CIPHI Discussion Forum

Health Protection: Cornerstone of Public Health
It is currently Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:08 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
Two B.C. men living in Mexico have been gunned down poolside in the resort town of Puerto Vallarta.

Gordon Douglas Kendall and Jeffrey Ronald Ivans were executed at dawn Sunday, according to news reports, outside the condo where they were staying in the seaside city.

Graphic photos of the two lying in pools of blood beside a vehicle and a gun were displayed in the online publication Noticias Puerto Vallarta.

Ivans, who had a drug conviction in Kamloops in 2002, is wearing a blood-streaked "Hockey Hall of Fame" T-shirt. Kendall is shirtless and wearing a pair of khaki shorts.

Friends of the former Kamloops residents confirmed Sunday they had been called with the news of the slayings.

But none wanted to be quoted, or knew exactly what had transpired early Sunday.

They said Ivans, 37, and Kendall, who has a Facebook page with friends from B.C. and Mexico, had moved to Mexico about a year ago.

They could not say what they did for a living.

Mexican news reports said the two were shot to death outside the Glory Sun condo they were renting.

Police found one of the vehicles on the scene — a Ford F350 Super Duty truck — had Canadian plates and was registered to Kendall.

Witnesses reportedly told police several gunmen were involved in the hit and that one of the Canadians is believed to have exchanged fire with the killers.

Ivans was inside the condo when the shooting started and came out to see what was going on, "but his executioner overtook him and delivered several bullet holes in the skull," the Puerto Vallarta News reported.

The report said that while Kendall and Ivans lay wounded, one of the gunmen walked over and shot each of them "for the second time."

The gunmen fled in two vehicles — a van and a Nissan.

The news report said witnesses believed the two Canadians knew the men who shot them.

They also said a gun was found lying next to one of the dead.

Several other B.C. residents — most with links to gangs here — have been shot in Mexico over the last 14 months.

In July 2008, Eliott (Taco) Castaneda, an Abbotsford member of the United Nations gang, was shot to death in Guadalajara along with fellow UN gangster Lou Ahmet, a former B.C. resident.

And on Dec. 30, 2008, two Vancouver men described by local police as no strangers to them, were shot in a Cabo San Lucas strip club.

Brendhan Stowe, 28, was shot in the leg. Nguyen Minh Trung Do, 26, was critically wounded with a shot to his neck and is still receiving medical treatment in B.C.

kbolan@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
Monday, September 28, 2009

Comment Columnists / Edward Greenspan
Legal aid in crisis

Insufficient funding for defence counsel threatens to make system unfair

By EDWARD GREENSPAN

Last Updated: 28th September 2009, 3:28am



There is a crisis in the Canadian criminal justice system. legal aid, particularly for criminal defence lawyers, is woefully underfunded.

Until this inequity is addressed we will never solve the problem of access to justice for all. In protest of the funding shortfall and to highlight the problem, since June 1 the Ontario Criminal Lawyers Association has asked its members to refuse to accept legal aid clients in murder cases or cases relating to the police's "Guns and Gangs" investigations.

A criminal court is not properly constituted under our adversary system of law unless there is a judge, counsel for the prosecution and independent counsel for the defence. That's precisely the reason the legal aid plan was first established in Ontario -- to ensure that everyone, even those without financial means, would be represented by counsel.

The Crown already has tremendous advantages over a defendant in terms of resources. The government's failure to provide sufficient funding for defence counsel is enough to alter our system from one that is merely unbalanced to one that is unfair.

For example, the hourly legal aid tariff in Ontario (although the problem is nationwide) for defence counsel has been increased by only 15% in 20 years. Inflation alone has increased by almost 75% over the same period. The compensation of Crown lawyers in Ontario has increased by over 100% since 1997. Legal aid rates are so woefully inadequate as to bring into question the government's pledge to make access to justice available to everyone.

Criminal defence lawyers who take on legal aid cases often find themselves paying out of pocket to cover expenses.

No Crown attorney has ever had a dime taken from their own paycheques to fund a prosecution. Yet defence counsel frequently subsidize legal aid through out- of-pocket expenses, experts, overhead, reduced fees, and unbilled work. My colleagues in the defence bar have had enough.

Pledge

The attorney general of Ontario's recent pledge of an additional $150 million to legal aid spread over the next four years seems impressive at first glance but it actually exposes how poorly treated legal aid has been.

Even with the government's pledge, legal aid will fall far short of being able to fulfil its mandate. There will be no real improvement on access to justice. And keep in mind much of legal aid's expenditures are in family law cases, not criminal ones.

Many people will ask, "Why should my taxes be used to pay to defend these people?" Because our nation has recognized, to its great credit, that no system of criminal justice can exist without counsel for the defence.

Once you accept that, it is simply unjustifiable to fail to properly fund legal aid throughout Canada.

I have spent a good part of my career defending my career. Too many people suffer from a profound misunderstanding of the role of criminal defence lawyers. We are unpopular with the public and with politicians. Such is the lot of being a criminal defence lawyer.

Nonetheless, while some may find funding legal aid a bitter pill to swallow, properly funding legal aid is the only way to have a meaningful justice system.

-- Edward L. Greenspan is a Toronto criminal lawyerand was recently awarded the Advocates' Society Medal

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
It's a small but 'sweet victory'
CARLOS OSORIO/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO
Mike McCormack told tribunal Star reporter had sought his help.

Sep 28, 2009 04:30 AM
Rosie DiManno

It is hardly uncommon for reporters to meet with cops outside of work – neither is ever really off the clock.

Certainly the late John Duncanson, two-time National Newspaper Award winner for the Star, did plenty of after-hours chinwagging with police officers. He even maintained to friends that these extracurricular assignations – intended to solicit information useful to his reportage on crime and police corruption – contributed to the alcoholism that sent both his career and his life into a fatal downward spiral. Duncanson died in his sleep exactly eight months ago at age 43. He is greatly missed.

If only Duncanson could still speak for himself, we might now know, for the record, why he made several calls to Const. Michael McCormack in early January 2008.

McCormack, son of former Toronto Police Chief Bill McCormack, told a police disciplinary tribunal that Duncanson had requested a meeting because he was worried about an upcoming court appearance over his second conviction for drunk driving, likely to result in a 10-day jail sentence, that he was living on the street and trying to get into a rehabilitation program, and that he, McCormack, might be able to help with that, on account of his big heart for the down-and-out.

Still, concerned that a bench warrant had possibly been issued for Duncanson's arrest, in which case he should not be meeting privately with the offender, McCormack admitted he searched three police databases in order to track the case. Oddly, McCormack didn't search the one database – the Canadian Police Information Centre – that would readily have spat out that information. He went trolling in three other databases instead.

What was McCormack looking for? Why was he, a veteran cop, using a policing tool that is specifically forbidden for any purpose other than professional investigative research?

No underlying purpose was ever explored by the prosecution, so McCormack's explanation was never directly challenged. Supt. Jane Wilcox, in her written judgment, noted that "even if I did accept" the officer's reasons, "I still could not accept ... his assertion that he was engaging in official police business."

McCormack – who's running for president of the Toronto Police Association – was found guilty Friday on the insubordination charge, under the Police Services Act.

Admittedly, it's a minor matter. But McCormack, up to his neck in various allegations over recent years, has always emphasized that none of the accusations were borne out. He's never been found guilty of a single criminal act or impropriety. Well, now he has. It will be up to the association members, already in possession of their mail-in ballots, to determine whether this is the type of individual they want as top representative. Given the association's truculent history, perhaps they do, which would be just one more shame.

This past March, another related charge for discreditable conduct against McCormack was dropped. That stemmed from the allegation that McCormack had secretly tape-recorded conversations with Duncanson while the vulnerable and distraught alcoholic – arrested for public drunkenness – was being held in a cell at 51 Division. McCormack was then a 51 booking officer.

Of course, there was so much of shared interest to chat about with Duncanson. As an ace reporter, he'd been deeply involved in the Star's way-out-front coverage of alleged wrongdoing by the Toronto police force. Described as the worst scandal in the force's 47-year history, more than a dozen officers were charged, criminally and internally, in 2004, following a massive investigation by the RCMP into organized crime in the Toronto area. There were allegations of police ties to the underworld and alleged shakedowns by cops of nightclub owners in the theatre district.

Three of four Police Act charges against McCormack were dropped by Internal Affairs in 2006. These related to alleged links between McCormack (and his wife) and a used-car salesman purportedly linked to organized crime, who later died of a drug overdose.

Six drug squad officers were charged criminally with extortion, obstruction of justice, falsifying notes, beating up drug dealers and stealing their money while investigating street gangs. That case was shockingly tossed last year – the trial scheduled to start only weeks after Duncanson found himself in the 51 Division jail cell – when Justice Ian Nordheimer stayed the charges for unreasonable delay, blaming the Crown for its handling of the prosecution.

In a separate case, two other officers – former police union head Rick McIntosh and Const. Bill McCormack, Mike's brother – were charged with corruption. That trial is pending.

So there was Duncanson, his life falling apart but still clued-in to all these investigations. Would he, in trouble, have offered to roll on a source, did he summon McCormack hoping for a deal? Why would McCormack care about getting Duncanson into rehab?

Duncanson's widow, Kelly, was at Friday's hearing. And she is outraged by the scenario McCormack recounted.

"I was astounded by the spin McCormack and his lawyer put on this," Kelly said yesterday. "McCormack was preying on John. That's what was going on.

"He said he was trying to help get John into rehab? Hello? If John wasn't going to do that for me and the kids, why would he do it for McCormack?"

A finding of guilt on the single insubordination charge – the penalty likely three days of lost pay – may be small potatoes. But Kelly Duncanson tastes vindication for her husband, the award-winning journalist."Out of all those charges against police officers, this is the only one that has resulted in a conviction. That's a sweet victory for John."

Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
News Columnists / Mark Bonokoski
A plea for justice

Girlfriend of dead cyclist hopes the truth prevails when Michael Bryant faces his charges in court

By MARK BONOKOSKI, NATIONAL AFFAIRS

Last Updated: 27th September 2009, 4:43am


The girlfriend of former bike courier Darcy Allan Sheppard, fatally run down last month during a high-profile altercation on Bloor St. W. with former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant, is determined to see a conviction on the day that justice finally prevails.

"For humanity's sake," she says. "The way I see it, there is absolutely no excuse for the way things escalated.

"If (Bryant) had stopped his car, and 'manned up,' no one would be talking about this today.

"And no one would be dead."

Misty Lee Bailey, 34, sits on a park bench in Allan Gardens, a short walk from the third-floor apartment she once shared with Darcy Sheppard on George St. -- directly across the street from Seaton House, a rather notorious men's shelter where chronic alcoholics are kept even-keeled with prescribed rations of wine, and where low-level crack dealers daily ply their trade on the sidewalk outside.

It is a secret to no one.

"It is admittedly not the best location to live," says Bailey, who moved there in March after once again leaving her hometown of Parry Sound. "But it is all we could find at the time.

"Sometimes you have to take what you can get."

On the night the two twains met -- Bryant having quietly celebrated his wedding anniversary with his wife, apparently no booze involved ... the two just about to head home in their Saab convertible after a quiet evening together, including a walk in the Beach -- 33-year-old Darcy Sheppard, wanted on 61 minor-crime warrants in his home province of Alberta, was temporarily in the back of a police cruiser at the top end of George St.

Neighbours on the second floor of Bailey's three-storey apartment building had called 911 -- again -- about Darcy Sheppard's loudness, drunk as he was -- again -- after managing to stay on the wagon for a mere eight days.

Toxicology tests, which often take months, have not yet been publicly released, but the tale of that tape is not expected to paint Darcy Sheppard as a temperance advocate.

"Alcoholism is a disease," says Bailey. "I started going to Al-Anon to try to figure it out, just so I could figure out Darcy.

"His life was so confused. He was a Metis who would rather be seen as white, and he had a ton of issues.

"But I believed in him. I believed in his spirit. He wanted to be a comedian one day and, if he ever straightened himself out, he'd be a good one," she says.

"Now we'll never know."

Misty Lee Bailey, who met Sheppard during the 12 years she lived in Edmonton and where both were working Klondike Days, and who knew "we were destined to be together," had kicked him out of their Toronto apartment until he got his act together.

But here he was, once again, bringing trouble upon himself.

"I just wanted the police to make sure he left, but I also wanted them to make sure he got home safe," she says.

"They knew he was on a bicycle, but Darcy had ridden drunk before, and he was always careful.

"So, whatever happened when he eventually came into contact with that politician ... well, it wasn't the norm.

"Darcy did not pick fights."

On Friday, the Toronto Bike Couriers Association called a press conference at a College St. bar, and supposedly held a fundraiser yesterday, for their "very special" friend, Darcy Allan Sheppard -- hitting at the media for articles "damning the life, personality and background" of their former co-worker.

It was undoubtedly a tough sell beyond their own group.

Darcy Sheppard may have been a father of four, but he paid little heed, and certainly little support, to any of them.

He was no one's poster boy except, perhaps, to dead-beat dads.

Misty Lee Bailey, meanwhile, moved out of her parental home in Parry Sound at 15, and moved to Edmonton to be with a relative. She describes her father as a "full-fledged, living, breathing alcoholic," and her mother as an "addict to prescription pills."

"Yes, there was the abuse that came with it all," she says, stating she is presently on a disability pension brought on by post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, and existing on a little over $1,000 a month.

She drinks only occasionally, she says, and doesn't smoke, and doesn't do drugs.

She is clear-eyed, and articulate for someone with only a Grade 11 education and a background of abuse.

"I've seen what drugs and alcohol can do," she says, stating she re-connected with Sheppard last Christmas after he looked her up.

"Like I said, we were destined to be with each other," she says.

Her rent is $930 a month. She has no phone in her apartment, and no cellphone in her purse.

"It comes down to the food bank to get by," she says.

Michael Bryant, a month ago considered Ontario's Liberal premier-in-waiting, and whose run-in with Darcy Sheppard forced his resignation as the high-profile head of Invest Toronto, will have his first court appearance on Oct. 19 on charges of criminal negligence causing death, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.

"If anyone else had killed Darcy, they would have been held in custody to wait for a bail hearing," says Bailey. "But not him.

'RICH AND POWERFUL'

"So you tell me if there is a law for the rich and the powerful, and a law for everyone else."

Sitting on that park bench last Sunday, the last sun of summer warming the air, Misty Lee Bailey refuses to speculate on how the trial will end, other than how she hopes for a conviction.

But she does speculate on how it will play out -- refusing, however, to comment on the media frenzy and the street talk, none of it proven in court, that varies from Sheppard attacking Bryant with a bike lock while hanging onto his car, to Bryant intentionally running Sheppard into a sidewalk postal box to knock him off.

"I know what will happen in court," she says. "(Bryant's) lawyers will assassinate Darcy's character, and make him out as someone who really doesn't matter, and a violent person easy to write off.

"And, if I am ever subpoenaed, they will probably try to do the same with me -- turn me into some kind of unreliable witness.

"But that doesn't matter," she says. "Hopefully, when push comes to shove, the truth will win out in the end.

"It's all you can ask for."

MARK.BONOKOSKI@SUNMEDIA.CA OR 416-947-2445

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
Monday, September 28, 2009

TorontoRain showers16°Tomorrow »Isolated showers17°/12°Change city
News Columnists / Greg Weston
Tough cell

Changing Canada's early release program flies in the face of studies

By GREG WESTON

Last Updated: 27th September 2009, 4:13am


Among the many ways Canadians are ill-served by today's sound-bite politics, it is tough to beat some of the fear and loathing that passes as informed debate on crime and punishment.

Stephen Harper's government, for instance, is currently being rightly flogged over its plans to cancel the long-standing get-out-jail card automatically given to most federal inmates after serving two-thirds of their sentence.

Instead, the Conservative plan would make all inmates "earn" their so-called statutory release in part by completing prison training and counselling programs, and ultimately proving to the parole board they are "rehabilitated."

Otherwise, they would be forced to serve their full sentences behind bars.

Or as the Harper campaign sloganeers like to say, time sentenced will be time served.

The font of wisdom behind this Conservative revolution was a 2007 report with the catchy title, "A Roadmap to Public Safety," commissioned by the Harper government.

Remarkably, it got almost no attention at the time it was first released two years ago, but now is being used as a blueprint for sweeping changes to the correctional system, including when and how inmates are released back into society.

Even for a Conservative put-up job, the report is a remarkable exercise in fun with figures.

In recommending statutory release be scrapped, for instance, the report noted that inmates released under the program in 2006 were responsible for 79% of all violent crimes committed by former prisoners, while representing only 35% of all those cut loose from jail, including regular parolees.

Terrifying

At first blush, it all sounds pretty terrifying, and the cure certainly fits perfectly into the Conservative narrative of making the streets safer by getting tough on crime.

As Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan put it recently: "The safety and protection of society must come first."

Now for a little reality check.

In 2007, roughly 60% of all those who left prison on statutory release finished the remaining third of their respective sentences without incident.

Another 30% were tossed back in the slammer for violating the strict rules imposed on their behaviour during their period of supervision, and another 8% committed non-violent offences.

In total, 1.9% committed violent offences.

While one violent offence is too many, statutory release is hardly unleashing a national crime wave, accounting for just over 100 such offences out of the more than 300,000 committed every year across the country.

Even so, if the Conservative government's public safety strategy were likely to cut that number, it would be worth doing.

But as study after study has shown over decades, however politically popular it may be to end early release of criminals from prison, the one thing it won't do is make our streets any safer.

It likely would make them a whole lot more dangerous.

The practice of early release with parole supervision was implemented in 1970 precisely as a public safety measure.

Before then, inmates were simply dumped on the streets after two-thirds of their sentences with no supervision of any kind.

In practice, the most likely result of the Harper government's proposed "reform" would be a return to the days of letting inmates loose on society with no supervision of any kind.

True, society would be temporarily protected from dangerous reoffenders forced to serve out the final third of their sentences.

But we are not talking about keeping the average convict behind bars for another 20 years here.

Government statistics show the average statutory release is about seven months.

The choice is clear: Release convicted criminals with a period of proper supervision, or keep them locked up an extra few months until the end of their sentences, and just let them loose.

Despite what Public Safety Minister Van Loan might have to say on the subject, his own department's website states the obvious.

"Research has shown that offenders do much better after their release if there is continued treatment and support in place to help them start a new life.

"People who stay in prison until the very end of their sentence and have no supervision in the community are at a much higher risk of committing another crime.

"The statistics on releases and repeat offences speak for the success of Canada's rehabilitation and community support programs."

Clarity is a great thing.

greg.weston@sunmedia.ca

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
Monday, September 28, 2009

A growing powerhouse marks 60th anniversary and reasserts its sovereignty amid worries from the United States

By ERIC MARGOLIS

Last Updated: 27th September 2009, 4:14am


Oct. 1 marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. A mammoth birthday fete will include China's largest ever military parade showcasing new weapons, and an Olympic-size gala. Efforts are even being made to improve the weather.

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates just warned China's growing military power "threatens our freedom of movement and narrows our strategic options."

Translation: the U.S. Seventh Fleet can no longer operate with impunity off China's coast. True enough. China is reasserting its historic sovereignty and will push U.S. power back into the Pacific.

I first went to China in 1975 during the madness of the Cultural Revolution. Over the ensuing three decades, I saw China transformed from a giant, dimly-lit prison camp into today's booming nation, which just surpassed Japan to become the world's second largest economy.

This is the most remarkable event I have seen in my life.

Much of the credit goes to China's late leader, Deng Xiaoping, one of the 20th century's greatest men.

He ended Marxist dogma, releasing the energy of his long-suffering people whose nation had been raped by western imperialism, then ravaged by brutal civil wars. Until 1800, China was a leading world power.

But a ghost will haunt this celebration: the Great Helmsman, Mao Zedong. What to make of him?

I have long struggled to understand Mao and felt conflicting emotions. Was he modern history's greatest revolutionary and earth-shaker, or a demented mass murderer who nearly destroyed China?

Chaos

Great times produce great men. Mao rose from the chaos of 1920s China to lead the new-found Communist Party. He fought Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists, an assortment of powerful regional warlords, and, later, the Japanese invaders.

China suffered some 15-20 million dead from 1928-1949.

Mao was an accomplished poet, writer and historian, a profound thinker, and a superb military strategist. His works on guerrilla war are on my desk. Mao crushed the U.S.-backed Nationalist's 4.3-million strong armies in numerous titanic battles.

Mao gave the Communists political and strategic direction. Below him were a group of outstanding generals -- the "Ten Marshals" -- among them Zhu De, Lin Piao, Peng Dehui, Chen Yi and Nie Rongzhen -- who crushed Chiang Kai-shek's armies.

The Great Helmsman united fractured, war-torn China for the first time in centuries, restoring its pride and self-confidence after a century of humiliation. Mao thwarted Soviets and U.S. efforts to turn China into a client state, and built up China's military power.

But Mao's crackpot economic notions, notably the infamous 1958 Great Leap Forward, created famines that killed 20-36 million Chinese peasants. "Red Emperor" Mao was prodigal with his people's lives, cared little for them, and was indifferent to their suffering.

Mao horrified even brutal Soviet leaders by saying he was prepared to lose half his people in a nuclear war.

When the party resisted Mao, he tried to destroy it by unleashing the Great Cultural Revolution that plunged China into chaos and civil war. China's brilliant, much under-rated premier, Zhou Enlai, curbed some of Mao's worst excess and rescued China by engineering Deng Xiaoping into power.

Gang of Four

Deng crushed far-left Maoists known as the Gang of Four, and restored order. His sweeping economic reforms revitalized China, unleashing its latent economic power. But Deng's great achievements -- and this week's huge birthday party in Beijing -- would not have been possible without Mao's unification of China and imposition of an all-powerful one-party state.

So, as with many Chinese, I'm uncertain how to qualify Mao. Like Stalin -- once called "half man, half beast" -- Mao appealed as much as he repelled.

Most Chinese now regard Mao as their nation's beloved, respected father -- but who went dangerously senile before his death in 1976. Old men's egos can be very dangerous.

I suspect as time goes by, Mao's misdeeds will fade away and the glowing image of the Great Helmsman will continue to hang over the gate of the Beijing's Forbidden City.

eric.margolis@sunmedia.ca

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
At the UN
Neil Macdonald
The strange, dark truths of Moammar Gadhafi
Last Updated: Friday, September 25, 2009 | 5:40 PM ET

I dread UN week. I can barely face it anymore.

Endless hours of self-important, flatulent, self-congratulatory orations, all delivered in front of that ugly, green marble backdrop.

Hell for a TV reporter: Ugly visuals, boring audio. And so it was again this week, mostly.

But when Libyan Leader Moammar Gadhafi — self-styled "dean of the Arab rulers, king of kings of Africa and the imam of Muslims" — made his way to the the podium, I sat up straight.

I just can't help admiring the guy's performances. I know he's been a vicious, dangerous SOB, whose agents have tortured, terrorized and slaughtered civilians.
Liyban Leader Moammar Gadhafi at the UN in September 2009. (Richard Drew/Associated Press)Liyban Leader Moammar Gadhafi at the UN in September 2009. (Richard Drew/Associated Press)

But then, as Gadhafi would say — as he did again this week — so have the Americans. Go ahead and argue with that.
Elvis is in the house

In all of his 40 years as Libya's president, Gadhafi has never addressed the UN. Most of the time, he's a recluse, living in a tent somewhere, dreaming up projects such as a Libyan-designed rocket car and a staggeringly expensive effort to roll back the Sahara desert.

So, clearly, he was pent up by the time he started talking this week. He went 90 minutes with a speech that was instantly declared a "diatribe" and "delusional rambling" by the herds of independent thinkers on U.S. cable networks.

Granted, some of it was pretty weird. Ruminations about JFK's assassin, about the swine flu as a military weapon and how the Taliban are a peaceful bunch. And so on.

But there was much that was serious, aimed at the Third World, which Gadhafi regards as his constituency.

Those portions should inspire at least some serious debate, and likely would have, had they not been delivered by a guy who drags his tent around the world and sometimes shows up at meetings in gold Elvis-style sunglasses, smoking cigars.
Political feudalism

First, he went after the Security Council, or, as Gadhafi called it, the "political feudalism" of the UN. He takes particular issue with the five permanent members, each of which has the power to veto the collective wishes of the rest of the world.

His point is not really arguable: These are five countries — the U.S., Britain, France, China and Russia — that effectively enjoy immunity from UN sanction or condemnation, simply because they can veto any such move.

They can accuse others of war crimes without ever having to worry about facing a similar charge themselves.

In his address, Gadhafi made the unrealistic, but to many people extremely appealing, suggestion that the Security Council should be a tool of the general membership, rather than the other way around.

Looking out at the General Assembly, Gadhafi mocked the sea of serious faces looking back at him.

"We are just décor," he said. "You are like Hyde Park. I mean, without any real substance, like the speakers of the Hyde Park corner. No more, no less. You make a speech and disappear."

Nervous laughter.
On a roll

He then turned his attention to the International Criminal Court, which is empowered by the UN to pursue and try national leaders for crimes against humanity (at least those national leaders who don't have Security Council vetoes or friends with vetoes).

"Yes," said Gadhafi, "Make it easy for (Sudanese President Omar) Bashir to be tried or (former Liberian president) Charles Taylor to be tried. Or (former Panamanian leader Manuel) Noriega. That is an easy job to be done."

(For the record, Noriega was grabbed by American forces in 1989, brought to the U.S. and imprisoned. Nothing to do with the ICC, and Noriega was never in the the same fiendish bracket as Taylor or Bashir. But Gadhafi was on a roll.)

"We want to take this file and we want to [charge] those who have committed the general mass murder against the Iraqi people."

By this he meant the people in Washington who ordered an invasion and bombing campaign six years ago, one that killed untold thousands of innocents, based on what turned out to be a false pretence, the fictitious weapons of mass destruction. You could hear crickets this time. Not even any nervous laughter.
A nose for hypocrisy

Now, granted, this was all coming from the man whose agents were found responsible for bombing a disco in Berlin and an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.

I'm not saying Gadhafi isn't a hypocrite. What I'm saying is that he is, in fact, such a hypocrite that he's developed an exquisite talent for identifying and exposing it elsewhere.

On nuclear non-proliferation, which he now applauds: "Do you [the UN inspectors] inspect the nuclear supplies of all? Do you supervise the increase of this nuclear storage?"

On the unwelcome flood of illegal African emigration to Europe: "Let [Africans] have the wealth that was looted and taken from us." Africa deserves trillions of dollars in compensation, he argued.

"If you don't give us this amount, the Africans will go to where you have taken these trillions. They have the right."

And to those American conservatives who constantly rag and complain about the cost and trouble and ineffectiveness of the UN, Gadhafi proposed a solution: Move it somewhere else.

It must be a terrorist target anyway, he declared, citing the extreme security of a UN week and the difficulties some foreign leaders have in obtaining the necessary U.S. visas for their support staff to travel with them to New York. (He himself had a retinue of more than 130.)

"I want to relieve America from the hardship. We want to relieve America from this worry. Now, after 50 years, it should be taken to another part of the hemisphere." Maybe Delhi, he suggested. Or Beijing.
Not many Arab friends either

Gadhafi might look eccentric, but this he knows: The one thing that would anger American conservatives even more than their usual complaints would be for the UN to pick another country as its headquarters.

But Americans shouldn't take his needling personally.

He drives other Arab leaders crazy, too, and that's how I came to appreciate him, after covering Arab League meetings from which Gadhafi regularly stormed out, usually after voicing a few choice truths.

"We hate each other, we wish ill of each other and our intelligence services conspire against each other," he told his Arab brothers last year. "We are our own enemy."

In 2005, he called the Palestinians "stupid," for failing to embrace the one-state-for-two-peoples solution that he promotes.

Other serious people have made the same suggestion, but Gadhafi wants to call it "Israstine," which he has to know won't fly with anyone. (He floated the notion again this week.)

He acknowledges the Holocaust, something almost every other Arab leader avoids or negates. But he always observes that it was carried out by Christians, while at least some Muslim states offered Jews sanctuary. He used that line this week, too.

This is an Arab leader whose speeches are often cut off by Arab networks, which know the sort of embarrassment he's capable of inflicting.

As when he calls other Arab leaders "tools" for striking self-interested deals with the West.

I remember him at one Arab League meeting, I think in Jordan, several years ago. He denounced the proceedings as ridiculous, as usual, and went out into the country to sit with the Bedouins.

It made him a bit of a hero on Jordanian streets, at least for the day.

Too bad he cancelled the Newfoundland trip. I'd have liked to see him try that sort of stunt there.

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
Ex-Bush officials face lawsuits
Tue, September 29, 2009

By Mark Sherman, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Former Attorney General John Ashcroft and one of his hardline lieutenants face the rare prospect of being held personally liable for alleged violations of individuals' rights in the aggressive aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, FILE)

WASHINGTON — High-ranking government officials are usually protected from claims that they violated a person’s civil rights. In lawsuits stemming from law enforcement and intelligence efforts after the Sept. 11 attacks, three federal courts have left open the possibility that former Attorney General John Ashcroft and a lieutenant may be held personally liable.

In two cases, judges appointed by Republican presidents have refused at an early stage to dismiss lawsuits that were filed against Ashcroft and former Justice Department official John Yoo. One complaint challenges Ashcroft’s strategy of preventive detention. The other seeks to hold Yoo accountable for legal memos he wrote supporting detention, interrogation and presidential power.

In a third case, the full federal appeals court in New York is reconsidering an earlier decision by three of its members to toss out a lawsuit by a man who was changing planes in the United States when he was mistaken for a terrorist and sent to Syria, where he claims he was tortured.

Senior officials are accustomed to having their actions in office judged by history, not the courts. Exposing them to legal risk might complicate recruitment as top prospects shun positions that could land them in personal trouble. It also could make officials think twice about aggressive use of executive authority.

The cases have been uncomfortable for the Obama administration, which inherited the task of representing Ashcroft and Yoo from the Bush administration, even though President Barack Obama opposed some of the homeland-security practices under his predecessor. As well, both the Obama and Bush administrations renounced some of Yoo’s legal positions.


Among the Yoo memos retracted was his Oct. 23, 2001, opinion that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches did not apply to domestic military operations aimed at terror suspects — so soldiers could enter and search homes without warrants in pursuit of terrorists.

The Obama administration has yet to spell out its views on when people may be detained because of suspected terrorism links but without evidence of criminal activity.

No attorney general has ever been held personally liable for official actions, said Yeshiva University law professor Alexander Reinert, who represents another post-9/11 detainee who is suing Ashcroft. Other federal officials, particularly at a lower level, have been held personally liable for their actions. It’s just very rare.

Supreme Court rulings allow high-ranking officials to be held liable but set a high bar: An official must be tied directly to a violation of constitutional rights and must have clearly understood the action crossed that line.

Even when officials are held personally liable, their agencies still may agree to pay damages assessed against them — unless there is blatant wrongdoing, like clear racial prejudice. And for many plaintiffs, the chance to saddle a top official with the shame of a court’s condemnation is more important than collecting cash from the officeholder.

Critics of George W. Bush’s administration see the recent actions of the courts as a chance to wring a measure of accountability from the Bush White House — at a time when Obama expresses reluctance to look backward and Congress has shown little appetite for investigating the past.

“It shows a willingness on the part of the courts to hold those who authorized illegal action responsible, not only those who carry it out,” said David Cole, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University.

But Ashcroft’s former chief spokesman, Mark Corallo, said there is good reason to protect officials from damages for actions they take in the course of their duties.

“People are not going to want to serve in government if they have to hire a battery of lawyers the minute they take their oath of office,” Corallo said.

Most lawsuits seeking personal liability of officials are dismissed early. Either a plaintiff hasn’t made a strong enough case or a judge finds the officeholder can’t be held liable for those official actions.

In these three cases, however, judges have considered arguments from both sides and still allowed the lawsuits to proceed — or, in the case of the man sent to Syria, are weighing the arguments now.

“This is frustrating for judges,” said Orin Kerr, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. “The law is not that clear and it’s hard to get rulings that clarify it.”

But Kerr said the Ashcroft case has enough important elements that it could be reviewed by the Supreme Court, where a ruling might clarify the law.

First, though, the Justice Department has to decide whether to appeal an early September ruling by a panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court said a Muslim U.S. citizen could pursue his lawsuit to hold Ashcroft personally liable for his arrest in 2003.

Less than two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, Ashcroft said the government would preventively detain people suspected of terrorist ties, even if it had no evidence they committed a crime.

To hold such people, Justice used material witness warrants, which until then had detained people to ensure they would appear in court and testify at a trial.

Abdullah al-Kidd was one of at least 70 people detained under the warrants, according to a study by civil liberties groups. Like many others, al-Kidd was never called to testify before a grand jury or in open court and was not charged with a crime.

Rejecting Ashcroft’s bid for immunity, Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. strongly criticized the use of material witness warrants for national security. “We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution,” Smith said in a 2-1 decision. Smith, appointed by Bush, was joined in the majority by a Ronald Reagan appointee.

Cole called the ruling an important challenge to the “core strategy of preventive detention.” He said the issue remains relevant because Obama has kept open the possibility of holding terrorist suspects without charge.

The Justice Department is appealing the ruling against Yoo, a lawyer in the department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco, also named by Bush, seemed to question whether the Bush administration overstepped the bounds set by the Constitution.

In allowing the case to go forward, he wrote, “This lawsuit poses the question addressed by our Founding Fathers about how to strike the proper balance of fighting a war against terror, at home and abroad, and fighting a war using tactics of terror.”

The full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to issue its opinion in the case of Maher Arar, who claims he was tortured after being sent to Syria. Arar is suing Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and others in their official and personal capacities.

When the New York-based court heard the argument in December, one judge voiced skepticism that the government and individual officials always could avoid liability in such cases.

“So the minute the executive raises the spectre of foreign policy, national security, it is the government’s position that that is a license to torture anyone, a U.S. citizen or foreign citizen — license meaning that you can do so without any financial consequence?” the judge asked.

The judge was Sonia Sotomayor, now Supreme Court justice. She withdrew from the case after Obama nominated her to the high court earlier this year.

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
Crude sad, shocking

Ecuador vs. Big Oil in excellent documentary

By LIZ BRAUN, SUN MEDIA

Last Updated: 9th October 2009, 4:30am


Looking for another reason to leave your car at home?

Go see Crude.

The people of the Ecuadorean Amazon vs. Chevron/Texaco is a lawsuit that's been on-going for 16 years, and Crude is an inside look at this David and Goliath struggle. (It's sometimes called the Amazon Chernobyl case.)

This is an environmental documentary about what it means to people and places to take oil out of the ground, and what it seems to mean is polluted water, contaminated soil, cancers, skin diseases and the loss of entire indigenous populations.

Crude begins with a close focus on the Ecuadorean people who live in areas affected by the presence of Texaco. A Cofan woman sings of the death and destruction that has befallen her people; a man explains that life for the Cofan people is tied to the water, and that two of his children have died from exposure to that water.

There are thousands of square miles of Ecuadorean rain forest that have been polluted by oil mining, and the film does not shy away from showing footage of destruction, human or otherwise. It is estimated that a billion gallons of contaminant have poured into the land and water here.

Pablo Fajardo is the Ecuadorian lawyer who fights for the local populace in their fight against Texaco. (He was featured in the Vanity Fair Green issue of April, 2007, which has Leonardo DiCaprio on the cover.) Fajardo is an intense, articulate man who worked in the oil fields when he was 14. He witnessed for himself environmental disasters and injustice against the locals. He grew up in Shushufindi, where old oil pools are easy to find, and at one point the movie visits his brother's grave in that community. Fajardo says his brother was murdered, that there could be a connection to the lawsuit, and that he believes he himself was the intended victim.

Filmmaker Joe Berlinger (Brother's Keeper) does not neglect to show the Texaco side of this argument, but you can certainly tell whose side he's on. The movie goes from Ecuador to the United States and to England as momentum picks up on the lawsuit. The American lawyer worries that there has been very little media exposure for the situation, but once people such as Trudie Styler and Sting get involved, the level of attention from the rest of the world increases.

And the election of President Correa doesn't hurt.

Crude has an edge-of-your-seat quality that's more thriller than documentary, and Berlinger manages to convey the life or death urgency of the Ecuadorean situation. This is, in many ways, a shocking film, and Berlinger's ability to connect the global dots is impressive.

It's not surprising to see how matters are eventually settled in Crude, but the film makes it clear that nobody has won anything yet. It is estimated that corporate stalling techniques and similar activities will mean another 10 years of litigation.

Crude is at the Bloor Cinema.

---

CRUDE

1 Hour, 45 Minutes

Director

Joe Berlinger

Sun Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
the 3 latest from Sun Columnist Eric Margolis (as of Oct 9, 2009): Insider Current Events from around the world

ISTANBUL -- The most violent storms in 80 years deluged this city of 12 million last week, leaving 31 dead. Bad as it was, even fiercer political storms are raging in Turkey. Thirty-three members of a neo-fascist group called Ergenekon have been on trial accused of murder, terrorism and trying to overthrow the elected government. The courthouse was flooded out.

Turks are gripped by this mysterious affair. It is laying bare the working of the "deep state," a powerful cabal of retired military officers, security forces, gangsters, government officials, judges and business oligarchs. Turkey's military denies any links to Ergenekon.

The "deep state" advocates extreme Turkish nationalism and pan-Turkism. Its far right wing members are bitterly anti-Islamic and violently oppose any admission of guilt for the 1915 mass killing of the Ottoman Empire's Armenians. They also oppose improving relations with Armenia or Greece.

Ergenekon's plotters stand accused of plans to assassinate officials of PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), a democratic, modernizing movement advocating Islamic principles of fairer wealth distribution and social welfare. The plotters reportedly hired hit men to kill leading liberal intellectuals, including acclaimed writer Orhan Pamuk and may have murdered a prominent Armenian-Turkish journalist and three Christians. They oppose Turkey's entry into the EU or more rights for the sizeable Kurdish minority.

UNDERGROUND

What makes this case particularly interesting is that Ergenekon may well be linked to Gladio, a secret, far right underground group created by the U.S. and NATO during the Cold War as "stay behind" guerrillas to resist Soviet invasion or Communist takeovers.

Gladio had a network of agents and caches of arms across Europe and secret links to the Italian military and other NATO intelligence services.

Gladio staged numerous bombing attacks and assassinations during the 1970s and '80s in an effort to promote far right coups in Italy, Belgium and Turkey, where it remains active. A cell was even recently uncovered in Switzerland.

The Ergenekon plot is one facet of the intense struggle between Erdogan's Islamist-lite reformists and Turkey's 510,000-man armed forces which sees itself as defender of the anti-Muslim, westernized secular state created in the 1930s by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of modern Turkey.

Turkey's right wing generals, who are very close to the U.S. and Israel, have overthrown or ousted four elected governments. Until PM Erdogan's election, the military was Turkey's real government. Squabbling politicians were only a democratic facade. Turkey's generals were allied to a deeply entrenched oligarchy of reactionary business barons, judges, university rectors, media groups and the security services.

An intensifying struggle is underway between the two camps. On the surface, it's "secularism" versus "Islamic government." But that's just shorthand for the fierce rivalry between the military-industrial-security complex and Erdogan's supporters, many of whom are recent immigrants to the big cities from rural areas, where the Muslim faith remains vital in spite of eight decades of government efforts to stamp it out or tightly control it.

Right wing forces recently got allies in the Appeals Court to lay spurious corruption charges against Turkey's respected President Abdullah Gul. The Erdogan government struck back by levying a $2.5 billion US tax fine on the powerful Dogan media conglomerate that has been a leading critic and enemy of the prime minister.

Both foolish acts injure Turkey's image as a modern democracy.

Erdogan has been Turkey's best, most popular prime minister. He has led Turkey into important political, social, legal and economic reforms and has drawn Turks closer to Europe's laws and values. He stabilized Turkey's formerly wild finances and brought a spirit of real democracy to Turkey. The EU keeps warning Turkey's generals to keep out of politics.

Europe wants an obedient Turkey to protect its eastern flank, not a partner. After 50 years of trying, Turkey still can't get into the EU. Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and France's Nicolas Sarkozy, both leaders of Europe's anti-Muslim right, keep politely saying no more Muslims in the EU.

ERIC.MARGOLIS@SUNMEDIA.CA

NEW YORK -- The U.S., Britain and France staged a bravura performance of political theatre last week by claiming to have just "discovered" a secret Iran uranium enrichment plant near Qum. On cue, a carefully orchestrated media blitz trumpeted warnings of the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and "long-ranged missiles."

In reality, the Qum plant was detected by U.S. spy satellites over two years ago, and was known to the intelligence community. Iran claimed the plant will not begin enriching uranium for peaceful power for another 540 days. UN nuclear rules, to which Iran adheres, calls for 180 days notice.

UN nuclear watchdogs say Iran should have revealed the plant earlier. Iran alerted the UN last week and said it would invite inspectors.

The reluctance of Iran to reveal its nuclear sites is magnified by constant threats of attack against them by Israel and the U.S. Iran also recalls Iraq, where many of the UN "nuclear inspectors" were likely spies for CIA or Israel's Mossad. This may explain some of Iran's secretive behaviour. The U.S., Britain, France and Israel have been even less forthcoming about their nuclear secrets.

Iran's test of some useless short ranged missiles, and an inaccurate 2,000-km medium ranged Shahab-3, provoked more hysteria. In a choice example of media scaremongering, the Globe and Mail printed a picture of a 1960s vintage SAM-2 anti-aircraft missile being launched, with a caption of Prime Minister Stephen Harper warning of the "grave threat" Iran posed to "international peace and security."

Welcome to Iraq deja vu, and another phony crisis. U.S. intelligence and UN inspectors say Iran has no nuclear weapons and certainly no nuclear warheads and is only enriching uranium to 5%. Nuclear weapons require 95%. Iran's nuclear facilities are under constant UN inspection and U.S. surveillance.

The U.S., its allies, and Israel insist Iran is secretly developing nuclear warheads. They demand Tehran prove a negative: That is has no nuclear weapons. Iraq was also put to the same impossible test.

Israel is deeply alarmed by Iran's challenge to its Mideast nuclear monopoly. Chances of an Israeli attack on Iran are growing weekly, though the U.S. is still restraining Israel.

The contrived uproar about the Qum plant was a ploy to intensify pressure on Iran to cease nuclear enrichment -- though it has every right to do so under international agreements. More pressure will be applied at this week's meeting near Geneva between the Western powers and Iran.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, poured fuel on the fire, again questioning the Holocaust and staging the ostentatious launch of missiles with little military value.

Why did Ahmadinejad antagonize the West and act belligerent when he should be taking a very low profile? Why would Iran face devastating Israeli or U.S. attack to keep enriching uranium when it can import such fuel from Russia?

Civilian nuclear power has become the keystone of Iranian national pride. As noted in my new book, American Raj, Iran's leadership insists the West has denied the Muslim world modern technology and tries to keep it backwards and subservient. Tehran believes it can withstand all western sanctions.

Iran appears to be very slowly developing a "breakout" capability to produce a small number of nuclear weapons on short notice -- for defensive purposes. Iraq's invasion of Iran cost Iran one million casualties. Iran demands the same right of nuclear self defence enjoyed by neighbours Israel, India and Pakistan.

Real solution

What Iran really wants is an end to 30-years of U.S. efforts to overthrow its Islamic regime. The U.S. is still waging economic warfare against Iran and trying to overthrow the Tehran government. Like North Korea, Iran wants explicit guarantees from Washington that this siege warfare will stop and relations with the U.S. will be normalized.

As Flynt and Hillary Leverett conclude in their excellent, must-read Sept. 29 New York Times article, detente with Iran will be bitterly opposed by "those who attach value to failed policies that have damaged America's interests in the Middle East ... "

eric.margolis@sunmedia.ca

Oct. 1 marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. A mammoth birthday fete will include China's largest ever military parade showcasing new weapons, and an Olympic-size gala. Efforts are even being made to improve the weather.

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates just warned China's growing military power "threatens our freedom of movement and narrows our strategic options."

Translation: the U.S. Seventh Fleet can no longer operate with impunity off China's coast. True enough. China is reasserting its historic sovereignty and will push U.S. power back into the Pacific.

I first went to China in 1975 during the madness of the Cultural Revolution. Over the ensuing three decades, I saw China transformed from a giant, dimly-lit prison camp into today's booming nation, which just surpassed Japan to become the world's second largest economy.

This is the most remarkable event I have seen in my life.

Much of the credit goes to China's late leader, Deng Xiaoping, one of the 20th century's greatest men.

He ended Marxist dogma, releasing the energy of his long-suffering people whose nation had been raped by western imperialism, then ravaged by brutal civil wars. Until 1800, China was a leading world power.

But a ghost will haunt this celebration: the Great Helmsman, Mao Zedong. What to make of him?

I have long struggled to understand Mao and felt conflicting emotions. Was he modern history's greatest revolutionary and earth-shaker, or a demented mass murderer who nearly destroyed China?

Chaos

Great times produce great men. Mao rose from the chaos of 1920s China to lead the new-found Communist Party. He fought Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists, an assortment of powerful regional warlords, and, later, the Japanese invaders.

China suffered some 15-20 million dead from 1928-1949.

Mao was an accomplished poet, writer and historian, a profound thinker, and a superb military strategist. His works on guerrilla war are on my desk. Mao crushed the U.S.-backed Nationalist's 4.3-million strong armies in numerous titanic battles.

Mao gave the Communists political and strategic direction. Below him were a group of outstanding generals -- the "Ten Marshals" -- among them Zhu De, Lin Piao, Peng Dehui, Chen Yi and Nie Rongzhen -- who crushed Chiang Kai-shek's armies.

The Great Helmsman united fractured, war-torn China for the first time in centuries, restoring its pride and self-confidence after a century of humiliation. Mao thwarted Soviets and U.S. efforts to turn China into a client state, and built up China's military power.

But Mao's crackpot economic notions, notably the infamous 1958 Great Leap Forward, created famines that killed 20-36 million Chinese peasants. "Red Emperor" Mao was prodigal with his people's lives, cared little for them, and was indifferent to their suffering.

Mao horrified even brutal Soviet leaders by saying he was prepared to lose half his people in a nuclear war.

When the party resisted Mao, he tried to destroy it by unleashing the Great Cultural Revolution that plunged China into chaos and civil war. China's brilliant, much under-rated premier, Zhou Enlai, curbed some of Mao's worst excess and rescued China by engineering Deng Xiaoping into power.

Gang of Four

Deng crushed far-left Maoists known as the Gang of Four, and restored order. His sweeping economic reforms revitalized China, unleashing its latent economic power. But Deng's great achievements -- and this week's huge birthday party in Beijing -- would not have been possible without Mao's unification of China and imposition of an all-powerful one-party state.

So, as with many Chinese, I'm uncertain how to qualify Mao. Like Stalin -- once called "half man, half beast" -- Mao appealed as much as he repelled.

Most Chinese now regard Mao as their nation's beloved, respected father -- but who went dangerously senile before his death in 1976. Old men's egos can be very dangerous.

I suspect as time goes by, Mao's misdeeds will fade away and the glowing image of the Great Helmsman will continue to hang over the gate of the Beijing's Forbidden City.

eric.margolis@sunmedia.ca

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
Comment Columnists / Eric Margolis
Americans pull strings in Afghan election

By ERIC MARGOLIS

Last Updated: 26th October 2009, 9:19am


Henry Kissinger once observed that being America's ally can be more dangerous than being its enemy.

Take poor Hamid Karzai, the amiable former business consultant and CIA "asset" installed by Washington as Afghanistan's president. As the U.S. increasingly gets its backside kicked in Afghanistan, it has blamed the powerless Karzai for its woes and bumbling.

You can almost hear Washington rebuking, "Bad puppet! Bad puppet!"

The U.S. Congressional Research service just revealed it costs a staggering $1.3 million per annum to keep an American soldier in Afghanistan. Costs for Canadian troops are likely similar. This huge expense can't go on forever.

The U.S. government has wanted to dump Karzai, but could not find an equally obedient but more effective replacement. There was talk of imposing an American "chief executive officer" on him. Or, in the lexicon of the old British Raj, an Imperial Viceroy.

Washington finally decided to try to shore up Karzai's regime and give it some legitimacy by staging national elections in August. The UN, which has increasingly become an arm of U.S. foreign policy, was brought in to make the vote kosher. Canada eagerly joined this charade.

No political parties were allowed to run. Only individuals supporting the West's occupation of Afghanistan were allowed on the ballot.

Occupation army

The vote was conducted under the guns of a foreign occupation army -- a clear violation of international law. The U.S. funded the election commission and guarded polling places from a discreet distance. The Soviets were much more subtle when they rigged Afghan elections.

As I wrote before the election, it was all a great big fraud within a larger fraud designed to fool American, Canadian and European voters into believing democracy had flowered in Afghanistan. Cynical Afghans knew the vote would be rigged. Most Pashtun, the nation's ethnic majority, didn't vote. The "election" was an embarrassing fiasco.

To no surprise, Washington's man in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, won. But his supporters went overboard in stuffing ballot boxes to avoid a possible runoff with rival Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, another American ally. The Karzai and Abdullah camps were bitterly feuding over division of U.S. aid and drug money that has totally corrupted Afghanistan.

The vote was discredited, thwarting the Obama administration's plans to use the election as justification for sending more troops to Afghanistan. The White House's Plan B: Forcing its two feuding "assets," Karzai and Abdullah, into a coalition. But two puppets on a string are no better than one.

Washington just arm-twisted Karzai into agreeing to a run-off vote that will likely be as bogus as the last one. In Afghanistan, ethnicity and tribe trump everything else. Karzai is a Pashtun, but has almost no roots in tribal politics.

The suave Abdullah, who is also in Washington's pocket, is half Pashtun, half Tajik. But he is seen as a Tajik who speaks for this ethnic minority which detests and scorns the majority Pashtun. Tajiks will vote for Abdullah, Pashtun will not. If the U.S. manages to force Abdullah into a coalition with Karzai, Pashtun -- 55% of the population -- won't back the new regime which many Afghans will see as western yes-men and Tajik-dominated.

Abdullah also has some very unsavoury friends from the north: Former Afghan Communist Party bigwigs Mohammed Fahim and Uzbek warlord Rashid Dostam -- both major war criminals. Behind them stand the Tajik Northern Alliance and resurrected Afghan Communist Party, both funded by Russia and backed by Iran and India.

Ironically, the U.S. is now closely allied with the Afghan Communists and fighting its former Pashtun allies from the 1980s anti-Soviet struggle. Most North Americans have no idea they are now backing Afghan Communists and the men who control most of Afghanistan's booming drug trade.

If Hamid Karzai really wants to establish himself as an authentic national leader, he should demand the U.S. and NATO withdraw their occupation forces and let Afghans settle their own disputes in traditional ways.

eric.margolis@sunmedia.ca

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
Comment Columnists / Eric Margolis
War next door creates havoc in Pakistan

By ERIC MARGOLIS

Last Updated: 18th October 2009, 2:31am


Pakistan, increasingly destabilized by the U.S.-led war in neighbouring Afghanistan, is getting closer to blowing apart.

Bombings and shootings have rocked this nation of 167 million, including a brazen attack on army HQ in Rawalpindi and a massive bombing of Peshawar's exotic Khyber Bazaar.

Pakistan's army is readying a major offensive against rebellious Pashtun tribes in South Waziristan. Meanwhile, the feeble, deeply unpopular U.S.-installed government in Islamabad faces an increasingly rancorous confrontation with the military.

Like the proverbial bull in the china shop, the Obama administration and U.S. Congress chose this explosive time to try to impose yet another layer of American control over Pakistan as Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama appears about to send thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

Tragically, U.S. policy in the Muslim world continues to be driven by imperial arrogance, profound ignorance, and special interest groups.

The current Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, advanced with President Barack Obama's blessing, is ham-handed dollar diplomacy at its worst. Pakistan, bankrupted by corruption and feudal landlords, is being offered $7.5 billion US over five years -- but with outrageous strings attached.

The U.S. wants to build a mammoth new embassy for 1,000 personnel in Islamabad, the second largest after its Baghdad fortress-embassy. New personnel are needed, claims Washington, to monitor the $7.5 billion in aid. So U.S. mercenaries are being brought in to protect U.S. "interests." New U.S. bases will open. Most of this new aid will go right into the pockets of the pro-western ruling establishment, about 1% of the population.

Washington is also demanding veto power over promotions in Pakistan's armed forces and intelligence agency, ISI. This crude attempt to take control of Pakistan's proud, 617,000-man military has enraged the armed forces.

It's all part of Washington's "AfPak" strategy to clamp tighter control over restive Pakistan and make use of its armed forces and spies in Afghanistan. Seizing control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the key to its national defence against much more powerful India, is the other key U.S. objective.

However, 90% of Pakistanis oppose the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, and see Taliban and its allies as national resistance to western occupation.

Violence

Alarmingly, violent attacks on Pakistan's government are coming not only from once-autonomous Pashtun tribes (wrongly called "Taliban") in Northwest Frontier Province, but, increasingly, in the biggest province, Punjab. Recently, the U.S. Ambassador in Islamabad, in a fit of imperial hubris, actually called for air attacks on Pashtun leaders in Quetta, capital of Pakistan's restive Baluchistan province.

Washington does not even bother to ask the impotent Islamabad government's permission to launch air attacks inside Pakistan.

Along comes the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Big Bribe as most irate Pakistanis accuse President Asif Ali Zardari's government of being American hirelings. Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto, has been dogged for decades by charges of corruption. His senior aides in Pakistan and Washington are being denounced by what's left of Pakistan's media not yet under government control.

Washington seems unaware of the fury its crude, counter-productive policies have whipped up in Pakistan. The Obama administration keeps listening to Washington-based neoconservatives, military hawks, and "experts" who tell it just what it wants to hear, not the facts. Ottawa does the same.

Revolt

As a result, Pakistan's military, the nation's premier institution, is being pushed to the point of revolt. Against the backdrop of bombings and shootings come rumours the heads of Pakistan's armed forces and intelligence may be replaced.

Pakistanis are calling for the removal of the Zardari regime's strongman, Interior Minister Rehman Malik. Many clamour for the head of Pakistan's ambassador in Washington, my old friend Hussain Haqqani, who is seen as too close to the Americans. One suspects the wily Haqqani is also angling to get the U.S. to help him become Pakistan's next leader.

The possibility of a military coup against the discredited Zardari regime grows. But Pakistan is dependent on U.S. money, and fears India. Can its generals afford to break with patron Washington?

eric.margolis@sunmedia.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bomb rips through Pakistani market killing 91
Riaz Khan THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published 17 minutes ago

Men stand in front of a building after a bomb explosion in Peshawar, located in Pakistan's restive North West Frontier Province, Oct. 28, 2009.
REUTERS

PESHAWAR–A car bomb tore through a busy market in northwestern Pakistan on Wednesday, killing 91 people as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited the country and pledged American support for its campaign against Islamist militants.

More than 200 people were wounded in the blast in the main northwestern city of Peshawar, the deadliest in a surge of attacks this month. The government blamed militants seeking to avenge an army offensive launched this month against al-Qaida and Taliban in their stronghold close to the Afghan border.

The bomb destroyed much of a market selling bangles, dresses and toys that was popular with women and children.

It collapsed buildings, including a mosque, and set shops on fire in an old part of the city crisscrossed with narrow alleys and clogged with stalls. Wounded people sat amid burning debris and body parts as a huge plume of grey smoke rose above the city.

Crying for help, men grabbed at the wreckage, trying to pull out survivors trapped beneath. One two-story building collapsed as firefighters doused it with water, triggering more panic.

"There was a deafening sound and I was like a blind man for a few minutes," said Mohammad Usman, who was wounded in the shoulder. ``I heard women and children crying and started to help others. There was the smell of human flesh in the air."

Clinton, on her first visit to Pakistan as secretary of state, was a three-hour drive away in the capital, Islamabad, when the blast took place. Speaking to reporters, she praised the army's anti-Taliban offensive in South Waziristan and offered U.S. support.

"I want you to know this fight is not Pakistan's alone," Clinton said. "These extremists are committed to destroying what is dear to us as much as they are committed to destroying that which is dear to you and to all people. So this is our struggle as well."

Appearing with her, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said the violence would not break his government's will to fight back.

"The resolve and determination will not be shaken," Qureshi said. "People are carrying out such heinous crimes – they want to shake our resolve. I want to address them: We will not buckle. We will fight you. We will fight you because we want peace and stability in Pakistan."

No group claimed responsibility for the bombing, but that is not unusual, especially when the victims are Pakistani civilians. Sahib Gul, a doctor at a nearby hospital, said 91 people were killed and more than 200 injured. Many of the victims were women and children.

Three bombs have exploded in Peshawar this month, including another one that killed more than 50 people, part of a barrage of at least 10 major attacks across the country that have killed some 250 people. Most have targeted security forces, but some bombs have gone off in public places, apparently to undercut support for the army's assault on the border and expose the weakness of the government.

The Taliban have warned Pakistan that they would stage more attacks if the army does not end a new ground offensive in the South Waziristan tribal region, where the military has dispatched some 30,000 troops to flush out insurgents. South Waziristan is a major base for the Pakistani Taliban and other foreign militants.

North West Frontier Province Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain blamed the militants for Wednesday's attack.

"We are hitting them at their centre of terrorism, and they are hitting back targeting Peshawar," he said. "This is a tough time for us. We are picking up the bodies of our women and children, but we will follow these terrorists and eliminate them."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Taliban storm UN house in Kabul killing 12
Amir Shah,Rahim Faiez THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published 56 minutes ago

KABUL–Taliban militants wearing suicide vests and police uniforms stormed a guest house used by UN staff in the heart of the Afghan capital early Wednesday, killing 12 people – including six UN staff. It was the biggest in a series of attacks intended to undermine next month's presidential runoff election.

One of the six UN dead was an American, the U.S. Embassy said. A Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility for the early morning assaults, which also included rocket attacks at the presidential palace and the city's main luxury hotel.

The chief of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, said the attack "will not deter the UN from continuing all its work" in the country.

The attack on the guest house sent people running and screaming outside, with some jumping out upper-story windows to escape a fire that broke out. One American man said he held off the assailants with a Kalashnikov rifle until guests were able to escape.

One rocket struck the "outer limit" of the presidential palace but caused no casualties, presidential spokesman Humayun Hamidzada said. Two more rockets slammed into the grounds of the Serena Hotel, which is favored by many foreigners.

One failed to explode but filled the hotel lobby with smoke, forcing guests and employees to flee to the basement, according to an Afghan witness who asked that his name not be used for security reasons.

President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack as "an inhuman act" and called on the army and police to strengthen security around all international institutions.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid claimed responsibility for the attacks in a telephone call to The Associated Press, saying three militants with suicide vests, grenades and machine guns carried out the guest house assault.

He said three days ago that the Taliban issued a statement threatening anyone working on the Nov. 7 runoff election between Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah.

"This is our first attack," he said.

An official with the UN election team said that the guest house was home to the largest concentration of UN election workers in the city. The official, who was not authorized to speak to the press so spoke anonymously, did not give a specific number of election workers staying there, but said it was around 20.

Interior Ministry officials said the attackers were wearing old-style police uniforms, which are available in markets. In the southern city of Kandahar, security officials also warned international organizations to be alert to possible suicide attacks.

U.N. spokesman Adrian Edwards said six UN staff were killed and nine other UN employees were wounded in the assault, which began about dawn in the Shar-e-Naw area of the city. Terrified guests fled the building during the assault – some screaming for help and others jumping from upper floors as flames engulfed part of the three-story building.

Afghan police and UN officials said 12 people in all were killed, including the UN staff, three attackers, two security guards and an Afghan civilian. The bodies of the attackers were taken out of the house and sent for autopsies, said Gul Mohammad, an officer at the scene.

It was not immediately known how the victims were killed or how the fire started, but witnesses said they heard prolonged gunfire ringing from the house before police arrived at the scene. It also was not immediately clear whether there were any other attackers besides the three killed.

Police were seen pulling the charred body of what appeared to be a woman from a second-floor bedroom. One officer carried an injured German man by piggyback away from the scene.

Terrified guests scrambled over the roof or jumped from windows to escape.

John Turner, a trucking contractor from Kansas City, Mo., said he held off attackers with a Kalashnikov until a group of guests escaped through the laundry room. Miles Robertson, an Australian working as an election adviser, said he and his wife put wet towels over their faces and fled when the room next door caught fire.

Edwards said officials were trying to account for several other UN workers who were staying at the guest house. He did not know their nationalities but said they were non-Afghans.

"This has clearly been a very serious incident for us,'' Edwards said. "We've not had an incident like this in the past.''

Edwards said the UN would have to evaluate "what this means for our work in Afghanistan." The Aug. 19, 2003, truck bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad, which killed 22 people, prompted the UN to pull out of Iraq for several years.

A security guard, Noor Allah, said he saw a woman screaming for help in English from a second-story window and watched as terrified guests leapt from windows. Afghan police using ladders rescued at least one wounded foreigner.

Afghans are to vote Nov. 7 in a second-round election after U.N.-backed auditors threw out nearly a third of Karzai's votes from the Aug. 20 ballot, determining widespread fraud. That pushed Karzai's totals below the 50 per cent threshold needed for a first-round victory in the 36-candidate field.

The Taliban has warned Afghans to stay away from the polls or risk attacks. Dozens of people were killed in Taliban attacks during the August balloting, helping drive down turnout.

Mir Ahmed Formoly, 64, who lives near the guest house, said he heard the commotion and went outside where he saw muzzle flashes in the early morning light.

"I was so scared," he said. "I went back inside the house.''

He said gunfire and explosions lasted about two hours, punctuated by shouts and screams.

Mohammad Ayub, a shopkeeper who lives a few doors down from the attacked house, said he heard gunfire shortly before dawn. He assumed at first that it was an attack on a house belonging to relatives of President Karzai nearby, then saw that it was a different building.

"It was early morning, but I didn't have a watch on to know when. It was dark. Shooting started around this private guest house. I heard some shouts coming from inside the house," Ayub said.

"I heard 'Boom! Boom!' several times. The fighting went on inside for about 10 or 15 minutes before the police came," he said.

The guest house attack was the third major assault in the capital in recent weeks.

On Oct. 8, a suicide car bomber detonated his vehicle outside the Indian Embassy, killing 17 people – mostly civilians – and wounding at least 76 more. The Afghan Foreign Ministry hinted at Pakistani involvement – a charge Pakistan denied.

On Sept. 17, a suicide car bomber killed six Italian soldiers and 10 Afghan civilians on one of Kabul's main roadways.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakistani troops kill 42 militants in latest offensive
Asif Shahzad THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published On Tue Oct 27 2009

A Pakistani police officer chases down a mob of displaced tribal people at a relief goods distribution center in Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan on Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan pressed an offensive deeper into Taliban territory along the Afghan border Tuesday, claiming to have killed 42 militants in the latest stage of an assault seen as crucial in defeating extremism in the nuclear-armed country.

The assault into South Waziristan's unforgiving mountains has triggered a bloody backlash from militants, who are determined to bring the war out of the remote, northwestern region and into the country's cities in hopes of eroding public and political support.

In the capital Islamabad, gunmen attacked a high-ranking Pakistani army officer in the second targeted shooting against top military brass in less than a week. The army officer, and his mother who was travelling with him, escaped unhurt.

The fight in South Waziristan is seen as a major test of Pakistan's will and ability to tackle the northwestern strongholds of al-Qaida-allied extremists. The army already has been beaten back from the region three times since 2004.

Pakistan has been criticized in the past for not cracking down on Islamist militant groups it once nurtured as proxies to fight in India and Afghanistan. It remains unclear whether the army has committed enough troops to the current campaign to hold the territory it is seizing.

An army statement said troops were progressing well on three fronts in South Waziristan, but were meeting resistance.

It said that over the last 24 hours, 42 militants and one solider had been killed. Since the assault began, the army claims to have killed 231 insurgents and lost 29 soldiers. It has given no figures for civilian casualties, but those fleeing have said they have also occurred.

Independent verification of army claims in the region is all but impossible because the military has blocked access for journalists and humanitarian workers.

On Tuesday in Islamabad, gunmen attacked an army brigadier, equivalent to a brigadier general in the U.S. Army, as he was driving to a bank in a residential area. Muhammad Imran, who runs a business nearby, said he saw a young man take out a weapon from beneath his shawl and unleash a hail of bullets as the car slowed down for a speed bump.

"He was firing relentlessly. He was targeting the front seat of the car," Imran said.

Another young man on a motorcycle then appeared and the two sped away, Imran said.

Senior police officer Bin Yamin said the army officer, who was not identified, was not in uniform but was driving a government car.

Last Thursday, gunmen on a motorcycle fired on an army jeep in Islamabad, killing a brigadier and a soldier in what was believed to be the first assassination of an army officer in the capital.

Militant attacks in Pakistan have surged this month, killing more than 200 people.

The army has deployed some 30,000 troops to South Waziristan against an estimated 12,000 militants, including up to 1,500 foreign fighters, among them Uzbeks and Arabs. The U.N. says some 155,000 civilians have fled the region.

Meanwhile, authorities announced the arrest of previously unknown man they described as the head of the Pakistani Taliban in Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province.

Qari Ishtiaq was detained in Bahawalpur, a city in the Punjab closely associated with a militant group once harnessed by the state to attack targets in India, said Mian Mohammad Mushtaq, the head of the civil administration in Bahawalpur district.

Authorities had not previously named Qari Ishtiaq in public as a suspected militant leader.

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
Comment Columnists / Eric Margolis
'Russian King Lear' did the world a huge favour

By ERIC MARGOLIS

Last Updated: 8th November 2009, 7:23am


PARIS -- Twenty years ago this week, crowds forced open the hated Berlin Wall, Communist East Germany collapsed, and the once mighty Soviet empire began to crumble.

This was one of modern history's most dramatic and dangerous moments. No one knew if the dying Soviet Union would expire peacefully, or ignite World War III.

In 1975, Andrei Sakharov and a group of leading Soviet academicians had warned the Kremlin that unless ruinous defence spending was slashed and funds refocused on modernizing the industrial base, the Soviet Union would collapse by 1990.

In November 1989, the empire built by Stalin was on its last legs. The U.S.S.R. had 50,000 battle tanks and 30,000 nuclear warheads, but could not feed its people. Military spending consumed 20% of the economy.

Afghanistan's mujahedeen were defeating the mighty Red Army. The Poles, secretly funded by Pope John Paul II and the CIA, had risen in revolt. So too Hungarians, Lithuanians, and East Germans.

Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev had to make a fateful decision: Allow events to take their course, or order the Red Army and KGB to crush the spreading uprisings -- and run the risk of war with NATO.

Unlike his brutal Soviet predecessors, Gorbachev was a man of profound moral values, a genuine humanist and idealist who believed he could reform the U.S.S.R. through democratic socialism. He refused to use force.

But once fear of repression was removed, the Soviet Union, a nation of 120 languages, shattered. Gorbachev could not control the ensuing whirlwind his reforms had sown. Today, most Russians revile Gorbachev for wrecking the Soviet Union. The sinister Communist era, including Stalin's monstrous crimes, are being sugar-coated with nostalgia.

In truth, the Soviet Union was history's most brutal, murderous tyranny that killed three times more victims than Hitler. Gorbachev did the world a huge favour.

For me, Gorbachev was one of the greatest men of our time. He put international law, basic humanity, and civilized behaviour before the demands of brute power. We must also salute Gorbachev's chief lieutenant, former Georgian KGB chief and Soviet foreign minister, Eduard Schevardnadze, who urged total decommunization and disarmament. Later, as president of independent Georgia, he was overthrown -- ironically -- by a U.S.-organized revolution.

Gorbachev purged hardliners from the Soviet military-industrial complex, vetoed an anti-missile system, sharply downsized the Soviet military, and wisely ended the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

But when Gorbachev sensibly sought total nuclear disarmament, president Ronald Reagan, obsessed by the unworkable Star Wars anti-missile project, refused Russia's offer that would have eliminated all nuclear weapons and missiles.

Other courageous Russian reformers who helped end the Cold War deserve to be remembered: Anatoly Chernayev; Georgi Shakhnazarov; Alexander Yakovlev, former ambassador to Canada; and Gorbachev's brave, cerebral wife and confidante, Raisa.

Germany's chancellor Helmut Kohl and U.S. president George H.W Bush also merit kudos for their able management of the Cold War's end. By contrast, Britain's Margaret Thatcher and France's Francois Mitterrand shamefully relapsed into Europe's evil old ways by trying to block German unification.

Gorbachev kept begging the western powers to launch another Marshall Plan to rescue the dying Soviet Union and democratize it. Tragically, they did not.

Communist die-hards launched a farcical, drunken coup against Gorbachev that was thwarted by the courage of Russian president Boris Yeltsin, aviation marshal Yevgeny Shaposhnikov, and KGB moderates.

In the end, Gorbachev was left leader of a nation that had ceased to exist, the object of popular wrath, a great statesman without a country, a Russian King Lear.

Twenty years later, the world owes Gorbachev an enormous debt of gratitude for ending the Cold War, and freeing Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. Thank our lucky stars Gorbachev was in power when the Soviet Union met its inevitable collapse -- or we could have faced World War III.

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev showed that once in a millennium a great political leader can rise above the law of the jungle.

eric.margolis@sunmedia.ca

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
Many Still Believe That Saddam Hussein Was Behind 9/11, and Now We Have Some Idea Why

By Emily Badger, Miller-McCune.com. Posted November 4, 2009.

Researchers looking at beliefs about al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein have made some surprising discoveries about why peopl


By the time it was over, medics had administered government-run health care to at least five people in the crowd who were stricken as they denounced government-run health care. But Bachmann overlooked this irony as she said farewell to her recruits.

Powered by Digg's Users

President Obama has had a hard time dislodging misperceptions about his health care proposal — those stubborn beliefs that there are death panels and free care for illegal aliens that don't actually exist in the legislation. Recent research about the way people defend their faith in false information, though, suggests calling out the inaccuracies may not be all that effective in converting the suspicious.

Sociologists at the University of North Carolina and Northwestern University examined an earlier case of deep commitment to the inaccurate: the belief, among many conservatives who voted for George W. Bush in 2004, that Saddam Hussein was at least partly responsible for the attacks on 9/11.

Of 49 people included in the study who believed in such a connection, only one shed the certainty when presented with prevailing evidence that it wasn't true.

The rest came up with an array of justifications for ignoring, discounting or simply disagreeing with contrary evidence — even when it came from President Bush himself.

"I was surprised at the diversity of it, what I kind of charitably call the creativity of it," said Steve Hoffman, one of the study's authors and now a visiting assistant professor at the State University of New York, Buffalo.

The voters weren't dupes of an elaborate misinformation campaign, the researchers concluded; rather, they were actively engaged in reasoning that the belief they already held was true.

This type of "motivated reasoning" — pursuing information that confirms what we already think and discarding the rest — helps explain why viewers gravitate toward partisan cable news and why we tend to see what we want in The Colbert Report. But when it comes to justifying demonstrably false beliefs, the logic stretches even thinner.

By the time the interviews were conducted, just before the 2004 election, the Bush Administration was no longer muddling a link between al-Qaeda and the Iraq war. The researchers chose the topic because, unlike other questions in politics, it had a correct answer.

Subjects were presented during one-on-one interviews with a newspaper clip of this Bush quote: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda."

The Sept. 11 Commission, too, found no such link, the subjects were told.

"Well, I bet they say that the commission didn't have any proof of it," one subject responded, "but I guess we still can have our opinions and feel that way even though they say that."

Reasoned another: "Saddam, I can't judge if he did what he's being accused of, but if Bush thinks he did it, then he did it."

Others declined to engage the information at all. Most curious to the researchers were the respondents who reasoned that Saddam must have been connected to Sept. 11, because why else would the Bush Administration have gone to war in Iraq?

The desire to believe this was more powerful, according to the researchers, than any active campaign to plant the idea.

Such a campaign did exist in the run-up to the war, just as it exists today in the health care debate.

"I do think there's something to be said about people like Sarah Palin, and even more so Chuck Grassley, supporting this idea of death panels in a national forum," Hoffman said.

He won't credit them alone for the phenomenon, though.

"That kind of puts the idea out there, but what people then do with the idea ... " he said. "Our argument is that people aren't just empty vessels. You don't just sort of open up their brains and dump false information in and they regurgitate it. They're actually active processing cognitive agents."

That view is more nuanced than the one held by many health care reform proponents — that citizens are only ill-informed because Rush Limbaugh makes them so. (For the record, the authors say justifying false beliefs extends equally to liberals, who they hypothesize would behave similarly given a different set of issues.)

The alternate explanation raises queasy questions for the rest of society.

"I think we'd all like to believe that when people come across disconfirming evidence, what they tend to do is to update their opinions," said Andrew Perrin, an associate professor at UNC and another author of the study.

That some people might not do that even in the face of accurate information, the authors suggest in their article, presents "a serious challenge to democratic theory and practice."

"The implications for how democracy works are quite profound, there's no question in my mind about that," Perrin said. "What it means is that we have to think about the emotional states in which citizens find themselves that then lead them to reason and deliberate in particular ways."

Evidence suggests people are more likely to pay attention to facts within certain emotional states and social situations. Some may never change their minds. For others, policy-makers could better identify those states, for example minimizing the fear that often clouds a person's ability to assess facts and that has characterized the current health care debate.

Hoffman's advice for crafting such an environment: "The congressional town hall meetings, that is a sort of test case in how not to do it."


Emily Badger is a freelance writer living in the Washington, D.C. area who has contributed to The New York Times, International Herald Tribune and Christian Science Monitor.

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 315
Feeling Nervous? 3,000 Behavior Detection Officers Will Be Watching You at the Airport This Thanksgiving

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet. Posted November 24, 2009.

Nearly 100,000 passengers were pulled aside by TSA behavior watchers last year, and it remains to be proven whether you can spot terrorists by the looks on their faces.


Here's a question to ponder the next time you're taking off your shoes at airport security: Can you spot terrorists by the look on their faces?

For the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the answer is yes. For the past few years, airports across the country have been using what many call "behavioral surveillance" to weed out potential hijackers among us, by covertly examining travelers' facial expressions and body language as they go through security. Unlike those airport employees who herd us along as we remove our shoes and relinquish all liquids over three ounces (with dubious results), this new program, named "Screening Passengers by Observational Techniques," or "SPOT," is carried out by TSA employees who have been trained to monitor travelers' faces and movements. As Americans head out of town this holiday season, more than 3,000 "Behavior Detection Officers" will be at 161 airports nationwide, watching our every move.

Tthe TSA boasts that the SPOT program is "derivative of other successful behavioral analysis programs that have been employed by law enforcement and security personnel both in the U.S. and around the world." Yet, the success of the SPOT program remains highly questionable. This month the Washington Post reported that, in 2008 alone, Behavior Detection Officers across the country pulled 98,805 passengers aside for additional screenings, out of which 9,854 were questioned by local police. 813 were eventually arrested.

The cost of the program, according to TSA spokesperson Ann Davis, was $3.1 million.

In an e-mail correspondence with AlterNet, Davis could not say how many of the 813 arrests led to convictions -- or for that matter, whether any terrorists were caught. "Many of the SPOT cases that resulted in arrests remain under active investigation by law enforcement," she said. "TSA doesn't always hear back from the investigative agencies on the outcome of the cases so we cannot track convictions."

But as Stephen Soldz, Director of the Center for Research, Evaluation, and Program Development at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis points out, "Even if the arrests are justified, they are less than 1 percent of the total singled out. What happens to more than 9,000 who are subjected to questioning and released?"

This question cuts to the heart of protests by civil liberties advocates and others who argue that, not only is the SPOT program a violation of people's privacy, but it is actually counterproductive, a wasteful exercise in false positives.

"By the math alone, rare events are impossible to accurately detect," says Soldz. "One will either miss most of what one is interested in [false negatives] or else identify many people falsely [false positives]."

ACLU attorney Jay Stanley concurs. "The problem with the SPOT program," he told AlterNet, "is that it is based on trying to stop terrorism by searching for supposed 'signs of terrorism' that are so commonplace that it results in an increase in the monitoring of individuals to no good end."

"We Need to Use Them Everywhere"

Like the Department of Homeland Security that oversees it, the SPOT program is a post-9/11 phenomenon, partly inspired by the surveillance tapes that showed the 9/11 hijackers making their way through security at Boston's Logan Airport.

According to TSA analyst Carl Maccario, each man kept his eyes low to the ground, avoiding the gaze of the airport security guards. "They all looked away and had their heads down," he told USA Today in 2005. As the federal government looked for new ways to augment its counterterror tools after the attacks, the TSA set out to develop a program that would seek to identify would-be terrorists based on this type of behavior. Like the Pentagon, FBI, and CIA, the TSA sought out an army of psychologists to lend their expertise.

Key among them was Dr. Paul Ekman, a San Francisco-based psychologist and pioneer in the study of deceit and "microexpressions" -- the subtle, involuntary ways in which our faces betray our inner emotions. Ekman received a call from Maccario in 2005. "They were really contacting everyone who was doing any kind of work in this area," he recalled, in an interview with AlterNet. Maccario asked him to come on board as an adviser to the SPOT program.

Ekman visited Logan Airport, where a pilot version of SPOT was being implemented. What he saw impressed him enough that he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in 2006, praising the program.

"SPOT's officers, working in pairs, stand off to the side, scanning passengers at a security checkpoint for signs of any behaviors on the officers' checklist, such as repeated patting of the chest -- which might mean that a bomb is strapped too tightly under a person's jacket -- or a micro-expression," he wrote.

Ekman argued that the 9/11 hijackers had deception written all over their faces, but that tragically, no one was in a position to detect it. "The hijackers' lies -- to visa interviewers and airport check-in workers -- succeeded largely because airport personnel weren't taught how to spot liars, he wrote. "They had to rely on their hunches. The people who might have saved the lives of many Americans were needlessly handicapped."

"Observational techniques are not a substitute for all the other techniques we now use to catch would-be terrorists," Ekman concluded. "But they add another layer to transportation security. They are now being used at fewer than one in 10 major U.S. airports. We need to use them everywhere."

Three years later, the SPOT program has been vastly expanded, going beyond airports nationwide. According to Davis, the TSA "regularly deploys SPOT-trained officers to other transportation venues, including mass transit and rail stations."

But if the 2008 data is any indication, even trained officers cannot easily differentiate between a person who is acting nervous because he or she is, say, afraid of flying, and a nervous person who is armed and dangerous. (Even Ekman's Washington Post article described a "fidgety" man, "slumped in line, staring at the ground," who was occasionally gripped with a "momentary look of anguish." He was taken aside and questioned by Boston police, who discovered that the man was no terrorist -- his brother had just died unexpectedly, and he was on his way to his funeral.)

"Real life is not like in a spy thriller where people can magically perceive the people who have something to hide," says Stanley. "When people are asked to detect wrongdoing based on overbroad signs," he adds, "the usual result is racial profiling."

Catching Bad Guys?

The TSA has not released data on the almost 99,000 people who were pulled aside by Behavior Detection Officials, last year, or the 9,854 who were questioned by police. But for the overwhelming majority, who were innocent of any wrongdoing, the result has been harassment, aggravation, and missed flights at best, a violation of their rights at worst.

Not to mention wasted time and resources by security agents and law enforcement.

TSA spokesperson Ann Davis cites the "deterrent value" of the program as something that "cannot be overstated" -- "SPOT adds another layer of security to the airport environment and presents the terrorists with yet one more challenge they need to overcome in attempt to defeat our security system" -- but the claim is fairly impossible to prove.

Also, she argues, "we may not know if the people SPOT caught in the country illegally, using fake passports or IDs or smuggling money or drugs were doing so to assist with a larger plot."

Indeed, critics point out that the relatively small number of arrests that have come out of the SPOT program have been mostly people with fake IDs and undocumented immigrants, but there's not much evidence that any of them had plans to carry out a terrorist attack. Still, the notion that there's anything wrong with detaining these people anyway strikes Ekman as odd. "I would think that the American public would not feel badly that they are catching money or drug smugglers, or wanted felons for serious crimes," he says. "I didn't think that was a bad thing."

But if the primary duty of the TSA is to keep travelers and transportation hubs safe, expending resources on ordinary crime-fighting would seem to be a distraction from weeding out actual potential terrorists.

This, argues Ekman, is just the nature of behavior surveillance. "Nature didn't design us in a way that we have a different appearance if we are a terrorist compared to a wanted rapist," he says. "You're basically catching what they call 'bad guys.' You're not catching a specific type of bad guy."

Can Anyone Be a Human Lie Detector?

One might describe Dr. Paul Ekman as a true believer, both in human capacity to detect deceit -- "Anybody can learn how to recognize concealed emotions," he tells me. "It takes about an hour" -- as well as the need for behavior surveillance in the post-9/11 era. If the TSA SPOT program is not as effective as it could be, he argues, it is because it's underfunded.

"I do not think Congress is taking it as seriously as it should," he says. "I hope we do not have to wait until there's some disaster before [spending on the program] is increased."

More money might mean more Behavior Detection Officers. But ideally it might mean more training as well. The positions require no scientific background; training in the art of lie detection takes place over the course of less than a week -- "four days of classroom instruction in behavior observation/analysis and 24 hours of on-the-job-training in an airport security checkpoint environment," according to Davis. The average Behavior Detection Officer position pays anywhere between $31,411 and $56,964 a year, depending on where they work. "Would more training be better?" asks Ekman. "Probably. But TSA operates within a budget that Congress gives them and they're doing the best they can do given that budget."

Ekman cites Israel, the country that largely pioneered the use of behavior surveillance as one place where similar programs have proven effective. The U.S. program was inspired in large part by Israel's; Ekman himself has been a consultant to the Israeli government for 20 years.

For Jay Stanley, this is nothing to be proud of. "There are real questions about whether the Israeli system is as sophisticated as its boosters say or whether in isn't truly just a system of racial profiling," he says. "… In any case, there are only 6.5 million Israelis, but 300 million Americans … it is doubtful that Israel's system could scale to the U.S. airline transportation system."

Stanley argues that the SPOT program overemphasizes the capacity for people to act as human lie detectors. "Studies show that people are actually very bad at detecting lies and typically overestimate their ability to do so," he says. In an airport, he adds, "people have a million reasons to be nervous or anxious. In fact, if you're in today's airports and you're not a little crazed there's almost something wrong with you."

For his part, Ekman seems intent on popularizing the science of lie detection. He is an adviser on the new FOX drama "Lie to Me," which is is based on him and his work; Ekman is an adviser on every script and writes critiques of each episode on his website. He also markets and sells interactive kits on his website, ranging from $20 to $69, that promise to train customers in the finer points of facial and micro-expressions. The kits, he says, are "really for anybody who wants to learn how to recognize emotion: doctors, nurses, salespeople, negotiators, bargainers, suspicious spouses, law enforcement … there are tens of thousands of people who learn that."

"But," he warns, "you can't turn it off once you've learned it. I try to warn people you may not always like what you see."

Do the Ends Justify the Means?

Since 9/11, the FBI has started training all new recruits in non-verbal behavior analysis. The CIA has been conducting research on how to use computers to recognize micro-expressions. Also in the works is a new initiative by the Department of Homeland Security that "uses various ways of measuring your physiology as you walk by in the hopes of picking up signs of people who are intending to do harm." The Orwellian-named "Future Attribute Screening Technology," or FAST, would measure such things as heart rate, breathing, and body temperature. ("It's not being used because it's still in the research phase," says Ekman, "but I'm one of their advisers.") The civil liberties questions raised by such potential programs make the SPOT program look tame by comparison.

One politician who has been an outspoken critic of the TSA's SPOT program is former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr. In a recent column in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, he decried the new initiatives in the works as "yet another step in [the TSA and DHS's] relentless drive to bring '1984' front and center to America's airports."

"Eager always to take advantage of the willingness of passengers to surrender all sense of privacy if made to feel safe, DHS is spending millions of our tax dollars to develop technology that would remotely monitor certain bodily functions and alert TSA employees whenever someone is exuding signs of nervousness," he wrote.

Ekman dismisses concerns that the TSA's officers are violating anyone's rights. "They don't do this in the men's room," he told AlterNet. "They look at you while you're standing in line, which is a very public place. So I don't think it's an invasion of privacy."

Regardless of these questiosn, the SPOT program continues to be expanded. In January, Behavior Detection Officers were dispatched to Tampa, Florida to "look for suspicious behavior," among spectators attending Super Bowl XLIII at Raymond James Stadium. The ACLU raised alarm over the implications. As analyst Barry Steinhardt told USA Today, "If we're going to use this at high-profile sporting events, why not start using it on streets?"

From violations of privacy to racial discrimination, or the ACLU has filed numerous lawsuits seeking to curb the ever-expanding authority of the TSA. Earlier this year, the the ACLU sued the TSA for its detaining of a traveler who was stopped and questioned by officers after he was found to be carrying some $4,700 in cash at the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport in March. The man, Steven Bierfeldt, a former treasurer for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, was taken to a room and questioned about the cash. According to the ACLU, "Bierfeldt repeatedly asked the agents to explain the scope of their authority to detain and interrogate him and received no explanation."

"Instead, the agents escalated the threatening tone of their questions and ultimately told Bierfeldt that he was being placed under arrest. Bierfeldt recorded audio of the incident with his iPhone."

In September the TSA revised its policy to emphasize that "screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security." (Soon thereafter, it added that "traveling with large amounts of currency is not illegal," among other directives.) Earlier this month, the ACLU dropped the suit.

"This new policy provides much needed clarity to TSA screeners and reflects the critical requirement that TSA agents must adhere to their important but limited mandate of protecting flight safety," said Ben Wizner, an attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "The airport is not a Constitution-free zone, and the price of traveling is not exposure to limitless government searches."

The TSA continues to vigorously defended its policies as "non-intrusive" and critical to national security. TSA spokseperson Suzanne Trevino denied that the low arrest rates from last year reflect poorly on the TSA program. Anyway, "we don't arrest people," she told AlterNet. "If we find something that we are concerned about, we will call over local law enforcement. They're the ones who do the arresting."



Liliana Segura is an AlterNet staff writer and editor of Rights & Liberties and World Special Coverage. http://twitter.com/LilianaSegura

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group