Quite an uproar over the "cannon fodder" video.
It involves a fictional mother of a Canadian soldier lamenting that she might not have had children if she had known that they would be used as cannon fodder.
Lots of anger over that, including one nonfictional mother of a slain soldier who said, “Because they died in combat, [these women] have the nerve to describe them as cannon fodder.”
Nerve?
Yes, I suppose it takes nerve to break the veneer of patriotism that tells people that their children died a great and wonderful cause when in reality they're dying for no particularly good reason.
But if it's true that the war is pointless and wrong, and no one says anything, more children are going to die.
Seriously. If you want to convince the rest of us that you're right. If you want to convince us that the war in Afghanistan is worthwhile and winnable, then show us how you're going to win. Show us how you're already winning. Show us what you could possible hope to accomplish.
I see a lot of nothing. I see the schools we built being used for storing and shipping marijuana. I see our money ending up in villas in Dubai. I see the government we set up mistreating its women as badly as their enemies did.
That's not worth dying for.
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Friday, October 08, 2010
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Gun Toting Hypocrites
So everyone has seen that video? You know the one? Where the reporters from Reuters are walking around an otherwise empty street somewhere in Iraq and the the American helicopter pilot reports that they have weapons?
That one. You see, there are actually some spots in that video where it actually looks like a couple of the guys are carrying weapons. Surprise! In one of the most unstable places on the planet, people carry around weapons for their own protections. They might even hire bodyguards to protect them.
Not that they fired at any Americans or anything. No. They did nothing aggressive at all besides point a camera at the helicopter. In fact, they're walking around the streets quite casually, as if taking a tour.
But, decry the knee jerk pro-Americans, they had weapons! They had weapons! Look at 2:45 (or 3:02 or 3:15 or whatever, I don't care). That guy by the utility pole! That's an AK! That's an RPG! Those people all deserved to die! They were carrying weapons! Those reporters even deserved to die for hanging around with people with weapons!
Hm.
Let's think about this a moment. They were carrying weapons and therefore they deserve to die? Really?
Really really?
Because I seem to remember - and this seems to come from the same knee jerk pro America crowd - statements about weapons. Where was it now ... where was it ... Oh, here it is:
Fucking hypocrites.
h/t to the PZ and thanks Wiki.
That one. You see, there are actually some spots in that video where it actually looks like a couple of the guys are carrying weapons. Surprise! In one of the most unstable places on the planet, people carry around weapons for their own protections. They might even hire bodyguards to protect them.
Not that they fired at any Americans or anything. No. They did nothing aggressive at all besides point a camera at the helicopter. In fact, they're walking around the streets quite casually, as if taking a tour.
But, decry the knee jerk pro-Americans, they had weapons! They had weapons! Look at 2:45 (or 3:02 or 3:15 or whatever, I don't care). That guy by the utility pole! That's an AK! That's an RPG! Those people all deserved to die! They were carrying weapons! Those reporters even deserved to die for hanging around with people with weapons!
Hm.
Let's think about this a moment. They were carrying weapons and therefore they deserve to die? Really?
Really really?
Because I seem to remember - and this seems to come from the same knee jerk pro America crowd - statements about weapons. Where was it now ... where was it ... Oh, here it is:
* Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fucking hypocrites.
h/t to the PZ and thanks Wiki.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Freedom vs Money
The Canadian people, via a majority vote of their Parliament, demanded that the government release all data on the torture of Afghan detainees.
The government, in clear violation of our democracy, ignored this demand. It ignored the will of the people.
That's not a democracy. That's a dictatorship.
On the rare occasions where the Canadian people actually get a government to vote the way they want it to vote, how is it that the guy at the top can simply refuse to comply? How is it that he can then go and shut down the government to avoid more questions?
That's a dictatorship.
But Liberal MP Derek Lee wants to draw a line. He's raising what's called a "point of privilege"; a declaration that a government minister has violated the will of the people and is in contempt of Parliament.
They in fact are in contempt.
But he says that he doesn't want this point of privilege to get in the way of the budget, even though it should if parliamentary procedure is followed.
Mr. Lee., let's break this down. The Harper government doesn't want to deal with parliament. It wants to ignore it. It wants to be free to send people to other countries to have them tortured. It wants to send Afghans off to be tortured. It wants to strand torture victims and child soldiers in other countries. It wants to do a lot of illegal and immoral things.
Mostly it wants to ignore Parliament to get its agenda pushed through. If all those confidence attachments to trivial legislation didn't clue you in, I don't know what will.
The point here is that there is no point continuing with this Parliament if the Harper government continues to treat it with such contempt. There's no use presenting a budget, a throne speech or any other piece of legislation if Harper and his cronies are simply going to ignore the actual legislation and do whatever they please anyway.
The budget isn't that important.
Our freedom is.
Run your point of privilege.
Run it over everything else and get our nation back.
The government, in clear violation of our democracy, ignored this demand. It ignored the will of the people.
That's not a democracy. That's a dictatorship.
On the rare occasions where the Canadian people actually get a government to vote the way they want it to vote, how is it that the guy at the top can simply refuse to comply? How is it that he can then go and shut down the government to avoid more questions?
That's a dictatorship.
But Liberal MP Derek Lee wants to draw a line. He's raising what's called a "point of privilege"; a declaration that a government minister has violated the will of the people and is in contempt of Parliament.
They in fact are in contempt.
But he says that he doesn't want this point of privilege to get in the way of the budget, even though it should if parliamentary procedure is followed.
Mr. Lee., let's break this down. The Harper government doesn't want to deal with parliament. It wants to ignore it. It wants to be free to send people to other countries to have them tortured. It wants to send Afghans off to be tortured. It wants to strand torture victims and child soldiers in other countries. It wants to do a lot of illegal and immoral things.
Mostly it wants to ignore Parliament to get its agenda pushed through. If all those confidence attachments to trivial legislation didn't clue you in, I don't know what will.
The point here is that there is no point continuing with this Parliament if the Harper government continues to treat it with such contempt. There's no use presenting a budget, a throne speech or any other piece of legislation if Harper and his cronies are simply going to ignore the actual legislation and do whatever they please anyway.
The budget isn't that important.
Our freedom is.
Run your point of privilege.
Run it over everything else and get our nation back.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
War is Stupid. Everybody knows that.
Oh, if only this were true.
Unfortunately there's a huge crowd of people on the right wing of politics everywhere who believe that war is the inevitable state of humankind. There has always been war, they will tell us, and therefore there will always be war.
Well, there are a lot of things that "always were", and yet we've put a stop to so many. You don't see a whole lot of land wars in Europe or human sacrifice anymore, do you? And there a lot more "always were"s that we're slowly stamping out: genital mutilation; asbestos; honour killing.
The most telling comment, though, regarding the father of the man who died so recently in Afghanistan, is this one from the mother of another deceased soldier:
It sounds sadly desperate, doesn't it? You gotta believe. You just gotta. They can't be dying and killing for no reason. No. No way.
Unfortunately there's a huge crowd of people on the right wing of politics everywhere who believe that war is the inevitable state of humankind. There has always been war, they will tell us, and therefore there will always be war.
Well, there are a lot of things that "always were", and yet we've put a stop to so many. You don't see a whole lot of land wars in Europe or human sacrifice anymore, do you? And there a lot more "always were"s that we're slowly stamping out: genital mutilation; asbestos; honour killing.
The most telling comment, though, regarding the father of the man who died so recently in Afghanistan, is this one from the mother of another deceased soldier:
"You've gotta believe that what they did, they did for a reason," she said, adding: "I honestly believe they're there for a good reason."
It sounds sadly desperate, doesn't it? You gotta believe. You just gotta. They can't be dying and killing for no reason. No. No way.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
That's Not Appeasement
U.S. President George W. Bush recently used the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) as a platform to give a speech denouncing his political opponents' intentions to have a dialogue with Iran in order to attempt to peacefully resolve various issues.
Bush referred to this as "appeasement" and made the embarrassingly inappropriate comment that this appeasement was just like the appeasement of Hitler in 1938.
This talking point has been repeated ad nauseam by right wing commentators - ignorant right wing commentators.
Chris Matthews finally called one of them on it.
He repeatedly asked Kevin James - who could only repeat the word "appease" and its variations in response - exactly what Chamberlain had done in 1938 that constituted appeasement. James could not answer. Presumably James did not know.
The appeasement of Hitler was not the part where Chamberlain talked to him. The appeasement was the part where he let Hitler have parts of Czechoslovakia without a fight.
There is nothing "appeasing" about talking to your enemies and trying to find a resolution.
I'm surprised by two things
1) It was Chris Matthews who burned Kevin James on this
2) In the youtube clip above, Matthews actually admits partial responsibility for the War in Iraq, saying that that the media failed to ask the tough questions and caved to pressure to "be patriotic".
Wow.
Bush referred to this as "appeasement" and made the embarrassingly inappropriate comment that this appeasement was just like the appeasement of Hitler in 1938.
This talking point has been repeated ad nauseam by right wing commentators - ignorant right wing commentators.
Chris Matthews finally called one of them on it.
He repeatedly asked Kevin James - who could only repeat the word "appease" and its variations in response - exactly what Chamberlain had done in 1938 that constituted appeasement. James could not answer. Presumably James did not know.
The appeasement of Hitler was not the part where Chamberlain talked to him. The appeasement was the part where he let Hitler have parts of Czechoslovakia without a fight.
There is nothing "appeasing" about talking to your enemies and trying to find a resolution.
I'm surprised by two things
1) It was Chris Matthews who burned Kevin James on this
2) In the youtube clip above, Matthews actually admits partial responsibility for the War in Iraq, saying that that the media failed to ask the tough questions and caved to pressure to "be patriotic".
Wow.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Defence's Think Tanks
This must be one of the creepier things I've seen in a while. Information has become public revealing that the Canadian Ministry of Defence employs/fund military think tanks and pays them according to how often they get themselves in the press.
Er, what?
The Conference of Defence Associations has a half million dollar contract to do exactly that and the concern is that the military is using our tax dollars to fund a pro-war organization.
Cruising the CDA's website, you'll find clever distortions of Afghan history that fail to link the "brave and defiant" "Freedom Fighters" that fought off the Soviets with the "brutally repressive" Taliban and Al Qaeda. (Hint: Osama Bin Laden was both.)
You can look around yourself. You'll find the "Cut and Run" insult and a lot of stuff about the need for continued Canadian presence in Afghanistan passed the "unprecedented deadline" set by Parliament.
Fine. If these think tanks want to exist and promote war in the news media, they are entitled to do so. That's how free speech works.
The problem is that they're doing it with our tax dollars, supplied by the military brass.
That's not a democracy works. In a democracy, the civilians control the military. The civilians give orders via the Parliament.
If the military is using tax dollars to promote its own agenda, or sending soldiers in to war zones without permission, then we no longer have a democracy. We have a tax-funded military dictatorship.
All funding from the Ministry of Defence to any of these think tanks must stop immediately if we are maintain even the vaguest of illusions that the Canadian people control the destiny of this country.
Er, what?
The Conference of Defence Associations has a half million dollar contract to do exactly that and the concern is that the military is using our tax dollars to fund a pro-war organization.
Cruising the CDA's website, you'll find clever distortions of Afghan history that fail to link the "brave and defiant" "Freedom Fighters" that fought off the Soviets with the "brutally repressive" Taliban and Al Qaeda. (Hint: Osama Bin Laden was both.)
You can look around yourself. You'll find the "Cut and Run" insult and a lot of stuff about the need for continued Canadian presence in Afghanistan passed the "unprecedented deadline" set by Parliament.
Fine. If these think tanks want to exist and promote war in the news media, they are entitled to do so. That's how free speech works.
The problem is that they're doing it with our tax dollars, supplied by the military brass.
That's not a democracy works. In a democracy, the civilians control the military. The civilians give orders via the Parliament.
If the military is using tax dollars to promote its own agenda, or sending soldiers in to war zones without permission, then we no longer have a democracy. We have a tax-funded military dictatorship.
All funding from the Ministry of Defence to any of these think tanks must stop immediately if we are maintain even the vaguest of illusions that the Canadian people control the destiny of this country.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Did the NDP call Canadian soldiers "terrorists"?
There is a frequently used conservative tactic that finds its way in to both Canadian and American politics. The debating term is the "straw man". A straw man is an opponent you construct - either completely from your imagination or from a series of misquotes - whom you can easily beat.
An excellent example is that people on the left "hate globalization" and want to "end all trade between nations". It's easy to argue with straw men because they don't exist.
Here's another straw man. The NDP should be disregarded on international issues because they called Canadian soldiers "terrorists". Look, I can prove it with this quote from a resolution from an NDP riding association in B.C.:
How dare they! Now it's easy to argue that we can ignore the NDP because they would dare insult our noble troops this way! Canadian troops aren't terrorists! That's just crazy.
Hm. Would someone really say such a thing? What's this odd wording about "such a situation"? My, it's almost like there's some kind of ... oh ... context ... that's missing.
Oh, wait. Hold on. Here it is:
Oh. You mean the riding association was making the point that we would be sending our troops to a place where - through no fault of their own - their orders might lead to them killing civilians? They were making the point that our government would be effectively ordering our troops to do harm to civilians?
My, that's a bit different from the slap-in-the-face the out of context quote led us to think they were delivering. It's almost like the right wing doesn't want to argue the Afghan mission on its merits, but would rather appeal like scoundrels to our patriotism and national pride.
For those interested, they pulled the same trick when the former Minister of Defence was being blasted for letting our troops turn prisoners over to the Afghani government that was then torturing those prisoners. The Conservative defence of this relied on no rationale. They merely hid beyond the troops, saying, "How dare you accuse our troops of war crimes?"
We're not accusing the troops.
We're accusing you.
An excellent example is that people on the left "hate globalization" and want to "end all trade between nations". It's easy to argue with straw men because they don't exist.
Here's another straw man. The NDP should be disregarded on international issues because they called Canadian soldiers "terrorists". Look, I can prove it with this quote from a resolution from an NDP riding association in B.C.:
In such a situation Canadian troops end up acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people.
How dare they! Now it's easy to argue that we can ignore the NDP because they would dare insult our noble troops this way! Canadian troops aren't terrorists! That's just crazy.
Hm. Would someone really say such a thing? What's this odd wording about "such a situation"? My, it's almost like there's some kind of ... oh ... context ... that's missing.
Oh, wait. Hold on. Here it is:
A combat role in Afghanistan is a no-win situation both for Canada and for the Afghani people. Its only dubious value is to curry favour with the militarist government of George W. Bush. No matter how noble our intentions, such as “bringing democracy” or “enabling peaceful development”, these goals cannot be achieved by violence when the “enemy” cannot be distinguished from ordinary citizens. In such a situation Canadian troops end up acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people.
Oh. You mean the riding association was making the point that we would be sending our troops to a place where - through no fault of their own - their orders might lead to them killing civilians? They were making the point that our government would be effectively ordering our troops to do harm to civilians?
My, that's a bit different from the slap-in-the-face the out of context quote led us to think they were delivering. It's almost like the right wing doesn't want to argue the Afghan mission on its merits, but would rather appeal like scoundrels to our patriotism and national pride.
For those interested, they pulled the same trick when the former Minister of Defence was being blasted for letting our troops turn prisoners over to the Afghani government that was then torturing those prisoners. The Conservative defence of this relied on no rationale. They merely hid beyond the troops, saying, "How dare you accuse our troops of war crimes?"
We're not accusing the troops.
We're accusing you.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Dallaire Again
It's hard to say enough about this guy. As a peacekeeper in Rwanda, he did everything he could - even as everyone tried to ruin peacekeeping by making Rwanda a failure - to save as many lives as he could.
It got so bad in Rwanda that the guy temporarily lost his mind.
And now this: Dallaire speaks on Omar Khadr's return to Canada.
Omar Khadr was a 15 year old boy, a child soldier recruited in to Al Qaeda and manipulated into fighting the invading American army. Khadr is now 21 years old and is still being held in Guantanamo Bay, charged with murder for killing an American serviceman.
Dallaire points out, perfectly reasonably, that a child soldier should be rehabilitated, not punished as an adult. He also points out that, as a Canadian citizen, we should be working to free him.
But the daring bit it this:
As the guy who watched a whole lot of people suffer in Rwanda, basically because the rest of the world refused to send enough help to stop the slaughter, Dallaire's judgment is quite respectable.
He was then put on the spot. Are you saying we're as bad as Al Qaeda? He doesn't back pedal, but puts the hammer down.
Moral clarity. Do the right thing. Believe in something and stand up for it. Yes, there is a close moral relationship between torturing a 15 year old boy for 6 years and blowing up civilians to attain political goals.
What can I say? For what he's been through and what he continues to do, I respect him deeply.
It got so bad in Rwanda that the guy temporarily lost his mind.
And now this: Dallaire speaks on Omar Khadr's return to Canada.
Omar Khadr was a 15 year old boy, a child soldier recruited in to Al Qaeda and manipulated into fighting the invading American army. Khadr is now 21 years old and is still being held in Guantanamo Bay, charged with murder for killing an American serviceman.
Dallaire points out, perfectly reasonably, that a child soldier should be rehabilitated, not punished as an adult. He also points out that, as a Canadian citizen, we should be working to free him.
But the daring bit it this:
“The minute you start playing with human rights, with conventions, with civil liberties ... you are no better than the guy who doesn't believe in them at all,”
As the guy who watched a whole lot of people suffer in Rwanda, basically because the rest of the world refused to send enough help to stop the slaughter, Dallaire's judgment is quite respectable.
He was then put on the spot. Are you saying we're as bad as Al Qaeda? He doesn't back pedal, but puts the hammer down.
"Absolutely. You're either with the law or not with the law. You're either guilty or you're not.”
Moral clarity. Do the right thing. Believe in something and stand up for it. Yes, there is a close moral relationship between torturing a 15 year old boy for 6 years and blowing up civilians to attain political goals.
What can I say? For what he's been through and what he continues to do, I respect him deeply.
Shifting Focus
It's hard to keep up with all of the nonsense that the Harper government dishes out on a daily basis.
I almost forgot about this one. Yes, we're "shifting focus" in Afghanistan. It turns that, after all, we weren't doing a whole lot of reconstructing in Afghanistan! No, we were actually so busy taking care of the "security situation" that we didn't have time to build anything.
The "security situation" is, naturally, a euphemism for "clearing the way for an oil pipeline". In some senses, I imagine that the people who make these decisions really believe the term "security situation". Once there's oil flowing through the country, the Afghan government will get their pittance of a commission and then there's "security" for everyone.
What it really means is that we've been lied to. Our military wasn't being used to help rebuild Afghanistan. It was being used to suppress the people in Afghanistan who don't want to play ball with the oil companies.
Next up, we have Harper's announcement of "Renewal" of the Canadian military. That sounds exciting and progressive, doesn't it? That word "Renewal"?
When Lloyd Axworthy found a way to skirt the American veto and get almost every other nation in the world to sign a land mine treaty, was it because Canada had a large military?
I almost forgot about this one. Yes, we're "shifting focus" in Afghanistan. It turns that, after all, we weren't doing a whole lot of reconstructing in Afghanistan! No, we were actually so busy taking care of the "security situation" that we didn't have time to build anything.
The "security situation" is, naturally, a euphemism for "clearing the way for an oil pipeline". In some senses, I imagine that the people who make these decisions really believe the term "security situation". Once there's oil flowing through the country, the Afghan government will get their pittance of a commission and then there's "security" for everyone.
What it really means is that we've been lied to. Our military wasn't being used to help rebuild Afghanistan. It was being used to suppress the people in Afghanistan who don't want to play ball with the oil companies.
Next up, we have Harper's announcement of "Renewal" of the Canadian military. That sounds exciting and progressive, doesn't it? That word "Renewal"?
If Canada wants to be taken seriously on the world stage, he said, it has to rebuild the military's ability to act decisively at home and globally.Really? That's interesting. When Lester Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize for creating the international institution now called "Peacekeeping", was it because Canada had a lot of military hardware?
When Lloyd Axworthy found a way to skirt the American veto and get almost every other nation in the world to sign a land mine treaty, was it because Canada had a large military?
Mr. Harper said the spending plan will ensure Canada can meet its commitments.Commitments? What an odd term. What have we committed, and to whom? And a better question yet is this: what the hell are you planning to do with this renewed Canadian Military? Besides a commitment to defend the northern ice floes, I don't see anything in any of his or McKay's statements telling us why, precisely, we need this enlarged military. There's just this telling quote:
"Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player," he said. "You are the one chattering on the sidelines that everyone smiles at but nobody listens to."What is this, a macho thing? Mr. Prime Minister, do you feel the need to be a player?
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Why are we in Afghanistan?
Why are our loyal soldiers dying in Afghanistan?
Someone ought to ask the question.
I don't know about you, but I was fed some story about "reconstructing" the country, repairing the infrastructure, instilling human rights (especially women's rights), protecting the populace from all those evil, drug-smuggling, woman-abusing warlords. We were hunting down "terrorists", the very same group of people - we were told - who were supporting Osama bin Laden and his crew.
Isn't that why the Canadian military is in there, killing and dying? Isn't that why we are all risking terrorist reprisals here in Canada?
Well, the first problem is that our military spending in Afghanistan is vastly outstripping our "reconstruction" spending. So we know we're destroying rather more than we're building right from the outset.
On the one hand, Canada's reconstruction agency (CIDA) tells us that six million children are now enrolled in school. That sounds like progress, doesn't it? Compared to the 700 000 that were enrolled seven years ago? But this report comes from Afghanistan's Ministry of Education.
However, it has been revealed that, in many cases the police forces in Afghanistan are full of "ghosts", officers who do not exist and whose salaries go in to the hands of local warlords. That being the case, why should we believe the education enrollment figures of the Afghan government?
Is that what we're doing over there? Feeding money to warlords?
Sadly, yes. We're helping one group of drug-smuggling, women-beating warlords triumph over another. There is no reason to believe anything that comes out of this corrupt government. Not the education figures, not the military figures, not the drug-production figures. None of it is trustworthy.
And where does that leave us?
Where does that leave our soldiers?
People are dying. They should at least know why. They offered their lives for our protection. We owe them as much.
Someone ought to ask the question.
I don't know about you, but I was fed some story about "reconstructing" the country, repairing the infrastructure, instilling human rights (especially women's rights), protecting the populace from all those evil, drug-smuggling, woman-abusing warlords. We were hunting down "terrorists", the very same group of people - we were told - who were supporting Osama bin Laden and his crew.
Isn't that why the Canadian military is in there, killing and dying? Isn't that why we are all risking terrorist reprisals here in Canada?
Well, the first problem is that our military spending in Afghanistan is vastly outstripping our "reconstruction" spending. So we know we're destroying rather more than we're building right from the outset.
On the one hand, Canada's reconstruction agency (CIDA) tells us that six million children are now enrolled in school. That sounds like progress, doesn't it? Compared to the 700 000 that were enrolled seven years ago? But this report comes from Afghanistan's Ministry of Education.
However, it has been revealed that, in many cases the police forces in Afghanistan are full of "ghosts", officers who do not exist and whose salaries go in to the hands of local warlords. That being the case, why should we believe the education enrollment figures of the Afghan government?
Is that what we're doing over there? Feeding money to warlords?
Sadly, yes. We're helping one group of drug-smuggling, women-beating warlords triumph over another. There is no reason to believe anything that comes out of this corrupt government. Not the education figures, not the military figures, not the drug-production figures. None of it is trustworthy.
And where does that leave us?
Where does that leave our soldiers?
People are dying. They should at least know why. They offered their lives for our protection. We owe them as much.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
It Ought to be Treason
I don't understand how this could have happened.
This is not the Canada that I believe in.
How could our nation have descended to the point where the head of our military can give orders that violate both the will of the people and the will of the elected Parliament?
Shouldn't there be a law against this? Shouldn't someone be in jail at this point? Shouldn't our Minister of Defence, Gordon O'Connor, have relieved General Hillier of his duties the moment he found out that Hillier had sent Canadian men and women in to the Iraqi war zone?
I looked up the definition of treason in Canada. The only way to commit treason in Canada is to either try to assassinate the Queen or to help enemies of Canada to defeat Canadian forces. This even includes giving away secrets.
There's nothing in there, however, about taking Canadians in to war. Somehow it isn't considered treasonous to take us unwilling in to war. It's only if you fight on the wrong side that you get in trouble.
But honestly, how is this not a betrayal of everything that it means to be a democracy?
The worst part is that there's no way for the population to punish General Hillier for this travesty, this immoral venture disguised as a "training mission". He isn't an elected official. We can't bounce him out in the next general election. The only guy we could really punish is the Minister of Defence - who was already forced to resign for his piss-poor handling of the abuse of prisoners taken by Canadian forces. Gordon O'Connor probably won't even run in the next election, otherwise I could vote against him. (He is, of all things, my "representative" in Parliament. How ironic is that?).
No. For hiding this from us, we have to punish the entire Conservative government. We have to throw them out and tell them they've betrayed us and betrayed us horribly. They've cut deep in to the honour of our nation, of what it means to be Canadian. We must punish them and let every future government know to keep a tight rein on the military brass who would cheat us like this.
We are not your warmongers. We do not revel in martial exploits. We are proud of the honorable service of our soldiers, but not in foreign aggression. Never like this.
That's not who we are and we won't let you change us.
This is not the Canada that I believe in.
How could our nation have descended to the point where the head of our military can give orders that violate both the will of the people and the will of the elected Parliament?
Shouldn't there be a law against this? Shouldn't someone be in jail at this point? Shouldn't our Minister of Defence, Gordon O'Connor, have relieved General Hillier of his duties the moment he found out that Hillier had sent Canadian men and women in to the Iraqi war zone?
I looked up the definition of treason in Canada. The only way to commit treason in Canada is to either try to assassinate the Queen or to help enemies of Canada to defeat Canadian forces. This even includes giving away secrets.
There's nothing in there, however, about taking Canadians in to war. Somehow it isn't considered treasonous to take us unwilling in to war. It's only if you fight on the wrong side that you get in trouble.
But honestly, how is this not a betrayal of everything that it means to be a democracy?
The worst part is that there's no way for the population to punish General Hillier for this travesty, this immoral venture disguised as a "training mission". He isn't an elected official. We can't bounce him out in the next general election. The only guy we could really punish is the Minister of Defence - who was already forced to resign for his piss-poor handling of the abuse of prisoners taken by Canadian forces. Gordon O'Connor probably won't even run in the next election, otherwise I could vote against him. (He is, of all things, my "representative" in Parliament. How ironic is that?).
No. For hiding this from us, we have to punish the entire Conservative government. We have to throw them out and tell them they've betrayed us and betrayed us horribly. They've cut deep in to the honour of our nation, of what it means to be Canadian. We must punish them and let every future government know to keep a tight rein on the military brass who would cheat us like this.
We are not your warmongers. We do not revel in martial exploits. We are proud of the honorable service of our soldiers, but not in foreign aggression. Never like this.
That's not who we are and we won't let you change us.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Canadians Fighting in Iraq
Canadians are flying "training missions" in Iraq.
Remember when George Bush and his fellow liars misled their own country in to a immoral, illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? Remember when they lied about nuclear weapons? Remember when they lied about Al Qaeda being in Iraq? Remember when they lied about Iraq having anything to do with 9/11?
Remember how Canada, Canadians and their Parliament said "No" to participation in the invasion of Iraq?
Apparently, our military feels that the civilian leadership made a mistake, because the military has decided that Canadians can participate in the disaster the Americans have created in Iraq.
Enough is enough. That's a war they are having over there. We didn't declare war on Iraq. We want no part of the war in Iraq and yet our military, without any approval at all, has involved us in a war.
General Hillier's only defence is:
Oh, that's reassuring. You've gone off and illegally ordered the involvement of our soldiers in a war we morally oppose but it's okay because - drum roll - they didn't get hurt doing it. This is a dirty, stupid trick the military has used to appease the American brass - an "apology", if you will, for our failure to charge full-bore in to the insane mess they've created.
Our military is no longer under our control. It's bad enough that our previous Minister of Defense was a defense industry lobbyist. It's bad enough that there's a tangled web of former military personnel, former and present government officials and defense industry spokesmen who blast us through the media with their pro-war rhetoric. Now these people, even when they completely fail to "educate" the population on the "value" of going to war, go to war anyway. And they tell us about it a year later.
This is not democracy. This is not freedom. Our soldiers are our responsibility, not just in terms of the injuries they sustain, but in terms of the moral consequences of the missions on which we send them.
If we don't know what they're doing, how can we make sure they are being used for moral purposes?
Remember when George Bush and his fellow liars misled their own country in to a immoral, illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? Remember when they lied about nuclear weapons? Remember when they lied about Al Qaeda being in Iraq? Remember when they lied about Iraq having anything to do with 9/11?
Remember how Canada, Canadians and their Parliament said "No" to participation in the invasion of Iraq?
Apparently, our military feels that the civilian leadership made a mistake, because the military has decided that Canadians can participate in the disaster the Americans have created in Iraq.
"Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of Canada's defence staff, wrote to Gordon O'Connor, then minister of national defence, in May 2007 that in the summer and fall of that year, Canadian military aircrew would fly into Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That decision was taken without informing Parliament."
Enough is enough. That's a war they are having over there. We didn't declare war on Iraq. We want no part of the war in Iraq and yet our military, without any approval at all, has involved us in a war.
General Hillier's only defence is:
"The overall risk associated with allowing CF aircrew to operate on USAF C-17 missions to Iraq is low."
Oh, that's reassuring. You've gone off and illegally ordered the involvement of our soldiers in a war we morally oppose but it's okay because - drum roll - they didn't get hurt doing it. This is a dirty, stupid trick the military has used to appease the American brass - an "apology", if you will, for our failure to charge full-bore in to the insane mess they've created.
Our military is no longer under our control. It's bad enough that our previous Minister of Defense was a defense industry lobbyist. It's bad enough that there's a tangled web of former military personnel, former and present government officials and defense industry spokesmen who blast us through the media with their pro-war rhetoric. Now these people, even when they completely fail to "educate" the population on the "value" of going to war, go to war anyway. And they tell us about it a year later.
This is not democracy. This is not freedom. Our soldiers are our responsibility, not just in terms of the injuries they sustain, but in terms of the moral consequences of the missions on which we send them.
If we don't know what they're doing, how can we make sure they are being used for moral purposes?
Friday, April 18, 2008
DTK: Prisoner Abuse Scandal
If you’ve been reading the news at all, you’ve seen that our federal government has been trying very hard to avoid an investigation to what the media is calling a “prisoner abuse scandal”.
The Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) has begun a public hearing in to the matter of the transfer of people detained by the Canadian military who were handed over to the government of Afghanistan and tortured.
This began as a “Public Interest Investigation” but had to be upgraded to a “Public hearing” because of the following:
“The principal difficulty which has given rise to this decision has been the Government's refusal to provide the Commission with full access to relevant documents and information under the control of such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) and the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC).”
Then the federal government sued the MPCC to try to stop the hearings.
To understand why the government has gone so far as to sue we have to realize that this not simply a case of filing charges against a few military police. This is actually about a violation of the Geneva Conventions. A “violation of the Geneva Conventions” has, of course, a more familiar name: War Crime.
The Geneva Conventions, lengthy though they are, are not that complicated in principle. If you capture someone, anyone at all, you must treat them humanely. The Third Convention covers combatants who are captured. These people are called “Prisoners of War”. The Fourth Convention covers civilians who are captured. These may be support staff, people who happened to be in the wrong place, etc.
International Law explicitly tells us that there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Conventions. Everyone who is captured is covered by one or the other (or a medical worker covered by the First Convention). Anyone captured by a Canadian soldier, anywhere is the world, must be treated according to these Conventions. Anything else is criminal.
In case you think I’m “attacking the troops”, think again. The Third Convention, Article 12, tells us that “Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them.”. That means that the government, not the soldiers, are ultimately responsible.
Article 12 goes on to tell us that “Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention.” Afghanistan’s new government never signed the Convention. Its old government did in 1949, but that can hardly apply considering that the country has since reinvented itself with a new Constitution since then.
That’s it. You could actually rest your case right there. The Canadian government told our soldiers to hand prisoners over to a nation that had not signed the Geneva Conventions. So of course they don’t want an investigation. It’s because they’re obviously guilty.
But wait, there’s more. Not only were we handing over these detainees to a non-signatory nation, that non-signatory nation had a government controlled Human Rights organization (the ironically named the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC)) that actually pointed out that prisoner abuse was happening.
Indeed. So even if we pretend the 1949 signature on the Third Convention applies to the present government of Afghanistan, our government had to know that this new Afghanistan government did not have the “willingness and ability … to apply the Convention.”
Prisoner abuse was happening and we continued to tell our soldiers to hand over prisoners.
If I’d been in charge of that, I too would be screaming my head off to distract people from the investigation.
The Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) has begun a public hearing in to the matter of the transfer of people detained by the Canadian military who were handed over to the government of Afghanistan and tortured.
This began as a “Public Interest Investigation” but had to be upgraded to a “Public hearing” because of the following:
“The principal difficulty which has given rise to this decision has been the Government's refusal to provide the Commission with full access to relevant documents and information under the control of such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) and the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC).”
Then the federal government sued the MPCC to try to stop the hearings.
To understand why the government has gone so far as to sue we have to realize that this not simply a case of filing charges against a few military police. This is actually about a violation of the Geneva Conventions. A “violation of the Geneva Conventions” has, of course, a more familiar name: War Crime.
The Geneva Conventions, lengthy though they are, are not that complicated in principle. If you capture someone, anyone at all, you must treat them humanely. The Third Convention covers combatants who are captured. These people are called “Prisoners of War”. The Fourth Convention covers civilians who are captured. These may be support staff, people who happened to be in the wrong place, etc.
International Law explicitly tells us that there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Conventions. Everyone who is captured is covered by one or the other (or a medical worker covered by the First Convention). Anyone captured by a Canadian soldier, anywhere is the world, must be treated according to these Conventions. Anything else is criminal.
In case you think I’m “attacking the troops”, think again. The Third Convention, Article 12, tells us that “Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them.”. That means that the government, not the soldiers, are ultimately responsible.
Article 12 goes on to tell us that “Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention.” Afghanistan’s new government never signed the Convention. Its old government did in 1949, but that can hardly apply considering that the country has since reinvented itself with a new Constitution since then.
That’s it. You could actually rest your case right there. The Canadian government told our soldiers to hand prisoners over to a nation that had not signed the Geneva Conventions. So of course they don’t want an investigation. It’s because they’re obviously guilty.
But wait, there’s more. Not only were we handing over these detainees to a non-signatory nation, that non-signatory nation had a government controlled Human Rights organization (the ironically named the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC)) that actually pointed out that prisoner abuse was happening.
Indeed. So even if we pretend the 1949 signature on the Third Convention applies to the present government of Afghanistan, our government had to know that this new Afghanistan government did not have the “willingness and ability … to apply the Convention.”
Prisoner abuse was happening and we continued to tell our soldiers to hand over prisoners.
If I’d been in charge of that, I too would be screaming my head off to distract people from the investigation.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Pack of Lies about Haiti
AP can't stop lying about Haiti.
Haiti had a democratic government. The president of Haiti was a man named Jean-Bertrand Aristide who, besides being a priest who had worked with the poor for years, was legitimately elected. (The elections were legitimate according to everyone except the American government.)
By 2004, the Western powers had had enough of Aristide. He was raising corporate taxes, raising minimum wage and building hospitals and schools - especially medical schools - with the tiny amounts of extra taxes. This was unforgivable. It was causing a rise in the cost of Haitian labour and a rise in the cost of sugar. Corporate profits were at stake.
So the Canadian, French and American governments decided to have Aristide overthrown. They called it "Responsibility to Protect", which came with the clever acronym "R2P". R2P says, basically, that some people simply don't know how to run their own countries. R2P says that, when people democratically choose the wrong leaders, who propel them down the "wrong" path, we have the "responsibility" to "protect" them from their bad choices.
Bad choices include, especially, any intent to use tax money to improve the lot of citizens.
A generation or two ago, "R2P" was simply called "The White Man's Burden". All these silly, illiterate black and brown folk need us to take over their countries and show them how to be exploited ... er ... how to run their economies.
So the Americans exiled Aristide, closed the hospitals and took over the university as their barracks. We helped. So did the French. The people rioted when we tried to impose the rulership of the pro-business party, a party that had 5% of the vote in the last election. The rioting was put down by U.N. "peacekeepers" who declared that these were the vicious human-rights violating leftovers of the Aristide "regime". In actuality, they were the poor people who, after a century of Spanish and American occupation, had finally seen hope in Aristide.
Now look at the lies that the Associated Press continues to churn out. These people are eating dirt. Why? We subsidize our grain and tell them they can't subsidize their production. Then we sell our grain on their market and tell them they can't use tariffs. Free trade, y'know? So they can't make any money and what they do get leaves their country. And they eat dirt.
But AP would have you believe that "world food shortages" are the problem. What a ridiculous lie!
The protesters demand that the 9000 "peacekeepers" leave because they are blamed "in part" for the food shortage. They should be blamed in whole! Those peacekeepers, whom AP tells us "helped usher in a democratic transition", actually hold the status quo of starvation over the Haitian people. AP would have us believe that the protesters are a bunch of ignorant negro villagers lashing out in a stupid fashion when, in reality, they know exactly who is killing them: the international force that overrode - not "ushered in" - their democracy.
The article goes on to discuss Guy Phillipe, formerly Washington's hero in the "liberation" of Haiti, who is now wanted on drug charges. Oh, how fast Eurasia and Eastasia can be confused!
And, oh yes, the Western world "have focused too much on political stability without helping to alleviate poverty".
No. They've focused right where they wanted - on making Haiti in to a miserable, cheap labour market. Who cares how many people starve, as long as North Americans can buy three dollar t-shirts and gorge themselves on sugar until we're all obese diabetics.
Haiti had a democratic government. The president of Haiti was a man named Jean-Bertrand Aristide who, besides being a priest who had worked with the poor for years, was legitimately elected. (The elections were legitimate according to everyone except the American government.)
By 2004, the Western powers had had enough of Aristide. He was raising corporate taxes, raising minimum wage and building hospitals and schools - especially medical schools - with the tiny amounts of extra taxes. This was unforgivable. It was causing a rise in the cost of Haitian labour and a rise in the cost of sugar. Corporate profits were at stake.
So the Canadian, French and American governments decided to have Aristide overthrown. They called it "Responsibility to Protect", which came with the clever acronym "R2P". R2P says, basically, that some people simply don't know how to run their own countries. R2P says that, when people democratically choose the wrong leaders, who propel them down the "wrong" path, we have the "responsibility" to "protect" them from their bad choices.
Bad choices include, especially, any intent to use tax money to improve the lot of citizens.
A generation or two ago, "R2P" was simply called "The White Man's Burden". All these silly, illiterate black and brown folk need us to take over their countries and show them how to be exploited ... er ... how to run their economies.
So the Americans exiled Aristide, closed the hospitals and took over the university as their barracks. We helped. So did the French. The people rioted when we tried to impose the rulership of the pro-business party, a party that had 5% of the vote in the last election. The rioting was put down by U.N. "peacekeepers" who declared that these were the vicious human-rights violating leftovers of the Aristide "regime". In actuality, they were the poor people who, after a century of Spanish and American occupation, had finally seen hope in Aristide.
Now look at the lies that the Associated Press continues to churn out. These people are eating dirt. Why? We subsidize our grain and tell them they can't subsidize their production. Then we sell our grain on their market and tell them they can't use tariffs. Free trade, y'know? So they can't make any money and what they do get leaves their country. And they eat dirt.
But AP would have you believe that "world food shortages" are the problem. What a ridiculous lie!
The protesters demand that the 9000 "peacekeepers" leave because they are blamed "in part" for the food shortage. They should be blamed in whole! Those peacekeepers, whom AP tells us "helped usher in a democratic transition", actually hold the status quo of starvation over the Haitian people. AP would have us believe that the protesters are a bunch of ignorant negro villagers lashing out in a stupid fashion when, in reality, they know exactly who is killing them: the international force that overrode - not "ushered in" - their democracy.
The article goes on to discuss Guy Phillipe, formerly Washington's hero in the "liberation" of Haiti, who is now wanted on drug charges. Oh, how fast Eurasia and Eastasia can be confused!
And, oh yes, the Western world "have focused too much on political stability without helping to alleviate poverty".
No. They've focused right where they wanted - on making Haiti in to a miserable, cheap labour market. Who cares how many people starve, as long as North Americans can buy three dollar t-shirts and gorge themselves on sugar until we're all obese diabetics.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Knee Jerk Anti-Americanism
I don't like to think of myself as having knee-jerk opinions. This is, after all, the Deep Thought Korner.
When I reached my opinion on American foreign policy, and now the Canadian foreign policy that Harper, O'Connor, Day, McKay and Hillier are following, I reached it based on a lot of evidence. Each of the following represents a huge volume of reading and analysis, but I have condensed it in to a single, simple list of things about American and Canadian foreign policy that I don't like.
1. The Land mine treaty. Spearheaded by Canada. Opposed by the United States.
2. The use of poisonous Depleted Uranium shells.
3. The unwarranted NATO bombing of Serbia, where no ethnic cleansing was ever shown to have happened.
4. The unwarranted invasion of Haiti, because we needed their cheap labour.
5. The unwarranted invasion of Afghanistan after the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden if only the U.S. would show evidence of his complicity in 9/11.
6. Illegal incarceration in Guantanamo Bay.
7. Torture in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
8. The extraordinary rendition to Syria and torture of Maher Arar, among others.
9. The development of new nuclear weapons.
10. Opposition to climate change.
11. The tight loop between government jobs and lobbying positions for the military industry.
12. The cowardly appeal to "support the troops" and "be patriotic" rather than actually responding to criticism of immoral military ventures.
Each of the things in the list above, a list which is hardly exhaustive, could be expounded (and have been expounded by other people) in to volumes of evidence, analysis and information.
There is nothing "knee-jerk" about concluding that American foreign policy is immoral and that I don't want Canada's foreign policy to go the same way. This is a thoroughly considered position, a position I would gladly debate with anyone, and there is nothing "knee-jerk" about it.
In fact, the only thing that seems to be "knee-jerk" and poorly thought out is the thoughtless, instantaneous accusation of "knee-jerk anti-Americanism". If you have an argument, present it. Name calling will get you nowhere.
When I reached my opinion on American foreign policy, and now the Canadian foreign policy that Harper, O'Connor, Day, McKay and Hillier are following, I reached it based on a lot of evidence. Each of the following represents a huge volume of reading and analysis, but I have condensed it in to a single, simple list of things about American and Canadian foreign policy that I don't like.
1. The Land mine treaty. Spearheaded by Canada. Opposed by the United States.
2. The use of poisonous Depleted Uranium shells.
3. The unwarranted NATO bombing of Serbia, where no ethnic cleansing was ever shown to have happened.
4. The unwarranted invasion of Haiti, because we needed their cheap labour.
5. The unwarranted invasion of Afghanistan after the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden if only the U.S. would show evidence of his complicity in 9/11.
6. Illegal incarceration in Guantanamo Bay.
7. Torture in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
8. The extraordinary rendition to Syria and torture of Maher Arar, among others.
9. The development of new nuclear weapons.
10. Opposition to climate change.
11. The tight loop between government jobs and lobbying positions for the military industry.
12. The cowardly appeal to "support the troops" and "be patriotic" rather than actually responding to criticism of immoral military ventures.
Each of the things in the list above, a list which is hardly exhaustive, could be expounded (and have been expounded by other people) in to volumes of evidence, analysis and information.
There is nothing "knee-jerk" about concluding that American foreign policy is immoral and that I don't want Canada's foreign policy to go the same way. This is a thoroughly considered position, a position I would gladly debate with anyone, and there is nothing "knee-jerk" about it.
In fact, the only thing that seems to be "knee-jerk" and poorly thought out is the thoughtless, instantaneous accusation of "knee-jerk anti-Americanism". If you have an argument, present it. Name calling will get you nowhere.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Ministry of National Killing People
Classic Hillier Quote
General Rick Hillier certainly has some exciting opinions on the purpose of the Canadian military. Here I was, foolishly believing that the purpose of the Department of National Defence was to defend Canadians.
Not so, apparently.
"We're not the public service of Canada," he said. "We're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."
Really? First of all, the military actually is part of the public service of Canada. We the people tell you what you can and can't do. At least that's how it should work.
Second, your job is to defend Canada from military attack. Your job is not "to be able to kill people". Yes, protecting us may involve killing people. We don't like it and we really wish you wouldn't be so gleeful about it, but we all understand that it may be necessary.
Maybe it's time to circulate a petition. Let's rename the Defence department the "Department of National Killing People". I guess that makes Peter McKay the Minister of Killing People.
General Rick Hillier certainly has some exciting opinions on the purpose of the Canadian military. Here I was, foolishly believing that the purpose of the Department of National Defence was to defend Canadians.
Not so, apparently.
"We're not the public service of Canada," he said. "We're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."
Really? First of all, the military actually is part of the public service of Canada. We the people tell you what you can and can't do. At least that's how it should work.
Second, your job is to defend Canada from military attack. Your job is not "to be able to kill people". Yes, protecting us may involve killing people. We don't like it and we really wish you wouldn't be so gleeful about it, but we all understand that it may be necessary.
Maybe it's time to circulate a petition. Let's rename the Defence department the "Department of National Killing People". I guess that makes Peter McKay the Minister of Killing People.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Canadian War Crimes
The truth is finally coming out.
Detainee Allegations
Technically, we're only seeing allegations. What matter, however, is that the media is taking the allegations seriously.
It begins with a report gathered from interviews with detainees in Afghanistan - prisoners who were captured by Canadian Forces and turned over to the local Afghan authorities. By the Geneva Convention, it is the responsibility of the capturing party to ensure that the prisoners are treated humanely. This includes the disposition of such prisoners when they are transferred to other parties.
The detainees describe extensive, months-long beatings. Electrocution is apparently acceptable, as is whipping, caning and a variety of other methods of torture. One Afghan police officer confides that one simply can't get answers out of prisoners without at least a little torture.
Indeed.
At first, our Minister of Defense was adamant that if any kind of torture was going on, the Red Cross would have told us. That lasted up until the Red Cross explained that, in fact, they would do no such thing. How embarrassing for the Rt. Hon. Gordon O'Connor. The government's defense is now changed. Stephen Harper flails away, stalling, saying that these are only "allegations". Stockwell Day says, hey, take it easy, human rights are new to Afghanistan. I was listening to the evening news and heard a government spokesman say that, according to reports received from Afghanistan, no torture has ever taken place.
Let's take those in order.
We've long gone by the "just allegations" phase. The stories coming out are numerous and credible. On top of that, we have word that Afghanistan's own governmental body for monitoring human rights is actually prevented from observing the prisoners. Mr. Harper, it's not that we have "allegations", it's that the people who could confirm or deny these allegations are intentionally locked out. What does that tell you?
Stockwell Day's assertion that we should cut the Afghans some slack because human rights are "new to this part of the world" is ridiculous and beside the point. If our government knows that there's so little respect for human rights, that makes them *more* culpable for blindly handing over prisoners, not less.
And lastly ... "no torture" has ever taken place? That defies explanation. In what world would anyone even dream of telling such an obvious lie. Do you expect me to beleive that any agency or human rights body would ever make such a claim about any prison? No torture has ever taken place. Indeed.
I said it before .... weeks ago, in fact ... these are war crimes. And these war crimes fall on our heads.
They're calling for the resignation of the Minister of Defense, Gordon O'Connor, both for initially misleading Parliament and for allowing this all to happen. But it can't stop there. The culpability goes far beyond one man. Why are we in Afghanistan? If we have to torture people to get our way, who is to say that we're the good guys? What's our real motivation for being there? This isn't just Gordon O'Connor. This is Stephen Harper and the Conservatives and Paul Martin and the Liberals and anyone else who has ever voted in favour of it.
Why are we there? Why do we have to torture people to "win"?
Detainee Allegations
Technically, we're only seeing allegations. What matter, however, is that the media is taking the allegations seriously.
It begins with a report gathered from interviews with detainees in Afghanistan - prisoners who were captured by Canadian Forces and turned over to the local Afghan authorities. By the Geneva Convention, it is the responsibility of the capturing party to ensure that the prisoners are treated humanely. This includes the disposition of such prisoners when they are transferred to other parties.
The detainees describe extensive, months-long beatings. Electrocution is apparently acceptable, as is whipping, caning and a variety of other methods of torture. One Afghan police officer confides that one simply can't get answers out of prisoners without at least a little torture.
Indeed.
At first, our Minister of Defense was adamant that if any kind of torture was going on, the Red Cross would have told us. That lasted up until the Red Cross explained that, in fact, they would do no such thing. How embarrassing for the Rt. Hon. Gordon O'Connor. The government's defense is now changed. Stephen Harper flails away, stalling, saying that these are only "allegations". Stockwell Day says, hey, take it easy, human rights are new to Afghanistan. I was listening to the evening news and heard a government spokesman say that, according to reports received from Afghanistan, no torture has ever taken place.
Let's take those in order.
We've long gone by the "just allegations" phase. The stories coming out are numerous and credible. On top of that, we have word that Afghanistan's own governmental body for monitoring human rights is actually prevented from observing the prisoners. Mr. Harper, it's not that we have "allegations", it's that the people who could confirm or deny these allegations are intentionally locked out. What does that tell you?
Stockwell Day's assertion that we should cut the Afghans some slack because human rights are "new to this part of the world" is ridiculous and beside the point. If our government knows that there's so little respect for human rights, that makes them *more* culpable for blindly handing over prisoners, not less.
And lastly ... "no torture" has ever taken place? That defies explanation. In what world would anyone even dream of telling such an obvious lie. Do you expect me to beleive that any agency or human rights body would ever make such a claim about any prison? No torture has ever taken place. Indeed.
I said it before .... weeks ago, in fact ... these are war crimes. And these war crimes fall on our heads.
They're calling for the resignation of the Minister of Defense, Gordon O'Connor, both for initially misleading Parliament and for allowing this all to happen. But it can't stop there. The culpability goes far beyond one man. Why are we in Afghanistan? If we have to torture people to get our way, who is to say that we're the good guys? What's our real motivation for being there? This isn't just Gordon O'Connor. This is Stephen Harper and the Conservatives and Paul Martin and the Liberals and anyone else who has ever voted in favour of it.
Why are we there? Why do we have to torture people to "win"?
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Remembering Peace
Every year, around Remembrance Day, I usually write a piece about peace.
When I learnt about Remembrance Day, as a child, there were always two important lessons.
The first is that a lot of people - millions, in fact - had sacrificed their lives or had their lives sacrificed, in the name of protecting the freedoms we have today. We have a duty to remember those people. While there is a debate as to which wars were really fought for noble causes, this does not detract from the sacrifice these people intended to make.
The second lesson always was this: never again. This is a lesson we can learn whatever it is that we believe about the real causes of the World Wars and all the wars since. This is a lesson taught directly from the butchery of all those sacrificed on all of the false altars that lead us to war. Whether that altar is called the "Fatherland" or the "Queen" or "democracy", we are supposed to have learnt by now that any resort to war is a failure on our part. It is failure on the part of us, the human beings living on this planet, to properly honour and remember those who have suffered the horrors of all previous wars.
We've been slaughtering each other for millennia. With the advent of civilization, we were supposed to smarten up and stop this nonsense. Somehow, though, we fail. We let every manner of thing steer us to violence against one other.
Sometimes it's religion. Sometimes it's a crucial resource. Sometimes it's patriotism. It's almost always someone with a lot of power wanting more, whether that person be priest, nationalist or power baron.
We the people, however, have an obligation to see through the lies. The people of Germany had an obligation to realize that Poland wasn't amassing an army to attack them, and certainly an obligation to realize the lie afterwards when it took but three days to conquer that country. The people of Israel and Palestine have an obligation to realize that four thousand year old bloody histories don't entitle them to each other's land. The people of Canada and the United States have an obligation to realize when their patriotism is being manipulated to seize the oil, land and cheap labour of other nations.
That, to me, is the meaning of Remembrance Day: the obligation to remember the horror of war and to see through the lies that caused it in the past so as to prevent them in the future.
When I learnt about Remembrance Day, as a child, there were always two important lessons.
The first is that a lot of people - millions, in fact - had sacrificed their lives or had their lives sacrificed, in the name of protecting the freedoms we have today. We have a duty to remember those people. While there is a debate as to which wars were really fought for noble causes, this does not detract from the sacrifice these people intended to make.
The second lesson always was this: never again. This is a lesson we can learn whatever it is that we believe about the real causes of the World Wars and all the wars since. This is a lesson taught directly from the butchery of all those sacrificed on all of the false altars that lead us to war. Whether that altar is called the "Fatherland" or the "Queen" or "democracy", we are supposed to have learnt by now that any resort to war is a failure on our part. It is failure on the part of us, the human beings living on this planet, to properly honour and remember those who have suffered the horrors of all previous wars.
We've been slaughtering each other for millennia. With the advent of civilization, we were supposed to smarten up and stop this nonsense. Somehow, though, we fail. We let every manner of thing steer us to violence against one other.
Sometimes it's religion. Sometimes it's a crucial resource. Sometimes it's patriotism. It's almost always someone with a lot of power wanting more, whether that person be priest, nationalist or power baron.
We the people, however, have an obligation to see through the lies. The people of Germany had an obligation to realize that Poland wasn't amassing an army to attack them, and certainly an obligation to realize the lie afterwards when it took but three days to conquer that country. The people of Israel and Palestine have an obligation to realize that four thousand year old bloody histories don't entitle them to each other's land. The people of Canada and the United States have an obligation to realize when their patriotism is being manipulated to seize the oil, land and cheap labour of other nations.
That, to me, is the meaning of Remembrance Day: the obligation to remember the horror of war and to see through the lies that caused it in the past so as to prevent them in the future.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Beating Our Chests
DTK
The DTK, much like the Canadian military, is stuck on the subject of Afghanistan.
General Fraser on the subject of Afghanistan.
It's hard to find polite words to describe what I think of this particular Canadian General. "On his way out, fortunately" only covers some of my feelings.
He claims that (quoting the article) more Canadian soldiers will be killed but the cost in blood must be paid in Afghanistan unless Canadians want to fight Islamic jihadists at home. "I don't want my sons to be doing what I'm doing here on the shores of Canada", he said. Really? Do you really believe that we'll have Islamic radicals landing en masse in Vancouver if we pull our troops out of Afghanistan? Perhaps he's speaking figuratively.
I can't see any reason for the fanatical members of the religion of Islam to hate Canada or Canadians. Well, wait a minute. I can think of one reason: we keep killing hordes of their civilians in Afghanistan. Bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, then, isn't it? What he really means to say, in that case, is, "We'd better *continue* killing their civilians here, or they'll get their act together and come get us." Doesn't have the same fiery rhetorical punch, though, does it?
How about this line: "Canadians should actually do something very un-Canadian-like and pound their chests and be proud and tell everyone, because all the other nations down here are talking about Canada."
Um, yeah. Look, Brigadier-General David Fraser, I don't know what part of Canada you're from, but we really don't do the "our military is awesome" chest beating thing around here. We're proud of a lot of things, nation wide, and our military certainly has a proud history in many theatres of operations. But we aren't the "chest-beating" types. You may be thinking of some other country - perhaps with envy. But even our Americans neighbours had to fire Jay Garner when he made the same "let's beat our chests" comment with respect to killing lots of people in Iraq.
I can only hope that the same fate awaits David Fraser. The last thing we need in the Canadian military are generals making public statements about how proud they are to kill people. Yes, it's your job. Yes, you should be proud of your work. But you also have to acknowledge that killing people is nothing to beat your chest about and really indicates that somewhere, someone has royally screwed up.
The General is also irked that the twenty million that has been spent on reconstruction and development in Afghanistan is being ignored by the media. Well, General, there's a reason for that. It's because the government has stated that the military mission over the next couple of years is going to cost over three *billion* dollars. It's a relative thing. When destruction outspends construction by two orders of magnitude, it tends to take precedence in the news.
Lastly, to rub it all in, we bring in the bit about how we're really "peacekeeping". No, General, we're building an oil pipeline. Your right wing rhetoric notwithstanding.
If you really wanted to keep peace, the first thing to do is stop making war.
Greg.
The DTK, much like the Canadian military, is stuck on the subject of Afghanistan.
General Fraser on the subject of Afghanistan.
It's hard to find polite words to describe what I think of this particular Canadian General. "On his way out, fortunately" only covers some of my feelings.
He claims that (quoting the article) more Canadian soldiers will be killed but the cost in blood must be paid in Afghanistan unless Canadians want to fight Islamic jihadists at home. "I don't want my sons to be doing what I'm doing here on the shores of Canada", he said. Really? Do you really believe that we'll have Islamic radicals landing en masse in Vancouver if we pull our troops out of Afghanistan? Perhaps he's speaking figuratively.
I can't see any reason for the fanatical members of the religion of Islam to hate Canada or Canadians. Well, wait a minute. I can think of one reason: we keep killing hordes of their civilians in Afghanistan. Bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, then, isn't it? What he really means to say, in that case, is, "We'd better *continue* killing their civilians here, or they'll get their act together and come get us." Doesn't have the same fiery rhetorical punch, though, does it?
How about this line: "Canadians should actually do something very un-Canadian-like and pound their chests and be proud and tell everyone, because all the other nations down here are talking about Canada."
Um, yeah. Look, Brigadier-General David Fraser, I don't know what part of Canada you're from, but we really don't do the "our military is awesome" chest beating thing around here. We're proud of a lot of things, nation wide, and our military certainly has a proud history in many theatres of operations. But we aren't the "chest-beating" types. You may be thinking of some other country - perhaps with envy. But even our Americans neighbours had to fire Jay Garner when he made the same "let's beat our chests" comment with respect to killing lots of people in Iraq.
I can only hope that the same fate awaits David Fraser. The last thing we need in the Canadian military are generals making public statements about how proud they are to kill people. Yes, it's your job. Yes, you should be proud of your work. But you also have to acknowledge that killing people is nothing to beat your chest about and really indicates that somewhere, someone has royally screwed up.
The General is also irked that the twenty million that has been spent on reconstruction and development in Afghanistan is being ignored by the media. Well, General, there's a reason for that. It's because the government has stated that the military mission over the next couple of years is going to cost over three *billion* dollars. It's a relative thing. When destruction outspends construction by two orders of magnitude, it tends to take precedence in the news.
Lastly, to rub it all in, we bring in the bit about how we're really "peacekeeping". No, General, we're building an oil pipeline. Your right wing rhetoric notwithstanding.
If you really wanted to keep peace, the first thing to do is stop making war.
Greg.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
The Canadian Dream
Once upon a time, there was a dream called Canada.
In Canada, the children were taught about a thing called the National Identity.
The first chapter of National Identity was always Counterculture, wherein we tell the children that we often define ourselves as simply being "not American". The next chapter is usually named the "Legacy of Peacekeeping" wherein we tell them that our proud military history contains only victories in protecting the weak from the strong and keeping the peace so as to teach enemies to be friends.
They lied to us.
I don't know when the lying started. I'm pretty sure it was sometime before I was born, but it's hard to tell because the media fall in so well with the lies that it's hard to dig them out. I know, with certainty, that the framework for lying was already well in place when NATO, including Canada, began bombing Serbia. They told us that the Serbs were "ethnically cleansing" Kosovo of all non-Serbians. We were told that there were mass graves containing, in total, perhaps 100 000 Kosovars.
Then Canada, as part of the NATO mission against Serbia, committed terrorism. There was no UN approval. There was no Parliamentary vote. There was no declaration of war. Serbia never attacked us in a way that would activate the NATO alliance. Civilians were bombed and killed for the purpose of changing a government we didn't like.
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/shown.htm
The Serbs were not ethnically cleansing Kosovo. The Serbs were not expanding beyond their borders. There was never any proof of this, just allegations to trick us in to supporting the war. All that NATO and human rights investigators could later find were normal graves containing about equal numbers of fighting men from both sides - those having been killed in the battles between foreign funded Kosovo Liberation Army guerrillas and the government armed forces. General Lewis MacKenzie was upset, as was Canada's former ambassador to Yugoslavia, James Bisset.
General LEWIS MacKENZIE: "Where have all the bodies gone?"
Ambassador James Bisset: "The NATO bombing: an assault on sovereignty"
A New York Times writer had the clever comment "You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too". He was only reflecting, in that sycophantic mainstream media style, the attitudes of the NATO commanders toward the general Serbian population. Here was NATO, promising to bomb the infrastructure of the country until it changed governments. Radio stations were hit. Hospitals were bombed. Finally, Milosevic surrendered. They sent him to the Hague, where they couldn't a thing to pin on him. Eventually he died of some heart ailment. In a fit of irony, it was the invading NATO commanders that accused him of terrorism and invented the term "ethnic cleansing".
We went along with those lies in Serbia. We went along with the lies in Haiti. We're going along with the lies in Afghanistan. I don't know how many other lies we're permitting.
There was a dream that was called Canada and I never once feared that it could be destroyed.
Once, there was a dream called Canada, and I fear it will fade away from the apathy of its citizens.
Greg.
In Canada, the children were taught about a thing called the National Identity.
The first chapter of National Identity was always Counterculture, wherein we tell the children that we often define ourselves as simply being "not American". The next chapter is usually named the "Legacy of Peacekeeping" wherein we tell them that our proud military history contains only victories in protecting the weak from the strong and keeping the peace so as to teach enemies to be friends.
They lied to us.
I don't know when the lying started. I'm pretty sure it was sometime before I was born, but it's hard to tell because the media fall in so well with the lies that it's hard to dig them out. I know, with certainty, that the framework for lying was already well in place when NATO, including Canada, began bombing Serbia. They told us that the Serbs were "ethnically cleansing" Kosovo of all non-Serbians. We were told that there were mass graves containing, in total, perhaps 100 000 Kosovars.
Then Canada, as part of the NATO mission against Serbia, committed terrorism. There was no UN approval. There was no Parliamentary vote. There was no declaration of war. Serbia never attacked us in a way that would activate the NATO alliance. Civilians were bombed and killed for the purpose of changing a government we didn't like.
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/shown.htm
The Serbs were not ethnically cleansing Kosovo. The Serbs were not expanding beyond their borders. There was never any proof of this, just allegations to trick us in to supporting the war. All that NATO and human rights investigators could later find were normal graves containing about equal numbers of fighting men from both sides - those having been killed in the battles between foreign funded Kosovo Liberation Army guerrillas and the government armed forces. General Lewis MacKenzie was upset, as was Canada's former ambassador to Yugoslavia, James Bisset.
General LEWIS MacKENZIE: "Where have all the bodies gone?"
Ambassador James Bisset: "The NATO bombing: an assault on sovereignty"
A New York Times writer had the clever comment "You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too". He was only reflecting, in that sycophantic mainstream media style, the attitudes of the NATO commanders toward the general Serbian population. Here was NATO, promising to bomb the infrastructure of the country until it changed governments. Radio stations were hit. Hospitals were bombed. Finally, Milosevic surrendered. They sent him to the Hague, where they couldn't a thing to pin on him. Eventually he died of some heart ailment. In a fit of irony, it was the invading NATO commanders that accused him of terrorism and invented the term "ethnic cleansing".
We went along with those lies in Serbia. We went along with the lies in Haiti. We're going along with the lies in Afghanistan. I don't know how many other lies we're permitting.
There was a dream that was called Canada and I never once feared that it could be destroyed.
Once, there was a dream called Canada, and I fear it will fade away from the apathy of its citizens.
Greg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)