Stephen Harper, Bush’s Last Yes Man?

July 16, 2008

Canada, Guantanamo and Yankee Poodles

By ROBERT FANTINA | Counterpunch, Weekend Edition, 12 / 13 July, 2008

During the administration of Tony Blair as Prime Minister of Britain, he was sometimes referred to as the ‘Yankee Poodle,’ due to the constant and humiliating spectacle he made of himself with his obvious adoration of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Now, it seems, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has assumed Mr. Blair’s role. In no way is this more blatant than the shocking, tragic case of Omar Khadr.

Mr. Khadr is one of the inmates in the Cuban-based U.S. torture chamber known as Guantanamo. He arrived there from Afghanistan, where he was captured by U.S. soldiers in a house from which a hand grenade had been flung, killing a U.S. soldier. At the time of his capture and incarceration in that hell-hole, the American government evidently believed him to be an ‘enemy combatant.’ When captured, Mr. Khadr was fifteen years old.

It was apparently of no importance to Mr. Bush that Mr. Khadr was a minor at the time of his arrest, that at least one other ‘enemy’ soldier was alive in the building when Mr. Khadr was captured, thus making it at least ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that Mr. Khadr was guilty of throwing the grenade. Nor did it seem to matter that most nations believe children cannot be guilty of military crimes because they are not sufficiently cognizant to understand what joining the military means. It was enough for Mr. Bush that Toronto-born Mr. Khadr was fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan, and that his father is alleged to have helped finance al-Qaeda.

This week Canada’s Foreign Affairs Department detailed the torture that Mr. Khadr, a Canadian citizen, has received at the hands of the U.S. government. While it is no longer news that the U.S. tortures its prisoners, the Harper government’s response to this horrific victimization of one of its own citizens is news. Mr. Harper, when asked about the situation, demonstrated nothing but loyalty to Mr. Bush.

“The previous government took a whole range, all of the information, into account when they made the decision on how to proceed with the Khadr case several years ago,” said Mr. Harper. Like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the decision to crucify Jesus Christ, Mr. Harper said the decision to allow Mr. Khadr to be tortured was made by someone else. That may be the case, but Mr. Harper is now Prime Minister, and he can make a different decision.

What would it take, one might ask, to get Mr. Khadr released from Guantanamo and returned to Canada? What complex diplomatic channels would have to be navigated, what hoops jumped through, what concessions made by Canada? University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran has the answer: a single telephone call. Said Mr. Attaran:

“Without exception, every other leader of a Western country has got their citizens out of Guantanamo.”

So why does Mr. Harper not make that call? Why, when Mr. Bush ‘Yo Harper’d’ him at the G8 Summit this past week did he not request Mr. Khadr’s release? What is so frightening about a now-21-year-old young man who has experienced six years of unspeakable torture that Mr. Harper is willing to let him continue to suffer beyond comprehension at the hands of U.S. torturers? Why has every other Western nation rescued their citizens from Guantanamo, but Mr. Harper is content to let a citizen of his nation be tortured there?

Continued . . .

MIDEAST: Israel Targets Hamas Orphanages

July 16, 2008

By Peter Hirschberg

JERUSALEM, Jul 15 (IPS) – Shopping malls. Schools. Medical centres. Charities, orphanages. Soup kitchens. These are the latest targets in the campaign the Israeli military is waging against Hamas in the West Bank.

Israeli military officials have identified Hamas’s civilian infrastructure in the West Bank as a major source of the Islamic group’s popularity, and have begun raiding and shutting down these institutions in cities like Hebron, Nablus and Qalqilyah.

Last week, troops focused their efforts in Nablus, raiding the city hall and confiscating computers. They also stormed into a shopping mall and posted closure notices on the shop windows. A girls’ school and a medical centre were shut down in the city, and a charitable association had its computers impounded and documents seized.

This policy, officials say, is meant to deny the Islamic group, which is committed to Israel’s destruction, the ability to use these institutions as a pipeline by which money is channelled to finance attacks on the Jewish state. But the main goal of this campaign is to stem Hamas’s growing popularity in the West Bank, and ensure it does not seize control of the area as it did in Gaza a year ago, when its forces vanquished the more moderate Fatah movement headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

In Gaza, Hamas was able to capture the hearts and minds of the residents not just because it offered an alternative to the corruption-tainted Fatah leadership, but also because its network of schools, clinics, summer camps, after-school activities and charitable associations provided impoverished Gazans with the type of institutions and welfare alternatives that the Palestinian Authority failed to.

Continued . . .

Christian doctrine offensive to Muslims, says Archbishop of Canterbury

July 16, 2008

Key elements of Christian doctrine are offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said in a letter to Islamic scholars.

Ben Farmer | Telegraph.co.uk, July 16, 2008

Dr Rowan Williams also spoke critically of the violent past of both religions and Christianity’s abandonment of its peaceful origins.

His comments came in a published letter to Islamic leaders, intended to promote closer dialogue and understanding between the two faiths.

However they come just months after Dr Williams was forced to clarify comments in which he said some parts of Islamic law will “unavoidably” be adopted in Britain.

The comments are also made as the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference begins in Canterbury. Up to a quarter of bishops are boycotting the event, as the Anglican Church faces continuing division over the issues of women bishops and homosexual clergy.

The wide-ranging letter, which covers difficult issues including religious freedom and religiously-inspired violence is in response to a document written last year by Muslim scholars from 43 countries.

Discussing differences between the religions, Dr Williams acknowledges that Christian belief in the Trinity is “difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims”.

The Trinity is the Christian doctrine stating God exists as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and conflicts with Islamic teaching that there is one all-powerful God.

Speaking about the history of the two religions, Dr Williams said they had been too often confused with Empire and control.

He said: “Despite Jesus’ words in John’s gospel, Christianity has been promoted at the point of the sword and legally supported by extreme sanctions; despite the Qur’anic axiom, Islam has been supported in the same way, with extreme penalties for abandoning it, and civil disabilities for those outside the faith.

“There is no religious tradition whose history is exempt from such temptation and such failure.”

He goes on: “What we need as a vision for our dialogue is to break the current cycles of violence, to show the world that faith and faith alone can truly ground a commitment to peace which definitively abandons the tempting but lethal cycle of retaliation in which we simply imitate each other’s violence.”

The 17-page letter, called A Common Word for the Common Good, is in response to a letter from Muslim leaders written last September.

That letter, A Common Word Between Us and You, was signed by 138 Muslim scholars to declare the common ground between the two religions.

Dr Williams described the Muslim document as hospitable and friendly and added: “Your letter could hardly be more timely, given the growing awareness that peace throughout the world is deeply entwined with the ability of all people of faith everywhere to live in peace, justice, mutual respect and love.”

His own dense and meticulous letter did not mention sharia Islamic law at all. He received widespread criticism from politicians and other clergy for his comments in February and later told the General Synod he took responsibility for his “unclarity” and “misleading” choice of words.

US soldier who deserted over Iraq is deported

July 16, 2008

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and agencies

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday July 16, 2008

Canada yesterday deported to the US the first American army deserter fleeing the Iraq war across the US-Canadian border.

Robin Long, 25, faces a possible court martial and jail, and even redeployment to Iraq.

He joined the army in 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, but became troubled by the war.

In 2005 he fled to Canada and applied for refugee status, because the US army wanted him to participate in what he called an “illegal war of aggression in Iraq.”

On Monday, the Federal court of Canada Justice Anne Mactavish ruled that Long could not provide clear evidence that he would suffer irreparable harm if returned to the US.

The Canada border services agency confirmed Long’s removal, but declined to give other details, citing privacy laws. Long’s refugee claim had already been rejected and he could not appeal this latest court ruling.

Some 200 other US soldiers are in Canada, counting on its history of welcoming 50,000 Americans fleeing the Vietnam draft.

Last month, Canada’s parliament urged the government to allow war resisters to remain.

However, opponents of granting refugee status to deserters argue that, unlike during the Vietnam war, the United States does not now have a military draft and members of its military are volunteers who know the potential risks.

Want to know if waterboarding is torture? Ask Christopher Hitchens

July 15, 2008
By Jon Henley and You Tube Video

Axis of Logic, July 7, 2008, 23:35

Editor’s Note: If this was the “water-boarding” experience of Christopher Hitchens after a minute or two, we can only imagine the torture to which prisoners are subjected to when “water-boarding” is conducted by US military thugs who are trained to hate Muslims and whose handiwork is not being video-taped. – Les Blough, Editor


Late last year, the writer, polemicist and fierce proponent of the US-led invasion of Iraq Christopher Hitchens attempted, in a piece for the online magazine Slate, to draw a distinction between what he called techniques of “extreme interrogation” and “outright torture”.

From this, his foes inferred that since it was Hitchens’ belief that America did not stoop to the latter, the practice of waterboarding – known to be perpetrated by US forces against certain “high-value clients” in Iraq and elsewhere – must fall under the former heading.

Enraged by what they saw as an exercise in elegant but offensive sophistry, some of the writer’s critics suggested that Hitchens give waterboarding (which may sound like some kind of fun aquatic pastime, but is probably best summarised as enforced partial drowning) a whirl, just to see what it was like. Did the experience feel like torture?

And amazingly, he has done just that. In August’s edition of Vanity Fair, you can read all about it, and see more photographs of the “wheezing, paunchy, 59-year-old scribbler”, his head hooded, being subjected to this most terrifying of ordeals by veterans of the US Special Forces.

So what did it feel like? Hitchens recounts how he was lashed tightly to a sloping board, then, “on top of the hood, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose … I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and – as you might expect – inhale in turn.”

That, he says, “brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, flooded more with sheer panic than with water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal” and felt the “unbelievable relief” of being pulled upright.

The “official lie” about waterboarding, Hitchens says, is that it “simulates the feeling of drowning”. In fact, “you are drowning – or rather, being drowned”.

He rehearses the intellectual arguments, both for (“It’s nothing compared to what they do to us”) and against (“It opens a door that can’t be closed”). But the Hitch’s thoroughly empirical conclusion is simple. As Vanity Fair’s title puts it: “Believe me, it’s torture.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/02/humanrights.usa

Amber Alert! Get ready for war

July 15, 2008
Antiwar.com, July 14, 2008

by Justin Raimondo

In spite of reassurances from the Washington talking heads and policy wonks that the U.S. is not about to launch an attack on Iran, or countenance an Israeli strike, the Sunday Times has the real scoop:

“President George W. Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

“Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread skepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political, and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an ‘amber light’ to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

“‘Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack, and tell us when you’re ready,’ the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use U.S. military bases in Iraq for logistical support.”

It seems, however, that the Israelis have already been using U.S. bases in Iraq to train for the coming attack. There have been denials all around – from the Iraqis, the Americans, and the Israelis – but both the Iraqi media and the Israeli media have reported, as the New York Post put it, that “Israeli warplanes have been flying over Iraq and landing at U.S. bases there in preparation for an attack on Iran.” The Iraqi Web site Nahrainet reported Israeli fighter jets have been in rehearsals, so to speak, for their much-anticipated strike at Iran, flying at night over Jordanian airspace and arriving at U.S. air bases in Nasiriyah in southern Iraq and near Haditha in western Anbar province.

The Israelis, in concert with their amen corner in the U.S., have been engaged in a propaganda blitz targeting Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, the whole point of which is not to pressure the Iranians into backing down, but to force the U.S. to take action in lieu of the Israelis going it alone. Why fight if your big brother is willing to wage the battle? To that end, the Israelis are taking aim at Washington, rather than Tehran, in a full-scale political assault that shows every sign of succeeding where it counts – in the Oval Office. The Times cites a top Pentagon official:

Continued . . .

Iraqis demand end to ‘occupation’

July 15, 2008

Phil Sands, Foreign Correspondent | The National, July 14, 2008

Iraqi delegates attend a conference in Damascus. Phil Sands / The National

DAMASCUS // Iraqi opposition and resistance groups have renewed their demands for an end to all negotiations with the United States while US troops remain on Iraqi soil.

“We reject any kind of agreement that prolongs the occupation for so much as a day,” said Shamil Rassam, chairman of the Iraqi Popular Forces, an anti-occupation group with offices in Syria. “The occupation must be ended immediately and there can be no compromises until the last American soldier has left the country.”

Talks continue between the government in Baghdad and the Bush administration over a controversial status of forces agreement, a treaty that would lay out US military legal rights to remain in Iraq.

Discussions appear to have stalled over the Iraqi government’s insistence the agreement include a timetable for US troop withdrawal, something Washington has insisted would aid insurgents.

The United States has been pushing for a long-term deal to be concluded by the end of the month, and certainly before the next US president takes over the White House in January.

That now seems unlikely and, instead, a temporary one-year agreement between Iraq and the United States is being considered. It would allow basic US military operations to continue after the year-end expiration of the UN mandate that currently gives them legal cover.

Despite the Iraqi government’s taking a harder negotiating line than many expected, Iraqi tribes and political organisations with representatives in Damascus have demanded a zero tolerance strategy: no deals until all US troops are pulled out.

“The security agreement is just a plan to turn Iraq into an American colony forever,” Mr Rassam said. “The only deal that is acceptable to us is one that calls for complete unconditional withdrawal.”

Sheikh Ra’ad Kadhamyi, the head of the Sadrist offices outside of Iraq, said the proposed Iraqi-US deal must include a clear timetable for a rapid US withdrawal.

“Everything we have seen of these agreements so far bring shame to the Iraqi people and will hand control of our country and its resources to the Americans,” he said.

Continued . . .

Inside the Bush White House’s Nonstop Propaganda War

July 15, 2008

RINF.COM, Monday, July 14th, 2008

By Mark Dery

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan exposes the culture of deception that sold an unnecessary war to the public

Scott McClellan is having a “Matrix” moment — the moment when you wake up, with a jolt, from the reassuring fictions of the media dreamworld to the face-slapping reality of unspun fact. Remember that scene in “The Matrix” where Laurence Fishburne parts the veil of illusion — the computer-generated simulation humanity experiences as everyday reality — to reveal the movie’s post-apocalyptic world for the irradiated slag heap it really is? Like that. “Welcome to the Desert of the Real,” he tells Keanu Reeves, a riff on the postmodern philosopher Jean Baudrillard’s pronouncement, in his book Simulations, that we live in a “desert of the real” — an ever-more-virtual reality where firsthand experience and empirical truth are being displaced by media fictions. He offers an example tailor-made for the Bush presidency: “Propaganda and advertising fuse in the same marketing and merchandising of objects and ideologies.”

This, in a word, is life inside the Bush administration’s Ministry of Truth, as described by McClellan in What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception. In his frag ‘em-and-run memoir, the former White House press secretary — whose Secret Service code name, I kid you not, was “Matrix” — recounts how he and the rest of Team Dubya got caught up in the “permanent campaign,” a nonstop propaganda war whose tactical weapons were “the manipulation of shades of truth, partial truths, twisting of the truth, and spin,” and whose goal was to stage-manage the media narrative and thus public opinion.

Now that McClellan has broken free from what he calls the “Washington bubble,” he can see the “massive marketing campaign” (his words, my italics) to sell the war in Iraq for the steaming heap of dookie it was: a PR operation characterized by a, er, “lack of candor and honesty,” as the author so masterfully understates it, having just told us that the administration dropped the trap on chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey for telling the Wall Street Journal that Bush’s war would likely cost between $100 billion and $200 billion — a fatal misspeak at a moment when “talking about the projected cost of a potential war wasn’t part of the script.” Neither was talking about “possible unpleasant consequences” (the choice of adjective is sheer virtuosity, like a grace note in a Paganini caprice); “casualties, economic effects, geopolitical risks, diplomatic repercussions,” and other buzz-killers might jeopardize what advertisers call the “supportive atmosphere” that puts consumers in that impulse-buying mood — in this instance, buying the dubious case for war from a president who famously prefers faith to facts, a president who listens to his gut. Unfortunately, the trustworthy gurglings of the Bush gut were indistinguishable, in this case, from the offstage urgings of the neocons Colin Powell derided as “fucking crazies.”

Continued . . .

Enabling Tyranny

July 15, 2008

By Paul Craig Roberts | Information Clearing House, July 14, 2008

I recently read that Brigette Bardot, now in her 70s, has been arrested as a hate criminal for complaining that Muslims in France slaughter sheep without first stunning them. The famous actress is known for her sympathy with animals, but the French government preferred to interpret her remarks as hatred for Muslims. Prosecutor Anne de Fontetts promised to throw the book at Bardot.

There are many incongruities here. The French are persecuting one of their own for taking exception to the practices of an alien culture. But then, perhaps this is just being broad-minded. What really jumps out is: if Bardot’s animal rights position makes her a hate criminal, what does French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s foreign policy position make him?

According to Information Clearing House’s running tally as of July 12, 1,236,604 Iraqis have been slaughtered as a result of the Sarkozy-supported US invasion and occupation of Iraq. If Bardot is a hate criminal under French law for complaining about how Muslims prepare their mutton, why isn’t President Sarkozy a hate criminal for supporting an American policy that has resulted in the deaths of 1,236,604 Muslims and the displacement of 4 million Iraqis?

Such incongruities are everywhere. It is as if people are no longer capable of thought.

Last week the US Congress passed an ex post facto law that legalized the illegal behavior of telecommunication companies that enabled the Bush Regime to violate US law and to spy on Americans without warrants. Retroactive laws are unconstitutional. But, alas, the US Constitution does not make campaign contributions, and telecommunication companies do.

The Bush Regime claimed that its illegal behavior, which requires an unconstitutional retroactive law to protect telecommunication companies and President Bush from being held accountable, is necessary to protect us. But as our Founding Fathers and every intelligent patriotic person since has patiently explained to the American public, it is the Constitution that protects us. No safety can be found by fleeing the Constitution.

Without the Constitution we have no protection. We simply stand naked before unbridled government power.

That’s pretty much how we stand now after 7.5 years of the Bush Regime. Electing a Democratic Congress in 2006 did not make any difference. Indeed, it was a Democratic majority Congress that last week gave Bush his unconstitutional ex post facto law.

Continued . . .

RIGHTS: Ten Years On, Some Step Towards Justice

July 15, 2008

By Irene de Vette

ROTTERDAM, Jul 15 (IPS) – Human rights organisations all over the world will celebrate the tenth anniversary Jul. 17 of the adoption of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is the first and only permanent international criminal tribunal to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“Our hope is that, by punishing the guilty, the International Criminal Court will bring some comfort to the surviving victims and to the communities that have been targeted,” then Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan said on the historic day in 1998. “More important, we hope it will deter future war criminals, and bring nearer the day when no ruler, no state, no junta and no army anywhere will be able to abuse human rights with impunity.”

After the Berlin Wall had fallen in 1989, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago put the establishment of a permanent criminal tribunal, a wish that had long existed among the international community, back on the agenda. While ad-hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda were established, a Statute was drafted in 1994 and then adopted in 1998 as the Statute of Rome. It went into effect Jul. 1, 2002, when the required 60 states had ratified it. To date, there are 106 ratifications. Some countries have not signed, among them the United States, China, India and Israel.

Early July of this year, former Congolese rebel leader Jean-Pierre Bemba was transferred from Belgium to the ICC in The Hague, the Netherlands, to face multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Central African Republic. On Jul. 14, ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo requested the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in connection with the ongoing violence in the Darfur region.

Continued . . .