Ding Dong Osama's Dead

For Those Conspiracy Nuts

   Let's dispose of the idea that there is some conspiracy afoot to pass off an Osama Doppelganger. Assume for a moment that this were true. Then one of two things would also follow. One : He was already dead and his burial place would be known and remains could, at some point, be identified. Two: He is still alive and could prove to be an embarassment. Most especially if he popped up before 2012. One is led to the conclusion that he was killed as reported. 



Osama's Death

While the news outlets are reporting Osama as being "killed" there is absolutely no doubt that he was, in fact, assassinated. A live Osama bin Laden would have proved to be a nightmare. He may have been kept at Gitmo but the security aspects alone would have been daunting. Everything from terrorist acts at home to kidnaps for swaps and maybe even an attempt at springing him. A trial would have provided Osama with one last pulpit and given that the U.S. is not "clean" that would have been, in itself problematic. If he was shot in the head as reported, it was an execution and not a result of some fire fight. As Obama stated "killed or captured" ... the reversal in that sequence is significant.
   He was given a burial at sea, the purpose of which was not, as stated,  in keeping with Moslem tradition (quick disposal), although that was a "bonus". That claim is, on it's face, false. The existence of a corpse would have been a focus for his followers. A sort of Lenin's tomb for Al Qaeda. They could not even chop his hands off, as they did in Che Guavera's case, in order to provide proof. The existence of even a fingerbone would have been too much. Further, had they attempted to bury him somewhere in secret kidnappings and other mayhem may well have followed until he was "reclaimed". 

What It Means

   In terms of the War on Terrorism (TM) Osama's death means almost nothing. He was largely irrelevant. He may have started the train (or A train) but once it got going it no longer required an engineer. The U.S. was all too willing to supply the fuel. Unlike Bush, Osama's mission was accomplished. Probably beyond his wildest dreams. He may well have started the downfall of an empire. George Bush basically admitted, as early as 2006, that he was no longer particularly interested in Osama bin Laden.
    Questions remain, however. Osama was at large for a long time and very probably had support from the perfidious Pakistani ISI. They have been both ally and enemy of the U.S. SIMULTANEOUSLY. The assassination of bin Laden was not due to a concerted effort to comb the earth and find him. Most probably, he was given up by the ISI because he was either proving to be a liability with respect to domestic politics or Osama could no longer supply sufficient bakshish. I suspect it was the former.


It's All So Tawdry

    The chest thumping jingoism shown by people in the streets (U S A! U S A ! ) reminds one of the people dancing in the streets in the Middle East after the towers fell. Yes he deserved to die for his crimes but it is not something to celebrate with a six-pack.
   The poignant words of Obama, ever the speechmaker extraordinaire, when he spoke of the 3000 killed and their survivors must have tasted of ashes to Iraqis who have lost in excess of 100,000 through American violence even though they were completely, totally, entirely, innocent in terms of 9/11... and to all the loved ones of those killed and being killed through American auspices to this day. Mourn the dead but, please, spare me the rank hypocrisy.

Why is Canada in Afghanistan? No,really.

  Why is Canada in Afghanistan?

   By the time Canada was seriously involved in Afghanistan (2006) George W. Bush was ready to forget about Osama bin Laden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o&feature=related) so Canada was not there to "get bin Laden". In fact such efforts were spotty at best. There is evidence to suggest that it was due to internecine rivalries between U.S. forces and agencies (but that is another story).
 
   Rick Hillier, commander of Canadian forces, in a CBC interview, parroted Bushes ludicrous "because they hate our freedoms" drivel. Gordon O'Connor the Defense Minister, when asked about Canada's involvement said words to the effect: "If we don't fight them there we will have to fight them here" ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/07/28/231368/-Canadas-PM-Flatters-Bush) which was exactly wrong. This was the abysmal level of discourse. This was the leadership of Canada's armed forces. Mutt and Jeff.

   The U.S. claims that it brought down a regime that supported terror. First of all the terrorists had their origins in the Mujahideen that the U.S. supplied with arms (via the Pakistani ISI) in order to, in the words of  Zbigniew Brzezinski "give the Russians their Vietnam". Second the Afghan government, in fact, offered to hand over bin Laden if proof were supplied. The U.S., as is its habit, decided to shoot first and be sorry later.

    I heard an interview with a soldier that was shipping out to Afghanistan. He had lost a buddy over there and was ready to go because, otherwise his buddy would have "died for nothing". Months later, in another interview a mother, having lost her son, opined that the effort should continue else her son would have "died for nothing". The logic here appears to be that the deaths of more Canadians in Afghanistan will make it all, somehow, "for something".

   And it must actually be for something. But what? The stated reasons vary, they mix and match. "Fight terrorism", "Nation building", "Democracy", "Rights of Women" and so on. The latest version is "Train Afghanis to take over the security role". Most are not credible, others are illegitimate.

  You do not fight "terrorism" with an army. The other side does not have assets you can easily destroy or a standing army you can fight. You cannot bring democracy at the point of a gun. That's an oxymoron. You cannot build a nation in the middle of what is, in reality, a civil war. The person you are training and arming today may be shooting at you tomorrow. Whatever you may think, you are the outsider. It is in fact NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. The whole enterprise, under international law, is a war crime. And I don't care how many schools you build. They will be destroyed. I don't care how many women you "help". When it's over their lives will be somewhere between hell and the grave unless there is a massive effort to get them out.

   The purported "good guys" are not in any way "nice guys". Their attitude towards women is not all that different from the "bad guys". They are merely impeded by the presence of NATO. Many are narco-trafficers. The government itself is acknowledged to be among the, if not the most, corrupt on the face of the planet.

   So I ask again, why is Canada in Afghanistan? I mean really.

   The armed forces fall under the Department of National Defense. Are they defending the nation in Afghanistan? How? Against whom? The majority of Afghani's don't even know where or what Canada is.

   Are Canadians dying merely to give a fig leaf of legitimacy to American aspirations? Such as a pipeline from the "Stans" to Turkey? Are Canadians dying because we are "sucking up" to the U.S.? One can only imagine the behind-the-scenes pressure that was placed on the Chretien government. It was a time when Canada had refused to be one of the "willing" in Iraq and American jingoism went into overdrive. Remember how they went after the French? : "Freedom fries". Or the French's mustard commercial? : "The only thing French about us is the name". No such pressure is required on the Harper government. Like Mulroney, practically sitting on Reagan's knee, singing "Danny Boy" Harper is all too ready to worship at America's altar. To that end he has worked to make Canada's Peace Keepers into a war fighting army. An appendage of American foreign policy.
  
   And by the way, make no mistake, if it had have been Harper or if it had have been Ignatieff instead of Jean Chretien, Canada would be in Iraq today. We owe Monsieur Chretien for that at least ...big time.
    
  

Faux News North 1.0

  In what will predictably be a parallel of the situation in the U.S. the Sun News Network will become the propaganda arm of the Reform Conservative Party of Harper beginning on 18 April the year of Our Lord's abandonment 2011. They will have some pre-election time to ply their trade.

  You do not need to be Nostradamus or consult a Mayan calendar to see what's coming. Sun Network is led by Luc Lavoie once employed by Quebecor (he's baaak) and a former Mulroney henchman. Lavoie was preceded by Kory Teneyke a former Tory spin doctor (also formerly of Quebecor) .  Brian Mulroney sits on the Board of Directors at Quebecor. The whole shebang is owned by the union busting Pierre Karl Peladeau (say hello to Rupert Murdoch North).

  In the run up, Sun Newspapers have been doing a hit job on the CBC and filling pages with puff pieces on the Sun News Network which should rightly be labeled "Advertisement".

  You can expect more attacks on the "liberal media" ... this is the right wing code everywhere for "fact based". The right wing media (read Fox in particular) in the U.S. prefer to manufacture their own facts and cobble them into their own "realities" and serve them up to an increasingly dumbed down audience.

  One likes to think of Canadians as being little better educated and more discerning even if there is, as a counter example, an actual Creationist museum in Alberta. But, expect the production to be slick and extremely well financed in the beginning with as much snake oil as the traffic will bear. I mean they promise "colourful intelligent commentary" ... from the likes of Ezra Levant?? You have to be joking.

The CRTC, already under fire from the Harperites, can expect even more of the same as Fox North will not have as much "freedom" to be "inventive" with the news as their model to the south.

  If everything turns sour and Harper becomes that which he aspires to be, President of Canada, then watch as the game rules change and the propaganda arm becomes "unfettered" (Regulations? We don't need no steenking regulations!)... Avec lui, le deluge, to twist a phrase.

Then? ....Version 2.0 coming to a cable near you.
 

How Foreign Entities Can Buy U.S. Elections

 Let us assume there is a fictional organization called U.S. Commerce 'R Us whose stated goal is:

To be the voice of business and fight for free enterprise at home and abroad.


  They subsist on donations from businesses both domestic and international.
Money is used to buy influence in Government by essentially bankrolling the elections of "business friendly" candidates.
 
  While U.S. Commerce 'R Us does get donations from foreign entities it insists that these funds are not commingled with domestic funds and are not used to buy representatives ...errr I mean representation. In effect there is a "Chinese Wall" between these funds.

  Let's say that funds coming from external sources can be used for such things as overhead, events and programs of  U.S. Commerce 'R Us.

 Say the fictional Chinindia Industries donates $1.00 dollar. Much as they would like to buy Congress they can't. It would be illegal and besides there is that Chinese Wall (and a buck won't get you much anyway).

  BUT that Chinese Wall is a sophistry because, for every dollar Chinindia Industries donates, a dollar of domestic funds is freed up to buy a Senator rather than having to spend it on, say, programming. OR you could just cut the pretense and say the Chinindia Industries dollar bought a Senator ... which was, after all, its intended purpose.

American Democracy : A Near Myth

Americans view their country as the world's shining beacon of democracy. The words "freedom" and "liberty" come trippingly to the lips of even the most repressive right winger as, teary eyed,  they wave the flag of the "greatest/best country in the world!" It is part and parcel of the "American  dream" and a view held by the vast majority of Americans. It is not reality based. It is Santa Claus, brought to you by Coca Cola.

George Carlin said it best "They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it".

They are not bringing and will not bring democracy to Iraq or Afghanistan all protestations aside. It is not in the interests of America. America has been fairly consistent in its attitude towards democracy in other places. When it comes to a choice between it and American interest, democracy is abhorred. If it is a choice between United Fruit, Big Oil , Bechtel or democracy, democracy goes over the side. This has been proven time and again in South and Central America, in Cuba, In Iran. America prefers right wing dictators, like Pinochet,, Samoza or the Shah of Iran. Saddam Husein was their creature (until he wasn't). They are so much more business friendly. The few in power at the top are easier to own. There is no threat of nationalization or alternatively the imposition of a fairer share of the take. It is win-win.

From the 20's into the 40's corporate America embraced fascism. The names are all familiar : Hearst, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Mellon, DuPont, Dulles and yes, Bush. Henry Ford's book, "The International Jew", was circulated by the Nazis. He was said to be admired by Hitler. The admiration was mutual.
Standard Oil, DuPont, Alcoa, and Dow Chemical supplied I.G. Farben, makers of the Zyklon B gas that ended many a Jewish life.




Recently, because it is in America's strategic interest, Obama has waived sanctions against four of the countries using child soldiers. (Chad, the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen). “In each of these countries we are working with the governments to stop the recruitment of child soldiers or [to] demobilize those who may already be in the ranks,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. But, then, that was what the sanctions were for. The logic may be muddled but the message is certainly clear.

The U.S. showed no support for Honduran democracy (quite the opposite) and was/is actively interfering with Venezuelan democracy.  Venezuelan democracy does have its failings... largely due to external and internal threats abetted by the U.S. (aah  memories of John Negreponte).

Democracy, due to its open nature, does not do well under threat.

Case in point? The U.S. itself. After 9/11 democracy took a beating... habeus corpus was an early victim. There were war crimes like the invasion of Iraq itself. Torture became "normalized", you could see Jack Bauer about his business every week. The nation eavesdropped on itself. Guantanamo was born. Of late we have the sanctioned killing of American citizens abroad without due process. The first amendment has been tattered along with civil liberties. Democracy is now second fiddle to "security" and everywhere there is the fear of dangers, largely imagined (but highly useful).

And now? Corporate America has gone global. America itself is the "somewhere else" where democracy does not serve "American interests". America is well on its way to plutocracy. Government and the judiciary have been corporatized. Corporate frontmen and a hoard of "useful idiots" are in charge. Soon (2012) the office of the President itself will be up for bids and the transition will be complete.

You see, the shining beacon on the hill always had a pricetag.

The vast majority of Americans believe deeply in the American ideal.
Not just the  boastful rhetoric. Not just the flag waving jingoism.
If not real, at least it was something to strive for.
It will never be achieved.
Always just beyond their fingertips, it will be swept away.

Omar Khadr and Canada's Shame

  Did he in fact throw the hand grenade that killed Christopher Speer? Reports at time were contradictory. There was a report stating that the perpetrator had been killed during the action. We may never know for certain.
   Omar Khadr pleaded guilty to "murder, attempted murder, supporting terrorism, conspiracy" and just to top it off "spying". Yes he was supposedly a 15 year old spy.
    As his Canadian lawyer stated : " We may choose to believe that through this plea Omar finally came clean and accepted his involvement in a firefight when he was 15 years of age, or that this was one final coerced confession from a victimized young man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time ..... The fact that the trial of a child soldier, Omar Khadr,  has ended with a guilty plea in exchange for his eventual release to Canada does not change the fact that fundamental principles of law and due process  were long since abandoned in Omar's case". (Ottawa Sun)
   On June 4, 2007, the presiding officer on the Guantanamo military commissions, Peter Brownback dismissed all charges against Khadr. Brownback stated that he had been previously classified as an "enemy combatant" by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal in 2004. The Military Commissions Act only allowed him to rule over "Unlawful enemy combatants".
   On September 9, 2007, charges were reinstated after the Court of
Military Commission Review overturned Brownback saying that the
tribunal could determine the legality of a detainee's status.
   It is only due to the American invented fiction variously called "Unprivileged Belligerent" or "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" and the establishment of extra-legal detention at Bagram and Guantanimo that someone captured in a war zone subsequent to a fire fight could be accused of war crimes. Had Khadr been wearing a nice uniform, had he swooped in on a helicopter he, apparently, would be a legal/lawful player in the game.
   This is not to condone the killing of another human being but Sgt. Christopher Speer was killed in action, during a firefight,  not on an airplane, not even by an IED.  He was a medic but it must be noted that he was Special Forces. Described as a "super stud" he was not there to dispense candy.
    The torture and mistreatment of Omar Khadr at American hands is a list too long to include here.  SEE " Omar Khadr: The Continuing Scandal of Illegal Detention and Torture" (http://www.lrwc.org/pub1.php)
Though not a party to it, it is fairly certain Canada was aware of it through the offices CSIS. He was interrogated by Canadians on 6 occasions. When he told them he had been tortured they called him a liar.
    In the end Omar Khadr was the only foreign national left at Gitmo.  Canada refused to repatriate him even though urged by Amnesty International, UNICEF and other groups ...even the Canadian Bar Association.
    There  was even an order from a lower court to repatriate him but this was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada who nonetheless found that :
"Canadian officials violated Khadr's human rights, and that he continues to be threatened by the effect of those violations.
In a unanimous decision released Friday, the court declared that Canadian officials breached Khadr's right to life, liberty and security of the person under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, it concluded that ordering the government to ask the U.S. for Khadr's repatriation to stop the continuing violation of his rights would interfere with the government's jurisdiction over foreign relations. Therefore, it chose not to issue the order, even though it had the authority to do so." (CBC)
   Even in the light of the plea deal which sees Omar Kahdr coming back to Canada after one (more) year in the U.S. Canada may renege. After all it only agreed to "consider favourably" his return while under the deal Khadr has no right of appeal.
   Who is Khadr?
To the widow he will forever be a murderer. A psychologist paid by the prosecution called Khadr "al-Qaida royalty" and stated that he was at a "high risk" of returning to his jihadi ways.
   Ezra Levant (consider the source) for example said  "Omar Khadr is a psychopath like Paul Bernardo".  (Just to show the kind of rhetoric going around).
  The press made much of statements to the effect that Omar Khadr was a "superstar" at Gitmo.
 
 In the case of the psychologist the defense pointed out that:
   
     1) The assessment was not peer reviewed

     2) That he had based the assessment, in part on the works
          of Nicolai Sennels who believes that inbreeding has
          damaged the Muslim gene pool and that the Koran is
          a "criminal book"

"....reports, obtained by The Globe and Mail, say the U.S. soldiers guarding him believe the 21-year-old is a "good kid."
The soldiers say Khadr is "salvageable" and runs the risk of becoming a radical if he continues to remain in Guantanamo Bay.
The reports, which also describe Khadr as a "likeable, funny and intelligent young man," were written by Foreign Affairs officials who visited him last March and April". (CTV)
     The fact remains that Omar Khadr was a "child soldier" and that Canada is a signatory to the U.N. convention. The U.S., while a signatory, has never ratified it. Canada's actions (inactions?) are shameful and counter to Canadian law..
If Canada had repatriated the child Khadr then the man Khadr might have a chance at life. He may well have become radicalized in the interim. Under the present circumstances his stated dreams of going to university, becoming a doctor and exploring the "wonders of life" are probably just that ... dreams.

Officer Bubbles Redux

  I was reading the Ottawa Sun the other day. It may be a right-wing rag and a plot against Canadian trees but 25 cents gets you two really good crosswords.
  Not withstanding, I happened to read (there is a masochist within me) one of Michael Coren's latest wheezes.
  If I were to precis the column it would go something like this : "I have a personal animus towards what I perceive to be 'another privileged little white girl being all lefty and fatuous' and therefore Officer Bubbles actions were excusable if not correct".*  This is "logic" in Coren's shrivelled little world.
  Coren proceeds to transfer his animus to the officer in question. He even intimates that the officer's colour (he is black) may have had something to do with it. If there were any truth in this it would not serve as an excuse. It would be an indictment. At "best" it is an insult to the officer.
So, in vilifying Winkels and her "self indulgent protests" the officer is co-lateral damage.
  "Defying stereotypes" the sub-heading bellows as Coren stereotypes Ms. Winkels.

  Showing once more his unfamiliarity with logic and reason he closes with this vacuous statement :

        "Next time there is a thug at the door
         I'm calling the cop and not the hippie".

 Sure, and if I was making granola I would call the "hippie" and not the cop. In fact, if I needed my taxes done, I would call neither. I would want an accountant. And you know what? They pay him to write this drivel.

*For those unfamiliar a video of the incident in question is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMTm3QRwEc