Keeping the war in Afghanistan 'on the table'
by Derrick O'Keefe, from Rabble, December 19, 2008.
Earlier this month, I participated in the Canadian Peace Alliance's biennial convention in Toronto, which gathered activists representing anti-war groups from across the country.
We discussed the challenging task the peace movement faces: finding a way to turn the largely quiet and demobilized majority already against the war into an effective movement that can force the politicians in Ottawa to end Canada's quagmire in Afghanistan. The Dec. 5-7 convention coincided with the political firestorm in Canada; the fact that the now-in-doubt Liberal-NDP coalition had agreed the war was 'off the table' sharpened the focus of activists and reminded all present of the importance of independent social movements.
Polls: A majority of Afghans and Canadians tired of war
Canadians are weary of this war - poll after poll has shown a majority want the troops brought home sooner than 2011. That is the final end date Harper promised during the last election campaign, but Bush-Obama Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in a recent visit to praise the sacrifice of the troops in Kandahar, has already publicly implored Canada to stay longer.
A June 2008 poll conducted by the Senlis Council that found 6 out of 10 Afghans wanted foreign troops out was scarcely reported. The question that is never seriously examined in our mainstream media is: what has caused public opinion in Afghanistan to turn so strongly against the foreign occupation? (Canada's version of the ‘why do they hate us?' question, if you will.)
A proper examination of this question, of course, shatters the standard Manichean frames in which the Afghan war is presented: Good vs. Evil, 'humanitarian imperialism' (à la Ignatieff) vs. medieval barbarism and so on.
The first part of the answer is that the counter-insurgency war itself has turned many Afghans decisively against the occupation. In the words of Canadian Major-General Andrew Leslie from several years ago, "Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you." Leslie did not offer a formula to calculate the consequences of killing women, children or village elders.
Over the past two years, there has been a marked increase in deadly NATO bombings. To highlight just one recent example, air strikes on November 3 - the eve of the U.S. election - killed at least 40 Afghan civilians attending a wedding party in Kandahar province.
Propping up a corrupt regime
The second half of the answer explaining growing Afghan enmity towards NATO forces is the nature of the regime itself in Kabul. Canadian troops are killing and dying to prop up one of the most corrupt governments in the world.
Over 100 Canadian soldiers have died to help keep an unpopular regime - a sordid "coalition government" made up of warlords, drug traffickers and known war criminals headed up by a weak, discredited leader - in power. Hamid Karzai may do well with the western media, but he is widely reviled in Afghanistan, and routinely mocked as the 'mayor of Kabul.'
The public in Canada and the other NATO countries - about to be blitzed by the marketer-in-chief to support more troop deployments - deserve to know exactly who are the "good guys" we are backing in Kabul. A closer look at just three of the stooges in the Afghan government should help clarify just what kind of 'democracy' Canada has been helping to foster over the past seven years.
Meet three of our Afghan allies
First, there is Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, an upstanding Member of Parliament and an advisor to President Karzai. Sayyaf is a senior warlord and arch-fundamentalist - he was in fact said to be the man who first invited one Osama Bin Laden to Afghanistan in the 1980s. He is also one of many warlords named by Human Rights Watch as responsible for war crimes during the bloody civil war period that followed the Soviet withdrawal. Sayyaf and dozens of other warlords and fundamentalists with horrific records of human rights violations have been empowered and backed by NATO. The myth of the Taliban as the first and only fundamentalists in Afghanistan, which underlies so much pro-war commentary, would be farcical if the results had not been so tragic for the Afghan people.
Then there's the most powerful man in Kandahar, Ahmed Wali Karzai, the president's brother, who is widely reported to be heavily involved in drug trafficking. A recent Toronto Star article explains that even numerous White House officials concede the allegations against Karzai are true. In the same article Bob Rae provides an understated assessment, "It's pretty difficult for our soldiers to do their job in defending the public administration of Afghanistan if these allegations are proven to be true."
To paraphrase the (long lost) young, anti-war John Kerry, how can anyone ask a young Canadian man or woman to be the last to die to defend druglordism and nepotism in Kandahar? With an Afghan-Canadian from Coquitlam, B.C. now reportedly on his way to that embattled Afghan province to take over as governor, the case of Karzai's brother needs to be made known in this country for the scandal that it is.
Finally, there is Izzatullah Wasifi, the man who Karzai appointed to head up the bureau of anti-corruption in Afghanistan. Wasifi, a former provincial governor, had just one little blemish on his resume: a four-year stint in a Nevada prison after a conviction ... for drug trafficking.
These are just three of the many unsavory and criminal characters NATO and the government in Ottawa have helped impose on the Afghan people - in our names. We can't wait until the end of 2011. Because if we do, over the next three years a lot more Canadian and Afghan blood will be senselessly shed in defence of a pack of warlords, embezzlers and drug traffickers.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Lawyers furious that spy agency listening to calls with terror suspects
Lawyers furious that spy agency listening to calls with terror suspects
By Colin Perkel, from The Canadian Press, December 18, 2008
TORONTO - Lawyers defending terrorism suspects expressed outrage Thursday that Canada's spy agency has been listening in on their telephone conversations with their clients.
Court documents show the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has been monitoring the calls to ensure the suspects don't breach stringent bail conditions. "I was flabbergasted when I was informed," said Matt Webber, an Ottawa lawyer for Mohamed Harkat, a suspected Algerian terrorist released from custody in May 2006.
"My client's consent never for a moment contemplated the invasion of solicitor-client privilege."
Federal Court Judge Carolyn Layden-Stevenson publicly released information about the wiretapping in a Toronto court Thursday.
"The CSIS analyst ... listens to all intercepted communications, including solicitor-client communications if any," Layden-Stevenson wrote.
Her summary pertains to phone tapping that occurred in the case of Mohammad Mahjoub, an Egyptian detained as a threat to public safety because of his alleged ties to al-Qaida.
Mahjoub, who spent more than six years in custody without charge or trial, was released in April 2007 on strict bail conditions that included monitoring by security agents.
To secure his release and so authorities could ensure his communications did not pose a threat to national security, he agreed to having his phone calls tapped.
However, lawyers who act for the men under a national security certificate called it "shocking" their confidential communications with their clients would be monitored.
"From my perspective, as I'm sure from every lawyer's perspective, it was implicit that they would not be listening to solicitor-client calls," Webber said.
The lawyers recently became aware about what they called an "outrageous" violation of lawyer-client privilege and demanded answers.
During a secret hearing in Ottawa on Wednesday, a senior agent with the spy service revealed the tapping was being done on behalf of the Canada Border Services Agency.
Layden-Stevenson's two-page summary was of the agent's testimony.
"The witness testified that CSIS was acting at the request of CBSA as their agent to monitor the communications over the telephone lines of Mr. Mahjoub and (his wife)."
The agencies found no threats or other issues in what they heard, she said.
In all, five foreigners have been detained as risks to public safety under a controversial national security certificate.
Four have been released on stringent bail conditions, while one remains in detention.
Layden-Stevenson also said if the men's bail terms are changed to specifically refer to the interception of solicitor-client communications, the spy and border agencies could end the monitoring, or delete the interception as soon as they realized what they were listening to.
Webber said he was in contact with the Department of Justice to try ensure the situation was fixed.
"The fact that the eavesdropping even occurred is a serious enough situation that it needs to be immediately rectified," he said.
By Colin Perkel, from The Canadian Press, December 18, 2008
TORONTO - Lawyers defending terrorism suspects expressed outrage Thursday that Canada's spy agency has been listening in on their telephone conversations with their clients.
Court documents show the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has been monitoring the calls to ensure the suspects don't breach stringent bail conditions. "I was flabbergasted when I was informed," said Matt Webber, an Ottawa lawyer for Mohamed Harkat, a suspected Algerian terrorist released from custody in May 2006.
"My client's consent never for a moment contemplated the invasion of solicitor-client privilege."
Federal Court Judge Carolyn Layden-Stevenson publicly released information about the wiretapping in a Toronto court Thursday.
"The CSIS analyst ... listens to all intercepted communications, including solicitor-client communications if any," Layden-Stevenson wrote.
Her summary pertains to phone tapping that occurred in the case of Mohammad Mahjoub, an Egyptian detained as a threat to public safety because of his alleged ties to al-Qaida.
Mahjoub, who spent more than six years in custody without charge or trial, was released in April 2007 on strict bail conditions that included monitoring by security agents.
To secure his release and so authorities could ensure his communications did not pose a threat to national security, he agreed to having his phone calls tapped.
However, lawyers who act for the men under a national security certificate called it "shocking" their confidential communications with their clients would be monitored.
"From my perspective, as I'm sure from every lawyer's perspective, it was implicit that they would not be listening to solicitor-client calls," Webber said.
The lawyers recently became aware about what they called an "outrageous" violation of lawyer-client privilege and demanded answers.
During a secret hearing in Ottawa on Wednesday, a senior agent with the spy service revealed the tapping was being done on behalf of the Canada Border Services Agency.
Layden-Stevenson's two-page summary was of the agent's testimony.
"The witness testified that CSIS was acting at the request of CBSA as their agent to monitor the communications over the telephone lines of Mr. Mahjoub and (his wife)."
The agencies found no threats or other issues in what they heard, she said.
In all, five foreigners have been detained as risks to public safety under a controversial national security certificate.
Four have been released on stringent bail conditions, while one remains in detention.
Layden-Stevenson also said if the men's bail terms are changed to specifically refer to the interception of solicitor-client communications, the spy and border agencies could end the monitoring, or delete the interception as soon as they realized what they were listening to.
Webber said he was in contact with the Department of Justice to try ensure the situation was fixed.
"The fact that the eavesdropping even occurred is a serious enough situation that it needs to be immediately rectified," he said.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Iraqi Ingratitude
Iraqi Ingratitude: How Sharper than a Serpent's Tooth
by Rahul Mahajan, from Empire Notes, December 15, 2008.
George Bush’s attempts to strike the right valedictory note and secure his legacy by helping people to forget exactly what it is were marred recently when a young Iraqi journalist, maddened by the proximity of the man who destroyed his country, threw a shoe at the still-president of the United States and called him a dog, then threw the other shoe, saying it was from the widows, orphans, and martyrs of Iraq.
As might be expected in the gloriously democratic Iraq that Bush has built, the journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, was hustled away by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s security detail and beaten until, in the words of another Arab journalist, he “was crying like a woman.” In a sign of the gloriously democratic world order recently ushered in, we are probably all wondering whether Zaidi will be removed to some dank hole in the earth to rot for the foreseeable future.
This incident is probably the closest that Mr. Bush will ever come to accountability for his crimes. At the very least, it has probably revived his puzzlement over the vexing question of why the Iraqis are not more grateful.
This is a question that has bothered Bush for years, and his desire to get the Iraqis to show some gratitude has been as strong a driving force as anything else in his decisionmaking. Before the so-called “transfer of sovereignty” in June 2004, Bush told L. Paul Bremer, his viceroy in Baghdad, that the leader of the new Iraq should be "someone who's willing to stand up and thank the American people for their sacrifice in liberating Iraq." He picked Ghazi al-Yawer, an obscure businessman and tribal leader, to be the first president of the supposedly newly sovereign Iraq, on the basis of his “open thanks to the Coalition.”
Iraqi ingratitude has also been an obsession of the right wing and its pseudo-intelligentsia, but more importantly, it is simply an item of conventional wisdom in the political mainstream. When retired General Barry McCaffrey wrote in a 2006 report on the Iraq situation, “U.S. public opinion may become increasingly alienated by Iraqi ingratitude for our sacrifice on their behalf,” he didn’t even see the point as debatable.
Democratic politicians and liberal intellectuals generally don’t phrase their conceptions in terms of ingratitude, but it can be hard to tell the difference. The standard juxtaposition is the “amazing, unbelievable, brilliant, courageous” performance of our troops, who constantly meet and exceed the highest expectations, with the Iraqis who have “refused to step up,” have remained mired in parochial concerns, have spent too much time killing each other, and who, in general, supposedly should shoulder the burden for rebuilding the country destroyed by our intervention.
Another indication: we are starting to see once more the claim that at least Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam, an idea that was very prevalent in the United States during the first two years or so, then went underground as Iraq hit its nadir of violence, but has resurfaced with the surge and the deeply important question of Bush’s legacy.
Virtually nobody tries to challenge this ludicrous idea, perhaps in part because Americans are just not equipped to employ the minimal empathy required to evaluate this claim.
It reminds me of the one I heard long ago from a radio host interviewing me, who suggested that, badly off as the Palestinians were, they were far better off than the population of other Arab nations. Although, of course, Palestinians have the nominal right to denounce the Israeli Prime Minister, something not always true for heads of state in Arab countries, to think that this is more important than ongoing theft of property, mass detentions, house demolitions, house raids, and checkpoints, let alone frequent aerial bombing and blockades requires an almost complete detachment from the idea of evaluating Palestinians’ lives as if they were the lives of human beings like yourself.
Recently, I was telling someone about Iraqi hatred of the American troops in 2004, and she could not understand why, because “they were just doing their job.” I suppose that understanding or even imagining how it feels to be treated like a subject population in your own country is just too much for most Americans.
And to understand that more Iraqis have died by violence in the five years of occupation than in any other such period in Iraqi history, to understand that they had a society that functioned to some degree (in fact, under heavy constraints, during the sanctions, Saddam’s government implemented a massive food-distribution program that was the only thing that staved off mass starvation), that individuals, despite voting, have had less freedom even than under a totalitarian dictator, and to understand that almost every institution in their country was destroyed – well, that will only happen if we start talking about it.
by Rahul Mahajan, from Empire Notes, December 15, 2008.
George Bush’s attempts to strike the right valedictory note and secure his legacy by helping people to forget exactly what it is were marred recently when a young Iraqi journalist, maddened by the proximity of the man who destroyed his country, threw a shoe at the still-president of the United States and called him a dog, then threw the other shoe, saying it was from the widows, orphans, and martyrs of Iraq.
As might be expected in the gloriously democratic Iraq that Bush has built, the journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, was hustled away by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s security detail and beaten until, in the words of another Arab journalist, he “was crying like a woman.” In a sign of the gloriously democratic world order recently ushered in, we are probably all wondering whether Zaidi will be removed to some dank hole in the earth to rot for the foreseeable future.
This incident is probably the closest that Mr. Bush will ever come to accountability for his crimes. At the very least, it has probably revived his puzzlement over the vexing question of why the Iraqis are not more grateful.
This is a question that has bothered Bush for years, and his desire to get the Iraqis to show some gratitude has been as strong a driving force as anything else in his decisionmaking. Before the so-called “transfer of sovereignty” in June 2004, Bush told L. Paul Bremer, his viceroy in Baghdad, that the leader of the new Iraq should be "someone who's willing to stand up and thank the American people for their sacrifice in liberating Iraq." He picked Ghazi al-Yawer, an obscure businessman and tribal leader, to be the first president of the supposedly newly sovereign Iraq, on the basis of his “open thanks to the Coalition.”
Iraqi ingratitude has also been an obsession of the right wing and its pseudo-intelligentsia, but more importantly, it is simply an item of conventional wisdom in the political mainstream. When retired General Barry McCaffrey wrote in a 2006 report on the Iraq situation, “U.S. public opinion may become increasingly alienated by Iraqi ingratitude for our sacrifice on their behalf,” he didn’t even see the point as debatable.
Democratic politicians and liberal intellectuals generally don’t phrase their conceptions in terms of ingratitude, but it can be hard to tell the difference. The standard juxtaposition is the “amazing, unbelievable, brilliant, courageous” performance of our troops, who constantly meet and exceed the highest expectations, with the Iraqis who have “refused to step up,” have remained mired in parochial concerns, have spent too much time killing each other, and who, in general, supposedly should shoulder the burden for rebuilding the country destroyed by our intervention.
Another indication: we are starting to see once more the claim that at least Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam, an idea that was very prevalent in the United States during the first two years or so, then went underground as Iraq hit its nadir of violence, but has resurfaced with the surge and the deeply important question of Bush’s legacy.
Virtually nobody tries to challenge this ludicrous idea, perhaps in part because Americans are just not equipped to employ the minimal empathy required to evaluate this claim.
It reminds me of the one I heard long ago from a radio host interviewing me, who suggested that, badly off as the Palestinians were, they were far better off than the population of other Arab nations. Although, of course, Palestinians have the nominal right to denounce the Israeli Prime Minister, something not always true for heads of state in Arab countries, to think that this is more important than ongoing theft of property, mass detentions, house demolitions, house raids, and checkpoints, let alone frequent aerial bombing and blockades requires an almost complete detachment from the idea of evaluating Palestinians’ lives as if they were the lives of human beings like yourself.
Recently, I was telling someone about Iraqi hatred of the American troops in 2004, and she could not understand why, because “they were just doing their job.” I suppose that understanding or even imagining how it feels to be treated like a subject population in your own country is just too much for most Americans.
And to understand that more Iraqis have died by violence in the five years of occupation than in any other such period in Iraqi history, to understand that they had a society that functioned to some degree (in fact, under heavy constraints, during the sanctions, Saddam’s government implemented a massive food-distribution program that was the only thing that staved off mass starvation), that individuals, despite voting, have had less freedom even than under a totalitarian dictator, and to understand that almost every institution in their country was destroyed – well, that will only happen if we start talking about it.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Peace activists get suspended sentences, probation for protest at military factory
Peace activists get suspended sentences, probation for protest at military factory
by Bob Mitchell, from The Toronto Star, December 10, 2008.
Ten peace activists were given suspended sentences today after being found guilty of trespassing on the property of a Burlington company that makes military guidance systems for missiles.
Justice of the Peace Ken Dechert also placed the accused, most of whom are either senior citizens or middle-aged men and women, on a year's probation that prevents them from staging a similar demonstration.
"It's an outrageous decision," said Matthew Behrens, who was among those found guilty of trespassing two years ago on the property of a company known as L-3 Wescam on the North Service Rd., which makes hi-tech optical surveillance equipment for military purposes, including operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"By putting us on probation, the judge has sent a message that this company has the right to violate international law and trespass on the rights and lives of others in Afghanistan and Iraq and if you speak out, you will go to jail," Behrens said outside the courtroom.
Five of the 10 accused appeared in court today.
After Dechert delivered his nearly two-hour judgement, all of the defendants asked that no punishment be given to them, including one woman who stood and sang a British peace song.
". . . you can't shut my mouth when I sing," Kirsten Jones, 71, of Toronto sang, referring to the fact the protesters said they only wanted to speak with company executives to get them to stop manufacturing military weaponry the day of their arrests.
In convicting them, Dechert ruled that their "justification defence" for their actions of Nov. 20, 2006 didn't override the company's legal right to prohibit people on its property.
At their trial earlier this year, various defendants testified that they "honestly believed" they had an obligation under either international law or God's will to seek a non-violent way of trying to convince the company to stop producing weaponry.
Even though they were told in advance not to cross a spray-painted line on the company's property, they did so in an attempt to speak with company officials, court heard.
Halton Police arrested them after they sat on the ground and refused to leave the premises.
It was their belief the production of the hi-tech optical military surveillance systems used in unmanned drones made Wescam a party to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It was their defence that based on the terms of the Nuremberg principles, they had the right under international law to defy the wishes of the company.
Dechert could have imposed a fine of up to $2,000 but he told the defendants that he didn't think a fine would "serve any purpose" as a punishment.
He said there was no doubt their reasons for trespassing were driven by their "strong moral" and in some cases "religious convictions" but, nevertheless, they broke the law.
While Dechert believed "they honestly believed" they had a "moral obligation," they didn't have any "legal interest" in the property that would allow them to defy the company's right to prohibit them from entering the property.
Behren described today's decision as being "dangerous" in the sense that if Wescam decided they didn't want "Jews on their property" they could order them removed because their rights as "legal land owner" trumped other rights.
Behrens said the peace activists have tried to meet with company executives for six years without any success.
"The probation order effectively says we can't have a dialogue with Wescam because the minute we set foot on their property, whether we're carrying a picket sign or not, we will be booted off and charged," he said.
Today's verdict came more than two years after their arrests and on the 60th anniversary of Human Rights Day.
Dechert noted there was no damage done to any property and nobody was injured and "true to their peaceful convictions" they didn't struggle when arrested.
About 40 people actually participated in the noon-hour protest that day.
Some of the defendants are members of a group known as Homes not Bombs, a collection of peace and social justice groups and individuals from across southern Ontario.
Court heard today how one of the defendants, David Milne, 61, of Bellville said at trial how he was "compelled by God" to seek a meeting with company executives the day of the protest.
Also convicted today were Gail Lorimer, Francis Barningham, Margaret Panter, Behrens, Daniel Hilton, David Marshall, James Smith and Thomas York.
by Bob Mitchell, from The Toronto Star, December 10, 2008.
Ten peace activists were given suspended sentences today after being found guilty of trespassing on the property of a Burlington company that makes military guidance systems for missiles.
Justice of the Peace Ken Dechert also placed the accused, most of whom are either senior citizens or middle-aged men and women, on a year's probation that prevents them from staging a similar demonstration.
"It's an outrageous decision," said Matthew Behrens, who was among those found guilty of trespassing two years ago on the property of a company known as L-3 Wescam on the North Service Rd., which makes hi-tech optical surveillance equipment for military purposes, including operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"By putting us on probation, the judge has sent a message that this company has the right to violate international law and trespass on the rights and lives of others in Afghanistan and Iraq and if you speak out, you will go to jail," Behrens said outside the courtroom.
Five of the 10 accused appeared in court today.
After Dechert delivered his nearly two-hour judgement, all of the defendants asked that no punishment be given to them, including one woman who stood and sang a British peace song.
". . . you can't shut my mouth when I sing," Kirsten Jones, 71, of Toronto sang, referring to the fact the protesters said they only wanted to speak with company executives to get them to stop manufacturing military weaponry the day of their arrests.
In convicting them, Dechert ruled that their "justification defence" for their actions of Nov. 20, 2006 didn't override the company's legal right to prohibit people on its property.
At their trial earlier this year, various defendants testified that they "honestly believed" they had an obligation under either international law or God's will to seek a non-violent way of trying to convince the company to stop producing weaponry.
Even though they were told in advance not to cross a spray-painted line on the company's property, they did so in an attempt to speak with company officials, court heard.
Halton Police arrested them after they sat on the ground and refused to leave the premises.
It was their belief the production of the hi-tech optical military surveillance systems used in unmanned drones made Wescam a party to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It was their defence that based on the terms of the Nuremberg principles, they had the right under international law to defy the wishes of the company.
Dechert could have imposed a fine of up to $2,000 but he told the defendants that he didn't think a fine would "serve any purpose" as a punishment.
He said there was no doubt their reasons for trespassing were driven by their "strong moral" and in some cases "religious convictions" but, nevertheless, they broke the law.
While Dechert believed "they honestly believed" they had a "moral obligation," they didn't have any "legal interest" in the property that would allow them to defy the company's right to prohibit them from entering the property.
Behren described today's decision as being "dangerous" in the sense that if Wescam decided they didn't want "Jews on their property" they could order them removed because their rights as "legal land owner" trumped other rights.
Behrens said the peace activists have tried to meet with company executives for six years without any success.
"The probation order effectively says we can't have a dialogue with Wescam because the minute we set foot on their property, whether we're carrying a picket sign or not, we will be booted off and charged," he said.
Today's verdict came more than two years after their arrests and on the 60th anniversary of Human Rights Day.
Dechert noted there was no damage done to any property and nobody was injured and "true to their peaceful convictions" they didn't struggle when arrested.
About 40 people actually participated in the noon-hour protest that day.
Some of the defendants are members of a group known as Homes not Bombs, a collection of peace and social justice groups and individuals from across southern Ontario.
Court heard today how one of the defendants, David Milne, 61, of Bellville said at trial how he was "compelled by God" to seek a meeting with company executives the day of the protest.
Also convicted today were Gail Lorimer, Francis Barningham, Margaret Panter, Behrens, Daniel Hilton, David Marshall, James Smith and Thomas York.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
