protestors. "Yes, these were definitely agent provocateurs, cops, and legal folks have no record of these supposed arrests," said Peoples Global Action (PGA) spokesperson John Hollingsworth at the Indie Media Centre.

By minimizing the significance, seriousness and size of the protest movement against his meeting with George W. Bush and Felipe Calderon, Stephen Harper is attempting to manage the messages coming from his summit. Whether he succeeds depends on which spectacle is seen as sadder: the protests - or the Prime Minister holding secret meetings about subsuming the Canadian military, Canadian energy, and important Canadian laws to the dictates of the US."

Sad? Yes, Mr. Harper, it is.

Stephen Harper, with the patronizing pomposity that he is famous for, shook his head and declared that the protests against the Security and Prosperity Partnership, taking place in Montebello with George W. Bush and Felipe Calderon, were "sad". Such a pitiful bunch - over 1000 of them - who refused to be put in cages well away from the Great Leaders so their protests could not be heard. The inevitable scuffles broke out. Some threw stones and water bottles. The heavily armoured police in full riot gear returned fire with pepper spray and tear gas. Nice to know whose side the police are on.

So, while they meet in secret to pound out the process of turning the continent into Fortress North America, with all good things flowing north from Mexico and south from Canada into the great maw that is the U.S., we are supposed to sit back and allow it to happen.

The thought that Bush, the serial lawbreaker of both international and U.S. constitutional law, the agressor, the liar, the condoner of torture and domestic spying, the trasher of habeas corpus, the vacationer-in-chief, was entertained in our country at our expense, enrages me.

Felipe Calderon probably isn't the elected leader of Mexico. Polls before the elections showed that Manuel Lopez Obrador had a clear lead, but U.S. manipulations in the electoral process, just like they did in Canada, returned a leader who was not supported by the people. In Mexico, as in Canada, we will never know how far that interference went.

Why we should worry about the Montebello talks, by Bruce Campbell, which first appeared in the Ottawa Citizen and is linked here from rabble.ca, gives us more that a few causes for concern.

...[P]assenger 'no fly' lists: In June, Canada's no-fly list came into effect, part of a broader agenda of security measures negotiated under the SPP. The list is rife with potential for abuse—blacklisting innocent people, racial profiling, invasion of privacy, use of false information and faulty criteria for judging high-risk travellers.

Canada's list will likely merge with the much larger U.S. no-fly list, with major negative implications for Canadians' civil liberties.

The Arar Inquiry found that the RCMP, through their intelligence sharing practices, were complicit in the rendition and torture of Canadian citizens in violation of international law. It recommended measures to protect against future abuse. Maher Arar has still not been taken off the U.S. terrorist watch list.

The U.S. continues to systematically violate the Geneva conventions on torture and rendition, recently codifying these practices in the notorious Military Commissions Act. The Harper government has not raised its voice publicly against U.S. abuses. What is it doing at the SPP table?

...[D]omestic processing of oil: Energy security, especially oil, is a top priority for the U.S., and the Harper government is eager to oblige by facilitating the rapid expansion of Alberta oilsands production for export south.

Among the energy accomplishments cited by the SPP leaders at their 2006 meeting was a Canada-U.S. pipeline agreement that would lead to a uniform regulatory approach for cross-border pipelines.

Recently the countries' energy ministers talked about cutting red tape for various planned pipelines that would take oilsands bitumen to the U.S. for processing.

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union has produced studies showing that 18,000 jobs that would otherwise be created by processing in Canada will go south.

...[S]ome 40 per cent of the pesticides Canada regulates have stricter limits than U.S. regulations. The U.S. sees them as trade barriers and wants a list of priority pesticides to be watered down.

Thanks to an astute Citizen reporter, we know the Canadian government is in talks to relax its requirements on pesticide residues on U.S. fruits and vegetables.

With the Bush administration aggressively dismantling its own regulatory systems, this harmonization concession amounts to Canada mirroring U.S. deregulation. Will this be the norm or the exception?

...[E]ach step may, or may not by itself have significant consequences for Canadian policy flexibility. But cumulatively, the negative overall impact on Canadian sovereignty and democracy will be huge.

I find serious cause for concern in those provisions. The rule of law trashed in Canada, no energy security and no food security.

What is really "sad" in all this is that we allow the U.S. and the Harper puppet regime to run Canada.





August 21, 2007

Rearranging the deck chairs

From "The Voice" on CBC's "The Current" - his take on the Harper regime's reshuffling of his cabinet.

It's Wednesday, August 15th.

Prime Minister Harper moved to re-invigorate his government by reshuffling his cabinet yesterday. Gordon O'Connor was demoted from Minister of Defence... to Minister of National Revenue.

Currently, things should go much better now… in fact some believe handing tax evaders over to the Afghan authorities… is just what the General ordered.

This is The Current.

Let's call it woman's intuition

From Lana Payne - The Telegram (Newfoundland)

Women have good reason for not liking or voting for PM

"Stephen Harper has woman troubles.
Canadian women just don’t like him that much."

"...[A]ccording to recent polls, 71 per cent or more of Canadian women say they do not support Harper, and in Quebec it is even worse if you’re the prime minister of a minority government looking for a majority. As few as 14 per cent of Quebec women say they would vote for Harper.

"...[T]he voting gender gap and Afghanistan are the two biggest problems facing “Canada’s new government.” And they are intrinsically linked. Women tend not to support war.

"...[H]is caucus has a dismal 11 per cent female members, and he refuses to support measures that would increase female participation in his own party and in the political system. He took away child care. He told women advocating for equality that his government would no longer fund their work.

"...[C]anadian women have good reason not to trust, like or vote for Harper. And all the pretty faces and spin doctoring in the world aren’t likely to change their opinion of a guy who doesn’t have their best interests at heart.

"...[W]hat is as obvious as the reasons behind the cabinet shuffle is that the only interests Harper is interested in promoting are his own.

Not in your job description

The Harper government's attempt to censor a report into the kidnapping and transporting to Syria for torture of Canadian citizen Maher Arar by the CIA is an attempt not only to cover the appropriate body parts of certain government officials, but also to protect Harper's bestest friends, the Americans.

Excuse me, Stevie, but your job is to preserve and protect the rights of Canadians. (I'm saying this with tongue firmly planted in cheek, but anyway...).

[Immigration and human rights lawyer] Lorne Waldman: The issue is one of protecting the Americans. The Harper government is much more interested in protecting the Americans than the Liberals were, due to Harper's own close alliance with George W. Bush. They tried to keep from the public the direct role of the CIA in order to protect the Americans from embarrassment. I also think this government would be much more sympathetic to the national security establishment....[W]e are sure [former public security minister] Stockwell Day was involved. Given the way Stephen Harper runs this government I can't believe he wasn't directly involved. It was a very political decision at the time.

Military Utopianism

Originally written following the "humanitarian" war in Kosovo, the same things apply, and will apply, to Afghanistan.

The idea that war can serve a humanitarian end, and the very concepts of "humanitarian war" and "humanitarian bombing" ...would seem outlandish not only in terms of traditional notions of humanitarianism, but also in the light of historical experience with war. Wars produce a cycle of violence and counter-violence that is hard to contain, and a great deal of cruelty, misery, and destruction. That war can be a useful means to humanitarian ends assumes a degree of control, knowledge, restraint, and nobility of Great Power objectives that we may call Military Utopianism ...The New Humanitarians have scanted discussion of postwar Kosovo, perhaps because it illustrates so well the coarsening and brutalizing effects of war..."

Frankly, my dear, I don't GIVE a damn

Vandoos puzzled by anti-war sentiment of fellow Quebeckers

...[B]ut when the conversation shifts toward people back home in his native province of Quebec who oppose his participation in NATO's fight against the Taliban insurgency, Pte. Archambault's smile quickly fades.

“They look at us like dimwits,” he said. “I don't want to be looked at like that. … I've once had a woman tell me, ‘If there weren't people like you, there wouldn't be any wars.' That's angering.”

...[B]ut to their fellow Quebeckers, the Vandoos's sense of purpose draws little sympathy for the mission. In fact, recent polls suggest as many as two-thirds of Quebeckers would like Canada to pull its troops from Afghanistan.

You may be able to take a person out of Quebec, but you can't take Quebec out of the person, I guess. Most Canadians in other provinces also feel that the Afghanistan debacle is just that, a black hole to throw money and lives into.

So, Pte. Archambault, you're angry because you've "...[h]ad a woman tell me, ‘If there weren't people like you, there wouldn't be any wars.". Well, she's right, you know. War should not be waged or fought by people who are failures at everything else. And war is the ultimate failure.

And if you're angry at people who oppose it, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Afghanistan is post-imperialism for slow learners

Simon Jenkins, in the Guardian, says that "It takes inane optimism to see victory in Afghanistan".

Well, Canada has plenty of both inane optimism and slow learners, with an unfortunately high percentage of them being in upper level government positions.

"...[I]raq is post-imperialism for fast learners, Afghanistan for slow ones.

"...[I]n the provinces, the Americans are running a guerrilla army out of Bagram, trying to kill as many "Taliban" or "al-Qaida" as possible, while the British heroically re-enact the Zulu wars down in Helmand. Neither takes any notice of President Hamid Karzai, whose deals with warlords, druglords, Iranians and Taliban collaborators are probably the best hope of stabilising Afghanistan when the foreign occupation is over. But since that is claimed by Britain to be virtually never, the only certainty is a rising tempo of insurgency.

We don't know what we're doing, so we'll just blow them up instead.

"...[T]hen there is the bombing of Pashtun villages for sheltering the Taliban. Thousands of civilians have died as a result, inducing hostility to occupying forces and a desire for revenge that recruits thousands to the cause of killing western troops. But soldiers sent to fight the Taliban have been ill-equipped and outgunned and needed air support, while air forces have craved a "battlefield role". Again, the policy is known to be counterproductive yet continues because it delivers a cheap [solution].

Are you afraid yet?

Not only does Canada hold secret trials, in which neither the accused nor their lawyers know what the charges are, but now even the fact that hearings are being held is a secret - for "security reasons". Where have I heard that before? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez?

I never thought that Amnesty International would have to question the legal system in Canada. What wonders the (neo)Conservative Harperite government have visited on this country in their effort to please the almighty U.S.

A new chapter in the legal drama involving suspected abuse of Afghan detainees has been playing out away from the public eye under strict, court-imposed secrecy, The Canadian Press has learned.

Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association applied on July 11 for an order to force the federal government to release as many as 140 pages of documents related to the handling of prisoners suspected of being Taliban.

...[L]aws allowing the state to keep documents secret are not new, said Amnesty International lawyer Paul Champ.

"Unfortunately, the Canada Evidence Act has some very peculiar provisions that were enacted after 9/11 that prohibited us from even telling anyone that we were challenging them," he said in an interview.

"They are very strange provisions that don't allow anyone to disclose the existence of a [court] application. The court registry is not allowed to disclose it. The registry has to keep our files segregated from the other court files and not tell anyone about them."

Holding hearings in secret is an affront to the justice system and to anyone who believes in the rule of law, Mr. Champ said.

"I think it would offend any Canadian, this whole idea that they can't even know about the existence of a court action."

...[M]r. Champ had asked for documents from National Defence and Foreign Affairs after officials from both departments testified in the first round of court action.

"It's unfair for the government to say there's no risk of torture without them being required to produce the documents they have," he said.

"We think they do have documents that do demonstrate they know there's a risk of torture or that, in fact, torture is going on in Afghan custody. And they're hiding behind the Evidence Act to refuse to disclose those documents."

When The Globe and Mail reported in April that detainees said they had been abused, the Conservative government insisted it was not aware of any suspected cases of prisoner mistreatment.

Who you gonna call?

Seems there is a "phantom Taliban government" operating north of Kandahar. It must be phantom, because many of the locals have never seen any Taliban in the region.

It's obvious we've got the wrong people on this.

In a case like this, who you gonna call?

Ghost-BUSTERS!

Canadian soldiers from the Royal 22nd Regiment moved deep into hostile territory over the weekend, patrolling a vast region of Afghanistan known to be sympathetic to the Taliban

Canadian troops did not confront insurgents during this trek but they are convinced the territory is guided by a "phantom Taliban government."

...[A]t best, the reception from local villagers was polite and lukewarm, as most men and children - women are absent from public spaces in Afghan villages - watched the soldiers march with a mix of fear, mistrust and sometimes hostility in their eyes.

...[A]bad, speaking through an interpreter, said he had not seen NATO soldiers in the community for at least three years.

...[V]illagers said they have never had a problem with the Taliban. Some said the Taliban have never set foot in the region.

...[T]he International Security Assistance Force, of which Canada is a member, thinks otherwise.

..."[T]here is a phantom Taliban government here," said one officer.

The RCMP as Praetorian Guard

Caesar had his Praetorian Guard, Bush has the CIA and Harper has the RCMP - their own private armies who do their bidding without oversight by the citizens.

Plainclothes Mounties, and the hotel manager, told reporters that the Prime Minister's Office had requested all media be barred from the premises, where the Tories began three days of meetings this morning.

Just one more example of "Questions? I don't have to answer any goddamn questions!"

Sell a war that nobody wants and try not to kill so many civilians

Since the Harperites haven't been very successful in convincing Canadians that the Neverending War in Afghanistan is a good thing, they're letting the loudmouthed Rick Hillier do it for them.

Great strategy!

From Harper Index - Hillier, Rick - brassy top soldier does what government can't

Chief of staff used as booster and stalking horse for government military policies

In selling the war in Afghanistan to Canadians, Hillier is merely "doing what the government has failed to do," according to historian and McGill University Professor Emeritus Desmond Morton. "I don't think the Tories have to give him a car or promises of a Senate seat," says Morton. "He enjoys doing it."

He is critical of Stephen Harper's June announcement of the planned purchase of naval patrol vessels..."They have promised to build little ships, but they haven't promised to build icebreakers, just cheap little ones. Their procurement strategies are not based on any kind of cold rational strategic analysis. Why would you want boats in the Arctic that can't get through the ice?"

Morton disagrees, as well, with purchases such as four Boeing C-17 military transport aircraft, at a cost of $3.4 billion. "Normally you don't own these aircraft, you rent them," at a cost of a few million per trip as opposed to "several million per minute," in the case of ownership. A hangar alone for these giant aircraft will cost $800 million, says Morton. Owning these aircraft "is like keeping a transport truck in your back yard," for use when you move. Purchases like these may keep top commanders like Hillier onside with the government.

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, NATO is trying not to kill so many civilians.

From the Australian Sun Herald:

NATO will use smaller bombs in its campaign against Islamist Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to try to limit rising civilian casualties, the alliance's chief says.

Brilliant!

Paying the boss to keep your job - the Conservative Party as protection racket

Senior (neo)Conservative Party staffers have been "requested" to donate to the Conservative Party. So, essentially, money from taxpayers is going to these staffers who then donate it to the Conservatives. We support the party whether or not we support the party.

Devious.

"Senior political staff in the Harper government say they have been asked to donate $1,000 to the Conservative Party, a move that has sparked resentment among some of the most stalwart supporters of the Prime Minister's Office."

Stephen Harper's communications director does what she does best - deny and obfuscate.

"...[M]r. Harper's director of communications, Sandra Buckler, said no one in the PMO has asked staffers in any way, shape, or form to make $1,000 contributions.

“Not true. Categorically deny,” she said Tuesday."

Yeah. I believe you.

"...[T]he individuals whose contributions are being sought tend to be paid in the range of $100,000 or more. Chiefs of staff, for example, earn between $124,100 and $159,500."

Well, that's okay then. They won't miss the odd $1,000 or so and they get to claim it on their income tax. A win-win situation for the Conservative party and their backers. The only people who lose are the 67% of people in Canada who don't support them.

"...[O]ne cabinet official said that meeting the $1,000 request will mean that individuals will essentially be prevented from giving money to candidates. Election rules allow for a maximum $1,100 contribution a year to the national party or individual candidates."

Aha! Now it comes out. The only candidates who get money are the ones that Our Great Leader approves of.

I know, I know. The Liberals did exactly the same thing. But for a party that campaigned on cleaning up government, openess and honestly, accountability and all that nice stuff, they are proving to be gigantic hypocrites.

What a surprise.

And it's 1,2,3...what are we fighting for?

This article in London's Daily Mail gives a former diplomat's view of the Neverending War In Afghanistan from the British point of view as they bury their sixty-fourth soldier.

...[B]ut the key question is this: what are our servicemen dying for? There are glib answers to that: bringing democracy and development to Afghanistan, supporting the government of President Hamid Karzai in its attempt to establish order in the country, fighting the Taliban and preventing the further spread of radical Islam into Pakistan

...[A]fghanistan was not militarily winnable by the British Empire at the height of its supremacy. It was not winnable by Darius or Alexander, by Shah, Tsar or Great Moghul. It could not be subdued by 240,000 Soviet troops. But what, precisely, are we trying to win?

...[O]ur economic achievement in Afghanistan goes well beyond the simple production of raw opium. In fact Afghanistan no longer exports much raw opium at all. It has succeeded in what our international aid efforts urge every developing country to do. Afghanistan has gone into manufacturing and 'value-added' operations.

It now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with Nato troops.

How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government – the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.

...[O]pium is produced all over Afghanistan, but especially in the north and north-east – Dostum's territory. Again, our Government's spin doctors have tried hard to obscure this fact and make out that the bulk of the heroin is produced in the tiny areas of the south under Taliban control. But these are the most desolate, infertile rocky areas. It is a physical impossibility to produce the bulk of the vast opium harvest there.

That General Dostum is head of the Afghan armed forces and Deputy Minister of Defence is in itself a symbol of the bankruptcy of our policy. Dostum is known for tying opponents to tank tracks and running them over. He crammed prisoners into metal containers in the searing sun, causing scores to die of heat and thirst.

Since we brought 'democracy' to Afghanistan, Dostum ordered an MP who annoyed him to be pinned down while he attacked him. The sad thing is that Dostum is probably not the worst of those comprising the Karzai government, or the biggest drug smuggler among them.

...[T]he truth is that there are seldom any good guys among those vying for power in a country such as Afghanistan.

...[O]ur presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is the greatest recruiting sergeant for Islamic militants. As the great diplomat, soldier and adventurer Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Alexander Burnes pointed out before his death in the First Afghan war in 1841, there is no point in a military campaign in Afghanistan as every time you beat them, you just swell their numbers.

.

Why German citizens supported Hitler's war

Jacob Hornberger has written a very compelling piece on why ordinary German citizens supported Hitler during the World War II. Being lied to about the cause of the war, being frightened for their own safety and an appeal to patriotism were only three of the many ways they were persuaded that they were fighting for a just cause with honourable methods.

A remarkable group of young people called the White Rose had the courage to oppose the government and its war machine once they found out what was going on.

A few quotes from this excellent piece. Any resemblance to the "Red Fridays", flag waving, "Support the Troops" ribbon campaigns and other signs of creeping militarism that is showing itself in Canadian public life today is purely intentional. Bold typeface is mine.

Since the 9/11 attacks, Americans have been more than willing for their government to infringe on vital civil liberties, including habeas corpus, involve the nation in an undeclared and unprovoked war on Iraq, and spend ever-growing amounts of money on the military-industrial complex, all in the name of the “war on terrorism.”

...[F]rom the first grade in public (i.e., government) schools, it was ingrained in German children that, during times of war, it was the duty of every German to come to the support of his country, which, in the minds of the German officials, was synonymous with the German government. Once a war was under way, the time for discussion and debate was over, at least until the war was over. Opposition to the war would demoralize the troops, it was said, and, therefore, hurt the war effort. Opposing the government (and the troops) in wartime, therefore, was considered treasonous.

...[T]housands of German soldiers were dying on the battlefield, especially in the Soviet Union. Whether they agreed with the war effort or not, the German people were expected to support the troops, which meant supporting the war effort.

...[N]ow, some might argue that Germans should not have automatically believed Hitler, especially knowing that throughout history rulers had lied about matters relating to war. But Germans took the position that they had the right and the duty to place their trust in their government officials. After all, Germans felt, their government officials had access to information that the people did not have. Many Germans felt that their government would never lie to them about a matter as important as war.

...[G]erman soldiers, of course, were also expected to do their duty and follow the orders of their commander in chief. Under Germany’s system, it was not up to the individual soldier to reach his own independent judgment about whether Germany was the aggressor in the conflict or whether Hitler had lied about the reasons for going to war. Thus, German soldiers, both Protestant and Catholic, understood that they could kill Polish soldiers with a clear conscience because, again, it was not up to the individual soldier to decide on the justice of the war. He could entrust that decision to his superior officers and political leaders and simply assume that the order to invade was morally and legally justified.

Once troops were committed to battle, most German civilians understood their duty — support the troops who were now fighting and dying on the battlefield for their country, for the fatherland. The time for debating and discussing the causes of the war would have to wait until the war’s end. What mattered, once the war was under way, was winning.

...[H]ermann Goering, founder of the Gestapo, explained the strategy:

"Why, of course, the people don’t want war.... Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship....

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. "

...[M]ost Germans did not want to know what was going on inside the concentration camps. If they knew that bad things were occurring, their consciences might start bothering them, which might motivate them to take action to bring the wrongdoing to a stop, which could be dangerous. It was easier — and safer — to look the other way and simply entrust such important matters to their government officials. In that way, it was believed, the government, rather than the individual citizen, would bear the legal and moral consequences for wrongful acts that the government was committing secretly.

...[I]n one of their leaflets, the members of the White Rose wrote, “We are your bad conscience.” They were asking Germans to rise above the old, degenerate concept of patriotism that entailed blindly supporting one’s government in time of war. They were asking German soldiers to rise above the old, degenerate concept of blind obedience to orders. They were asking Germans to confront openly the rumors of what German officials were doing to the Jews in the concentration camps. They were asking German citizens, both civilian and military, to make an independent judgment on both the Hitler regime and the war, to judge both the government and the war as immoral and illegitimate, and to take the necessary steps to put a stop to both.

...[T]hey were asking Germans to embrace a different and higher concept of patriotism — one that involves a devotion to a set of moral principles and values rather than blind allegiance to one’s government in time of war. It was a type of patriotism that involved opposition to one’s own government, especially in time of war, when government is engaged in conduct that violates moral principles and values.

They can kill...but they can't count

As more and more Afghan citizens are pulverized by air strikes, the military admits that it doesn't know how many Afghans have been killed, and they don't seem to care.

Over 230 Afghan civilians have been killed this year by NATO troops, the U.S.-led coalition and/or Afghan forces, according to one recent report. But an Associated Press tally says the number's actually 203. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission contends 380 civilians have been killed, though adding that Western forces were only responsible for half of those deaths.

...[B]ut judging from statements made earlier this month, the U.S. military doesn't either. "It's difficult for me to believe that you can actually capture an accurate number," U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Perry Wiggins told a Pentagon news briefing.

Meanwhile, the giant brain that is the secretary of state for foreign affairs shifts the blame, even though we are the ones holding the guns and rockets and ordering in the U.S. air strikes. I hate to tell you this Helena, but we are the ones responsible for the carnage. Maybe if she spent more time reading real reports and less time on her hair, she might see what's going on there.

...[H]elena Guergis, secretary of state for foreign affairs, told a conference in Rome this week. "It's important to remember that the Taliban extremists forcefully oppose efforts to improve the life of the Afghan people, and it is they who must be held responsible for bringing violence to the Afghan people."

Foreign Affairs doesn't count either. After all, they might actually have to accept responsibility.

...[A] spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs in Canada admitted to Macleans.ca that the department doesn't keep an official tally. "This isn't something that we would monitor, since there are a number of ways they could be killed or injured," she said. "It wouldn't necessarily be linked to us."

They'd never get away with this sloppiness in any "first world" country.

...[A]dded Sloboda: "Clearly it's a natural impulse of people to want to know who died. And if you look at what you might call more 'official' disasters, like 9/11 or rail crashes or air crashes, no one disputes that what we need to know is the name of everybody who died. It's absolutely what you have to have."

So, exactly what kind of education are we dealing with here?

So how many people have died in Afghanistan this year?
"In complete honesty, nobody knows," Kahl said. "These are all educated guesses."

I'm pretty sure that most Afghans would rather be alive under the Taliban than dead under rocket fire and the lethal rain of bombs. Freedom ain't much good if you're dead.

From the article in the Nation about treatment of civilians in Iraq by U.S. military personnel:

Last September, Senator Patrick Leahy, then ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, called a Pentagon report on its procedures for recording civilian casualties in Iraq "an embarrassment." "It totals just two pages," Leahy said, "and it makes clear that the Pentagon does very little to determine the cause of civilian casualties or to keep a record of civilian victims."

Maybe the officials in Foreign Affairs Canada who can't or won't count the civilian casualties should take note. You people are an embarassment too.

Civilian casualties

An article in the Nation reports that Iraqi civilians are the victims of atrocities at the hands of U.S. soldiers much more often than has been reported.

This line stood out, and could as easily be applied to the increasing civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

"Occupying armies with little knowledge of the local culture, fighting guerrillas who mingle among the population, have usually meant disaster for civilians."

Bless you, Mr. Blum

From Bill Blum's Anti-empire Report of July 9th:

The United States and its wholly owned subsidiary, NATO, regularly drop bombs on Afghanistan which kill varying amounts of terrorists (or "terrorists", also known as civilians, also known as women and children).

...[U]S/NATO spokespersons tell us that these unfortunate accidents happen because the enemy is deliberately putting civilians in harm's way to provoke a backlash against the foreign forces. We are told at times that the enemy had located themselves in the same building as the victims, using them as "human shields". Therefore, it would seem, the enemy somehow knows in advance that a particular building is about to be bombed and they rush a bunch of civilians to the spot before the bombs begin to fall. Or it's a place where civilians normally live and, finding out that the building is about to be bombed, the enemy rushes a group of their own people to the place so they can die with the civilians. Or, what appears to be much more likely, the enemy doesn't know of the bombing in advance, but then the civilians would have to always be there; i.e., they live there; they may even be the wives and children of the enemy. Is there no limit to the evil cleverness and the clever evilness of this foe?

Western officials also tell us that the enemy deliberately attacks from civilian areas, even hoping to draw fire to drive a wedge between average Afghans and international troops. Presumably the insurgents are attacking nearby Western military installations or troop concentrations. This raises the question: Why are the Western forces building installations and/or concentrating troops near civilian areas, deliberately putting civilians in harm's way?

...[D]uring its many bombings from Vietnam to Iraq, Washington has repeatedly told the world that the resulting civilian deaths were accidental and very much "regretted". But if you go out and drop powerful bombs over a populated area, and then learn that there have been a number of "unintended" casualties, and then the next day drop more bombs and learn again that there were "unintended" casualties, and then the next day you bomb again ... at what point do you lose the right to say that the deaths were "unintended"?

And here's the TomDispatch report:

Tomgram: Carnage from the Air and the Washington Consensus

Protecting Canada's Arctic in the Persian Gulf

Forget new icebreakers - useful for all kinds of peaceful purposes. Stephen Harper has decided to spend over $4 billion for new warships - excuse me, frigates - which can break through a meter of ice. But they can also be sent to places like the Persian Gulf to bolster American imperialism and war-without-end-amen.

Arctic sovereignty slogan masks win for military lobby

ESQUIMALT, BC, July 10, 2007: The $4.3 billion purchase of "up to eight" naval patrol vessels announced here yesterday by Stephen Harper is ostensibly to enforce Arctic sovereignty. The ships may be of little use for this purpose, however, compared with the ice-breakers Harper has promised and apparently decided not to buy, according to international law expert Michael Byers. He says their purchase indicates a victory for the Department of National Defence (DND) and the military lobby over the civilian Coast Guard and civil needs.

...[S]till, he is troubled that Harper has chosen expensive military hardware instead of the promised icebreakers which would have served civilian needs and been civilian- controlled. "There is a crying need to capitalize the Coast Guard icebreaker fleet," which, he says, "has traditionally provided a coastal maritime presence with multi-purpose vessels that deliver supplies, do search and rescue, maintain navigation devices and serve as scientific research platforms."

...[T]he new vessels, capable of breaking only a metre of ice, will not be able to operate effectively in Arctic waters where at least some ice can exceed that thickness at all times of year, says Byers. The advantage for the military is that the ships can operate as small frigates and could be used elsewhere in the world, such as in the Persian Gulf.

Why am I not surprised?

The big Afghanistan cover-up

Rick Hillier has said he will no longer release any information about Afghan prisoners taken by Canadian soldiers. Previous released information showed that everything wasn't all sweetness and light for Afghan prisoners captured and held in their own country by armed forces of invading countries.

Hillier says that this is to protect Canadian soldiers. This, of course, is a gigantic pile of garbage.

To keep whatever little support for this "mission" there still is, it is necessary to keep the truth from Canadians.

Where are dignified, compassionate soldiers like John de Chastelain and Roméo Dallaire when you need them? How did we end up with this as the head of our armed forces?

If not now, when?

Harper, speaking in Halifax on the occasion of putting billions more dollars into Navy war machines, said "today is not the day" to have a debate on the future of the Afghanistan debacle. I believe he said something similar after the shootings in Dawson College in Montreal last fall when people were calling for stricter gun controls.

Not now, my children. Later. When you've forgotten what it was all about.

But if this kind of things keep happening, there won't be very many clear days in between to debate the mission (whatever it is). He also said that "Parliament has approved that to February 2009". Yeah. I remember that debate. Rushed through with very little discussion, with the vote taking place during an NHL Stanley Cup hockey game. The english network CBC did not even carry the debate. Hockey, rather than extension of war, was much more important. I had to go to the French-language Radio-Canada to see the vote and results.

And before the last goal was scored, the war was approved.

Another big porky (pork pie - lie - cockney rhyming slang) is that Harper "...think[s] this government’s been very clear about the duration of this mission." They have never been clear about it. Before we knew it, we were backing the U.S. army and its imperial ambitions. All in the plan, of course. After all, Harper hearts Bush and his Australian buddy Howard, and he just handed the Canadian soldiers and money to them on a plate. Not his son or brother, not his money, so why should he care?

From today's Harper Index :

"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans," [Harper] told Report Newsmagazine, March 25th 2002. He voted against a motion urging the Canadian government not to participate in the US military intervention in Iraq on March 20, 2003...

On April 4, 2003, he told a Friends of America Rally, "Thank you for saying to our friends in the United States of America, you are our ally, our neighbour and our best friend in the whole wide world...

Only best friend? Not the bestest friend? (Quick - someone get me a bucket. I'm feeling nauseous.)

But we all know what Iraq was about. An Australian government minister spilled the beans, so to speak, although Howard was quick to leap in and say it wasn't the original reason they went there.

Uh-huh. I believe you.

Harper as New Canadian Emperor

Oh - what a long way he's come.

I'm so thrilled.

Our glorious leader as a youth

Just in case you ever forget who this guy is, here's a picture of him as a "youth".

Read about his glorious career.

Harper Timeline

A chronological look at Harper's career reveals a willingness to dump old friends for new ones.

Six more dead soldiers

Six more Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan today, along with their Afghan interpreter and twenty-five civilians.

"Brig.-Gen. Tim Grant said the soldiers were killed as they were returning to a forward operating base in the Panjwaii district west of Kandahar city.

Grant said the explosion happened on a gravel road “that we have travelled regularly in the past month.” "

That could have something to do with it.

"Meanwhile, NDP Leader Jack Layton told a news conference today that Canada should pull its troops out of Afghanistan before more lives are lost in a war he says can't be won.

"What they are being asked to do now is participate in a mission that has no prospect of military success,” Layton said.

“It will simply escalate and prolong itself until we realize that it is not going to accomplish its goals.”

But I'm sure Harper still believes in "the mission", whatever it is. He will fight to the last drop of someone else's blood.

Today NATO functions as an auxiliary US force...

Since "God" made this land, according to Harper's speech in Ottawa on Canada Day yesterday (I say with a barely repressed shudder), maybe this "God" person made Stephen Harper the new emperor, too.

From the Hill Times :

Harper says he hasn't changed his position on Afghanistan (The Hill Times, July 2nd)

PM Stephen Harper says it's 'only dawning on everyone' that Parliament will be asked to extend role in Afghanistan beyond February 2009

Q: So, you still support the mission?

Harper: ..But, when we will get to 2009 we have to present to Parliament some options and we are going to need, obviously, some support from the opposition parties if we want to start a new mission after 2009. We need that support, we need the public, and the Parliament behind men and women when we send them into dangerous missions. No, I don't believe it is a change, I think it's only dawning on everyone."

I think anyone with an ounce of brains pretty well knew what you were up to, Stevie.

But maybe you should listen to old hands like Paul Craig Roberts. He wrote about the overstretched empire to the south and the fools who want to wage even more Middle Eastern wars when they can't even manage the quagmires they're already got.

The article was about Iraq, but this little nugget about NATO and Afghanistan should be a caution to would-be punching-above-their-weight boxers and little emperors-in-waiting.

From Cakewalk to Quicksand

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

...[N]ATO, whose charter was to defend Western Europe from Soviet invasion should have been disbanded two decades ago. Today NATO functions as an auxiliary US force and has been sent to Afghanistan, where it is being defeated like the British and Russians before it.

...[T]he unintended consequences of the "cakewalk war" [Iraq] are already far outside the Bush administration's ability to manage and will plague future governments for many years. For the administration to initiate new acts of aggression in the MIddle East would go beyond recklessness to insanity.