Canada: We Are Better Than This
This is a crucial moment for all Canadians, one in which the morality of our nation will be tested. It is no secret that a Canadian played the lead role in the drafting of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, something that should make us, as a nation, extremely proud. But given information that has come to light this year about the transfer of detainees into the hands of known torturers in Afghanistan debases not only our ability to feel proud of the integral role played by Canadians in the drafting of the Declaration, but presents us with a very crucial decision to make. Is our involvement in Afghanistan worth the debasement of our beliefs? And if so, then are we prepared, as a nation of compassionate and selfless people, to abandon our principles because of it?
Recently the Globe & Mail published a piece by Graeme Smith that detailed human rights abuses committed by Afghan authorities on detainees after the Canadian military transferred them to their authority. The report details horrible accounts by detainees at the hands of Afghan authorities…
“None of the abuse was inflicted by Canadians, and most Afghans captured — even those who clearly sympathized with the Taliban — praised the Canadian soldiers for their politeness, their gentle handling of captives and their comfortable detention facility.â€?
That, of course, reflects what the standards of this nation are all about. Unfortunately, when there are others prepared to get their hands bloody, the compassionate resonance of this paragraph is quickly erased…
“Mahmad Gul, 33, an impoverished farmer, said he was interrogated for three days in May of 2006, without any meals, at Zhari District Centre, a small town west of Kandahar city.
His tormentors were the Afghan police, he said, but the Canadian soldiers who visited him between beatings had surely heard his screams.
“The Canadians told me, ‘Give them real information, or they will do more bad things to you,’ ” Mr. Gul said.â€?
If that is accurate, if Canadians did indeed have contact with him during that time, knowing what was happening, after he had been in Canadian custody and transferred to Afghan authorities which then tortured him, then that is, without question, or even the possibility of arguing the fact, a breach of international law, human rights laws, and actually constitutes war crimes. It should also be noted that, unlike other foreign militaries operating in Afghanistan, Canada has not ratified an agreement that requires them to check up on those they have handed over to Afghan authorities.
According to both Michael Byers and Amir Attaran, two of the most noted legal experts in Canada with regards to human rights and international law…
“Under international law, you are prohibited from transferring to torture. You are prohibited from facilitating torture in any way,� said Mr. Byers, who teaches international law and politics at the University of British Columbia.
“We’re not simply speaking about the criminal responsibility of individual Canadian soldiers. We’re speaking also of command responsibility, of criminal responsibility that continues up the chain of command, to any superior officer who knew of the risk of torture and who ordered or allowed our soldiers to transfer detainees nevertheless,â€? he said.
Of course, like a host of others, we can simply choose to disregard both international and human rights laws under the auspices of the The War On Terror and continue to be complicit in the transfer of detainees into the hands of torturers. It should also not be overlooked that this is not the first instance of our complicity. Canadian authorities basically did the exact same thing to Maher Arar.
Gul’s ordeal was, in comparison to others interviewed by Graeme, a walk in the park. During the two months that he was detained the ‘worst’ that happened was that an interrogator “punched out the teeth on the left side of his mouth�. So what of others who weren’t as ‘lucky’ as Gul?
According to Graeme, who has agreed to answer questions about the matter from Globe readers…
“Other survivors describe more grisly horrors. At times they pointed to Afghan soldiers or police officers as their abusers, but the worst stories came from Afghans who endured captivity in the cramped basement cells underneath the NDS headquarters in Kandahar.
Most of those held by the NDS for an extended time said they were whipped with electrical cables, usually a bundle of wires about the length of an arm. Some said the whipping was so painful that they fell unconscious.
Interrogators also jammed cloth between the teeth of some detainees, who described hearing the sound of a hand-crank generator and feeling the hot flush of electricity coursing through their muscles, seizing them with spasms.
Another man said the police hung him by his ankles for eight days of beating. Still another said he panicked as interrogators put a plastic bag over his head and squeezed his windpipe.
Torturers also used cold as a weapon, according to detainees who complained of being stripped half-naked and forced to stand through winter nights when temperatures in Kandahar drop below freezing.
The men who survived these ordeals often seem like broken husks. They tell their stories with quiet voices and trembling hands. They can’t sleep, they complain of chronic pain and they forget the simplest things, such as remembering to pull down their pants when they use the toilet.
After interrogation, the NDS often sends Taliban suspects to Sarpoza prison, on the western edge of the city. Detainees who arrive at the facility’s tall metal gates are occasionally so badly impaired that they’re incapable of caring for themselves properly and prison officials and fellow inmates complain that they’re left with the chores of washing, dressing, and feeding them.â€?
Perhaps, rather than retaining the position of Defense Minister, Mr. O’Connor might consider resigning and traveling to Sarpoza prison to help take care of those that have been so affected by torture that they have been turned into little more that paralytics. Better yet, perhaps Mr. Hillier can carry his luggage.
Let’s also not forget that in February of this year it was announced that an inquiry by the The Military Police Complaints Commission into the “alleged mistreatment of prisoners in Afghanistan involving the Canadian military� was being undertaken.
Where are our voices? When do we, as people that believe in the rule of law and decency, stand up and start asking point-blank questions about this? Because the truth is that if we don’t, it will continue, and will, whether you want to believe it or not, irrevocably damage this country.
This is not a discussion that can be dismissed by claiming that by making an entry such as this that I do not support our troops. I am so utterly sick and tired of the limited intelligence employed by those that actually believe that there isn’t a differentiation between the role of soldiers placed in a situation because of policy and policy itself.
Canadians, like others, like to wax sentimental about the greatness of democratic freedoms. That said, make no mistake that the complicity of our government in such affairs does not just ultimately rest with those in office, but by those that voted to put them there, and even those that didn’t that refuse to stand up and demand they be held accountable. For if we are not to believe that that is the reality of true democracy, that there exists a disconnect between our elected officials and the general public, and that we cannot ultimately be held accountable for policies that lead to the torture of others – then we are hypocrites and our entire way of life a fraud.
If you feel powerless, if you feel like there is nothing that can be done, allow me to suggest a few options. The first is to write your Member of Parliament about this issue, as well as those of that hold positions within the cabinet and The Prime Minister himself.
Members Of Parliament
You can find a complete list of the members of Parliament by visiting the official House Of Commons Membership page. Simply use the navigation on the website to find the link to the website of your MP.
The Cabinet
For a complete list of the members of Prime Minister Harper’s cabinet, visit the The Office Of The Prime Minister’s website. If you click on the name of a cabinet member you will be able to discover their riding and then refer to the afore mentioned Members page to contact them.
Of particular importance in this regard are the following:
- Minister of National Defence, The Honourable Gordon O’Connor.
- Minister of Foreign Affairs, The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay.
The Prime Minister
To contact the Prime Minister’s office directly, you can email Mr. Harper by clicking here. Likewise, you can contact the Prime Minister’s office by mail at the following address…
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2
Action
Though it might sound simple, or even pointless to some, I want to suggest something. If you look at the photograph at the top of this page you will notice that it features my hand with the words Out Now written on it. I would like to encourage everyone to follow suit. Even further, post your own hand on your blog, encourage others to do the same, and even fax pictures of your hand to the Prime Minister’s office, the fax number being 613-941-6900.
If you are unable to use a fax, you can always email a picture of your hand or send one in by mail.
Please also conduct yourselves with the utmost maturity. Agree with them or not, these are Right Honourable members of Parliament and should thus be addressed as such. Do not, under any circumstances, abandon the platitudes of civil discourse as it accomplishes nothing but the degradation of your position.
This is, by no means, a solution, and certainly not something that is going to change policy immediately, but is a way for those who feel they are powerless to begin to make themselves heard. I hope that you will join me.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 24th, 2007 at 12:26 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
OUT NOW !!! I’m with you Matt !!!
April 24th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
i just wanted to note that all mail directed to the Hill is free (doesn’t require a stamp)
April 24th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
amen
April 24th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/girlinthepicture/471587410/
http://seeminginsignificance.blogspot.com/2007/04/out-now_24.html
April 24th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Matt,
You might want to read Sandra Whitworth’s “Men, Militarism and UN Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis” and anything by Cynthia Enloe. In particular you might want to read her book “Banana’s, Beaches and Bases”. Both works account for torture and other forms of excessive violence (including domestic violence during peacetime) to the training that soldiers are put through. They believe that the training creates a mindset of hyper-masculinization. This state of mind lends itself to encouraging homophobia, attacks against women and extreme violence towards “enemies” in wartime.
Devon.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I’m very interested in the issues that Devon has described. In particular the affects of hyper-masculinization in the Canadian Armed Forces and domestic violence, sexual abuse, and alcoholism. If anyone can offer any suggestions of academic research, stats can data or anything else that would be very helpful to me.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Out now…simple yet effective!!
April 24th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Wait, so is what the NDP and Jack Layton did honourable or not? On the one hand it is true that 2009 is way too long, but is it going to get sped up at some point? I suppose agreeing to get out by 2009 would mean that yes, they would be out by 2009, but now we don’t know how long they could be there for!
April 24th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I have a further question. I noticed that your email was rather short in relation to your blog entry. When I go about emailing or faxing a letter, should I make short or longer? It seems like both ways kind of have their drawbacks, since one way doesnt really get the full message across, whereas with the other, someone might not read it.
April 24th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
For those concerned about the Lib motion tonight, it should be noted that it was basically a non-binding motion to keep the mission until 2009, exactly as the Conservatives did a year ago. 2/3 of Liberals voted a year ago NOT to extend the mission until 2009, and now ALL of them support the war until 2009.
I hope that Jack Layton puts forward a real “out now” motion in the next few days.
The Liberals got us into this mess in the first place, and now they want to save face by continuing with search and destroy for two more years.
As John Kerry said about Vietnam: “How do you ask a man, to be the last man to die for a lie?”
April 24th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Ty,
Another book that’s helpful in discussing the themes I mentioned (again from a feminist perspective) is “Worlding Women by Jan Jindy Pettman. It discusses hyper-masculinity, war rape and a lot of other issues that are usually neglected in literature about war. It was published in 1996, so it’s a bit dated, but still excellent. Hope this helps.
Devon.
April 24th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Out now yeah…but a definitive end date is better than sitting on the fence only to prolong the withdrawal process even longer…
i prefer time lines to fences and posturing…if a motion presented and passed to have the troops out sooner than an opportunity has been lost to get the hell on with planning for an end date…which does take longer than drop guns go.
April 24th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
From CTV news:
“(Stockwell) Day noted that human rights in Afghanistan, especially for prisoners, is ’so to speak, a new concept’ that must become common practice.
“It’s not going as quickly as we would like, but we see some progress.”
Afghanistan’s ambassador to Canada said he was not surprised by allegations of detainee abuse in his country but he said that shouldn’t overshadow the important mission being accomplished.”
In other words, torture can be tolerated as long as the “larger picture” justifies the means, and as long as the abusers are making some progress.
Not sure how they measure progress. I’m sure the tortured prisoners are quite grateful that progress is being made.
Email sent.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Just sent in an email with a picture myself.
Great idea.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
‘Bout time.
Personally I recommend grassroots action for. Make sure that your Alderman’s stance is firm and official, as well as your MLA’s. Remind your local officials that they don’t have to follow party lines, they have to follow the will of their constituents.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I’ll spread the word. I live in a military community, 14 Wing Greenwood to be exact. I’m sure my friends love the fact that their parents are over in the Middle East and not home enjoying the last years of their highschool life at home. I’m with you 105% OUT NOW.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Also, does anyone know how many NATO troops are uncommitted right now? I always quote it as over a million but I’m not 100% on that. It’s always my preferred statistic when people claim that defeating the Taliban is an important cause. I don’t dispute that it’s a noble cause, but I ask whether or not, with a million troops uncommitted, is defeating the Taliban actually the cause?
For that matter I always say the number of soldiers is at 30,000. Is that still correct?
April 24th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Done and sent. Thank you for coming up with this Matt. Oftentimes, it is so frustrating to hear about these things and feel helpless, and yet you remind us of the simplicity of what can be done. You’ve also provided great framework for us to work with- without sounding like loonies, hippies, or idiots.
I’ll join you in this message, for the sake of those who suffer.
April 24th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
[...] a recent post, Matt comments on the Canadian Forces’ complicity in handing over detainees to Afghan [...]
April 24th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
http://www.superguncinema.com/blog/?p=117
April 24th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I don’t know… I don’t know… I wrote a post earlier this week about my mixed feelings in Afghanistan, which I ultimately think we need to support during this time of change…
How, exactly, can you conclude that the most effective way to stop human rights abuses in Afghanistan is to pull out the CF?
I, personally, am going to write my MP and express my utter disgust at the reported abuses made by Canadians on Afghanis. I will demand that Canadians uphold the ideals they are allegedly trying to disseminate. I will demand that Canada get it’s act together and start executing a clearly articulated mission with well defined means and objectives. We must not be there blind, stumbling and fucking around.
Nevertheless, I think we should, in fact, be there. And I will write to this effect.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
If writing on my hands wouldn’t get me in megashit at work I would do it in Sharpie every day till our soldiers come home. I will add my voice to those you are calling on by writing my Conservative (shudder) member of parliament. I’ll even write out now on my hand from now on my days off, its a small gesture, but its a start right?
April 24th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
I find it particularly symbolic that you’ve decided to use a fist for something other than beating someone’s face to a bloody pulp. This of course, makes you a pioneer.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
[...] incident or the potential ramifications of it, since it’s described in great detail over at matthewgood.org. If you wish to make your voice heard about this incident or others, you can, as suggested on [...]
April 25th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Human Rights violations cannot be tolerated and both Canadians and Americans need to make sure they don’t happen in Afghanistan or Iraq. Human rights is one of the reasons we are in these two countries in the first place. However, leaving Afghanistan is not the answer, just like leaving Iraq isn’t the answer. And the idea of announcing our withdrawal time frame is absurd. What do you think the terrorists will do? Maybe lay low and wait for that time to wreak their havoc on the citizens of these countries. You owe to yourself to explore the situation in Afghanistan, the main stream media can’t be bothered to tell the true stories. Read the independents and the blogs,there is a silent majority of people that want us there. Does anyone remember what Afghanistan and Iraq were like before? The war debate in Canada and the U.S drives me crazy, because its made up of mostly simple minded slogan shouters on both sides. I hate war and violence of any kind, but I also realize that sometimes its necessary. Radical muslims aren’t going anywhere and freedom loving people have to start supporting their elimination. Canada and the U.S have a long and proud history of fighting for freedom, lets not let the tired Vietnam era slogans convince us otherwise. These incidents of torture and abuse need to be dealt with and prevented from happening again. However, you don’t stop doing what is right because a few things have been done wrong.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Shaggy have you seen recent turnout for the Afghani National Army - both in numbers and in appearance? Have you also seen the numbers on opium production before and after occupation of ISAF?
Compare that to how the Russians tried to liberate them and I think you’ll see that the direction that you are proposing isn’t ideal.
Just outta curiosity, are you able to articulate what the NATO or even Canadian mandated endstate is for the mission?
April 25th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Unlike most people who talk politics on TV or on blogs I don’t pretend to know everything and I wasn’t proposing anything. I’m not a military expert. All I was trying to say is that the people who say we should cut and run are just as lost as the people saying we are doing everything right. Let’s be honest, there are a few countries in the world with major problems, and the majority of other countries sit back and watch, I admire that Canada and the U.S do not. I believe we are doing the right thing in Afghanistan and Iraq, but are most likely doing it in wrong ways. I just can’t help but wonder how much more effective we’d be if were all on the same side? Imagine if all the politicians and experts in Canada and the U.S were working together to defeat the enemy instead of in-fighting.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:24 am
Shaggy, this is your quote:
“Radical muslims aren’t going anywhere and freedom loving people have to start supporting their elimination.”
Now let’s try something…
“___________ aren’t going anywhere and ___________ have to start supporting their elimination.”
You can put natives, Jews, Germans, mosquitoes, baby seals, or puppy dogs in any of those blanks and it’s still an idiotic statement. I could put YOU in one of those blanks. How would that make you feel?
Here’s another one:
“Violence isn’t going anywhere and peace loving people have to start supporting its elimination.”
April 25th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Shaggy, I welcome your comment because it’s honest, and that’s what debate it all about.
I first want to say that while I quote the media often, my research on such matters is not limited to simply that. In fact, I spend hours every day doing research, most of which is used to verify or expound on information otherwise presented. With regards to Afghanistan, I also have contacts that have served there as officers, and the same goes for Iraq. The situation on the ground in both locations is not what it is painted as being by the media for the most part, but neither is it at all accurately painted by those that support such actions.
In truth, not just the wars are rife with complexities, so are the reasons behind why they were initiated and the events that led to them in the first place.
The reality of many pro-war and occupation blogs and pundits is that they, and their authors, have the ability to sit back and comment freely on the use of force as a solution while both disregarding the effects on those in the nations that are effected and refusing to, themselves, join the military to serve.
That said, I wanted to go through your comment to hopefully shed some light on a few things for you.
The unfortunate truth is that human rights were used as a convenient pretext for intervention. Were they the focal point of intervention then a series of crucial criteria would have been safeguarded by those who did take action to solidify their position as human rights advocates.
The first, and most telling fact, is that after the invasion of Afghanistan the Bush Administration decided that the United States would not participate in the International Criminal Court. This was done, according to the administration, because it did not want its personnel improperly tried for crimes. But one has to look at their severe breach of international law following that decision as a clue to their reasoning.
As you may or may not know, it is, under international law, a war crime to willingly hand over any person to those that use torture. In the case of the United States, not only have they themselves been responsible for it (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram, and so forth), but they have rendered individuals to countries that are known torturers for purposes of gaining intelligence. This includes Syria, which has been painted an enemy the entire time. Right now in Ethiopia, jails that are renowned for torture are housing detainees from dozens of countries on behalf of the United States for the purpose of interrogation, not to mention the Black Sites that they have operated throughout the world for the purpose of holding high level detainees who are basically disappeared and both denied their rights under international law and refused access to the Red Cross.
These actions constitute war crimes, plain and simple, thus rendering any pretext given that human rights was the primary basis for military intervention moot.
With regards to Canada’s actions in Afghanistan, the same holds true. But we are, unlike the US, a member of the ICC, and the truth is that those responsible for our complicity should be held accountable under international law. Not simply allowed to make speeches in the House to excuse themselves, their policies, and to make the matter seem isolated.
Leaving both is, unfortunately, the answer primarily because of our actions and how both situations have been handled.
With regards to Afghanistan, the current government is ineffectual and basically an adjunct of Western interests. Others in the country know this, and not simply the Taliban, but the Northern Alliance as well.
Secondly, the Taliban’s numbers continue to been increased by every day Afghans that are simply opposed to occupation, many of whom are Pashtun refugees from the Waziristan border region. Their personal politics are more steeped in the removal of foreign powers in most cases, as has been the case through the nation’s history when it comes to Guerrilla resistances.
First, I am going to risk saying that I probably do more daily research on events in both locations than most. That said, historical context cannot be disregarded.
To understand what is happing right now in Afghanistan, given its occupation by foreign forces, you have to examine Afghan history. Doing so will provide you some insight, primarily with regards to them fighting foreign occupiers for a considerable amount of their history. It should also not be overlooked that these same rag-tag and largely ill-equipped guerrillas were responsible for the defeat of the Soviets, which was no small feat, no matter the international support they received (from the US as well, I’ll remind you). I suggest you examine the outcome of last year’s Royal Marine action across the Hemland River for an example of their fortitude and level of commitment, one in which they endured high level bombing raids and extreme artillery barrages and still held their position.
The reality in both Iraq and Afghanistan is that foreign militaries are forced to do two things because of the type of action they are now committed to – fortify and patrol, just like in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the enemy that they’re fighting has free range to move throughout the populace, for purposes of intelligence for one, and to move through areas that they know like the backs of their hands. This, coupled with a strong motivation to drive foreign forces from their land, makes them formidable. In the case of Iraq, this has largely been sidetracked by the sectarian violence that has simply found the US caught in the middle. But in Afghanistan, given its terrain and the history of those fighting, it is a very dangerous situation and one that no modern military force has ever been able to actually overcome.
The majority of Afghans want peace and stability at this point. But to think they believe the current democratically elected government is a realistic tool to that end is a big stretch. Ultimately, the people of Afghanistan are, and should be, responsible for their own destiny. That is the right of any people, whether you agree with how they go about it or not. You want Bin Laden found and eliminated, then that should have been the focus. Now a revitalized fighting force led by religious radicals is being bolstered by common Afghans that will fight along side them because they pay, because it’s better than starving, and because the abuse and destruction of their country, as backwards as it may have been, has been enough to drive them to it.
And that’s not even taking into consideration the other factions in Afghanistan, some of which are backed by the US, or are at least in arrangements with them to certain extents, such as the North Alliance, whom the US used during the invasion.
Yes, I do. In the case of Afghanistan is was a country run by a highly oppressive theocracy that the United States wouldn’t have bothered with had 9/11 not occurred. In fact, they would have probably continued efforts to ensure that the Unocal pipeline deal was solidified, despite the fact that the Taliban were running people over with tanks in football stadiums as a form of the death penalty. 9/11 changed that, and that is a point of fact that should not be overlooked. One wonders if the best thing that could happen for those now being systematically eliminated in Darfur (some 400,000 of them now) is to have members of the Janjiweed carry out some idiotic attack. Maybe then, under the premise of some bullshit human rights adventure, they could do something about that situation. Instead they’re faffing about in Somalia, where hundreds have now been killed in the crossfire between US backed Ethiopian troops and Somali War Lords and members of ICU loyalist militias.
With regards to Iraq, would you be talking about the regime that the United States backed for a decade? The very same one that they sent billions to in turn around aid and through intermediaries, and that they provided, through the CIA, satellite coverage to so that they could better gas the Iranians? Would the leader of that once regime be the same man that, in the 60’s the United States helped fund with regards to assassination attempts of Iraqi leader, and who accommodated him in exile in Egypt after he escaped prison in Iraq? Would it be the same man that was conveniently thrust into a show trial so that he could be convicted of a crime that didn’t implicate his relationship with the United States, so that he could be dispatched? The same man that should have been tried at the International Criminal Court so he could divulge that information to the world? Would it be the same man that just prior to his invasion of Kuwait the US government was still holding meetings with?
Saddam Hussein’s regime was indeed responsible for horrible crimes, that I will never argue. But the fact that the West was complicit in aiding his regime has been swept under the rug and that simply cannot be tolerated. Let’s also not forget that some 1 million Iraqis died because of the sanctions in the 90’s as well. Human rights indeed.
Any time you’d like to sit down and have me actually expound on any of this in much further detail, you just let me know. There is a marked difference between people that routinely show up at rallies for the sake of counter culture and those that spend the time educating themselves.
What constitutes a radical Muslim? One that was radical prior to 9/11 or one that has been radicalized because of what has taken place since? Can we categorize a radical Muslim as being a human being that has become so disenfranchised that all they are left with is to join a struggle against those that they are sold as the enemy? Because your statement that I just quoted makes you no different than them in that regard. The use of force, the need to eliminate, having been programmed to believe that it is as simple as that. There is a fine line, and one that is not merely prevalent in the Muslim world alone.
Let’s also not forget that in the case of Iraq, those tied to, or using the name al-Qaeda, constitute less than 8% of the insurgency.
The West has been responsible for acts of organized terror for decades. We have sponsored groups that use terror, and right now, in the US, the US government is even protecting a terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles, a former CIA asset that was responsible for the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 (he was also involved in Operation 40, among other things). Of course, the US will not comply to Cuban extradition requests, and have refused to do so ever since he was released from prison in April (where he had been safely tucked away). By the way, he’s also a graduate of the infamous School Of The Americas at Fort Benning, where the US has trained Latin American thugs and Para-Militaries for decades as well, Manuel Noriega, among others.
For someone that claims others need to educate themselves beyond ‘mainstream information’, you sure seem to lack any real knowledge regarding what we’ve been up to for the last 50 years. People can fall back on World War 2 all they’d like as proof positive that we’re freedom’s champions, but one day that example will finally become overshadowed by what we’ve done since – and let me tell you, it ain’t great.
We have been responsible for supporting despotic regimes which have been engaged in genocide, the Khmer Rouge among them. We have turned the world trade economy into one in which we exploit the third and developing worlds in exchange for arms so that a variety of dictatorial regimes can ensure that our interests are secured in exchange for us ignoring their curtailing of freedoms. Look no further than Saudi Arabia, among many others.
Freedom? Ya, we’re all about freedom all right.
I suppose that depends on what’s ‘right’, now doesn’t it.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
when is america going to leave now??
April 25th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
“Unlike most people who talk politics on TV or on blogs I don’t pretend to know everything and I wasn’t proposing anything.”
Aren’t you proposing that we trust the Commanders and go forward with the mission and support it?
And chill out guy - I asked you some very honest questions hoping for some very honest answers… you can save the piss and vinegar for your chips and girl….not necessarily in that order.
“All I was trying to say is that the people who say we should cut and run are just as lost as the people saying we are doing everything right. Let’s be honest, there are a few countries in the world with major problems, and the majority of other countries sit back and watch, I admire that Canada and the U.S do not. I believe we are doing the right thing in Afghanistan and Iraq, but are most likely doing it in wrong ways. I just can’t help but wonder how much more effective we’d be if were all on the same side?”
Convince me that that isn’t simply going all in and following blindly.
I ask the question about a clearly defined endstate because if you are going to be critical and defend the operation and be supportive don’t you think you should be able to articulate in a sentence or less what the mission is?
Good must have just brewed a pot of tea to give you the time he did in his answer. I found your answer to some honest questions in search of the initiation of some very honest dialogue to be offensive. The fact that you would favour ignorance over actually standing by your proposal to be “all on one side” and researchign the validity of such an idea is offensive to those risking there lives today.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Dlogan,
How can you compare Jews, Germans, mosquitoes, baby seals, or puppy dogs to terrorists? Matthew gave a clear and well thought out counter points to my post, you did not. I went back and read my posts and it became clear I did a poor job of making my point. Not to make excuses but I’m new at this, I think its the first time I have ever typed up a political point of view on a website. I came hear as a fan of the music but was intrigued by this forum. Its nice to see a “celebrity” who is well researched and listens and publishes other points of view.
As far as my original post goes, I made a mistake calling them “radical muslims” I meant terrorists, and to be even clearer I mean the guys who fly planes into buildings, blow up innocent people in stores, and car bomb civilians. And yes I do support their elimination.
Matthew wrote
“Saddam Hussein’s regime was indeed responsible for horrible crimes, that I will never argue. But the fact that the West was complicit in aiding his regime has been swept under the rug and that simply cannot be tolerated. Let’s also not forget that some 1 million Iraqis died because of the sanctions in the 90’s as well. Human rights indeed.”
Let me ask you, in the current media climate what has been swept under the rug more? The West’s past support of Saddam or Saddam’s crimes? I would say the latter. Also just because the west was wrong in the past doesn’t automatically make us wrong now. Saddam being gone has to be considered a good thing, doesn’t it?
This brings to me to a point about the political parties in the U.S and Canada. I think most people agree that things are not going well in Iraq, but where are the real solutions? Do you think if the democrats win the next election or won the last things would be better? Look at John Kerry, the guy ran for president on an anti-Bush platform, he never presented any real ideas. Everywhere we turn now, we see either pro-Bush vs. Anti-Bush, where is everything else. I’m getting from your comments that you don’t support any military action and but also don’t support sanctions. I concede that you may be right, both might be wrong but what is the solution? 9/11 did happen and it was done by murderers that are considered heroes in many areas of the world. The group responsible for that, didn’t declare war on some occupying force, they took out innocent civilians from around the world. What should we have done?
Matthew wrote
“For someone that claims others need to educate themselves beyond ‘mainstream information’, you sure seem to lack any real knowledge regarding what we’ve been up to for the last 50 years. People can fall back on World War 2 all they’d like as proof positive that we’re freedom’s champions, but one day that example will finally become overshadowed by what we’ve done since – and let me tell you, it ain’t great.”
That’s hard to say right now. What we have done the last 50 years isn’t great but it doesn’t overshadow what we have done in the past, it also doesn’t overshadow all the good we have done in the last 50 years. Canada and the U.S have been the source of great aid and technology for less fortunate countries. Whenever there is a disaster who is at the forefront?
This may sound crazy but go with me for a minute. What if the West gets it together over in the middle east, and in 30 years its a free, stable, and democratic society. I know its a big “if” right now but if it happened we’d be heroes again. History often tells a very different story.
Anyway, I think this argument and blog represent the exact reasons that Canada and the U.S are such great countries. We can express our feelings and opinions without fear and we are our own biggest critics. The terrorists spend all their energy blaming everyone but themselves for their plight but we always look at what we’re doing wrong.
Matthew I have been a long time admirer of your song writing, but I have a whole new respect for you. Not only do you share a well thought out political view but you give time and respect to those who might not agree with everything you say. For that I Thank you.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Some decent questions asked, Shaggy. Here are some answers.
There is absolutely no way that media coverage of US assistance to the Hussein regime has been greater than that of his transgressions without mention of it, not by 1000%. In the United States, some 50 plus % of people are still under the impression that his regime had something to do with 9/11, let alone knowing anything about US involvement with him.
Which was worse, his crimes or the West’s involvement? That is actually a complete misrepresentation of history, because the West aided in his ability to commit many of the crimes that he was responsible for. With regards to war crimes against Iran, the UK helped build a chemical plant at which gasses were made that were used against the Iranians. The US Center For Disease Control both sold and gave his regime biological agents. The CIA helped him target Iranian troops specifically so that they could be gassed, sponsored him financially so that he could purchase arms through Western intermediaries such as France, who sold him fighter jets. When Hussein gassed Halabja the White House blocked a Congressional bill that would have cut off aid to Iraq because it claimed that the Iranians had actually been responsible. Let’s also not forget that after Halabja, they continued to aid him, even after he committed genocide.
So who facilitated what? Iraq is simply one example as well.
Hussein’s removal facilitated two things. First, a permanent military footprint in the region for the US who has built 14 permanent bases there having lost their leases in Saudi Arabia in 2003. It has also allowed them to open Iraqi oil up to international trans-corporations. The money made by private contractors alone during the war is in the tens of billions.
He should have been tried at the International Criminal Court, but wasn’t because were he, he would have been tried for Halabja and US complicity could have been revealed with regards to his regime – far more than we currently know I would assume. But instead he was tried in a kangaroo court for something that occurred before the 83 agreement to aid him against Iran.
The fact that he is no longer in power is, obviously, good. But there are 100 Saddam Hussein’s out there. What about them? What about those that purchase arms from the US and others who then look the other way? That’s hypocrisy, not the spread of anything, certainly not freedom. It’s called business, nothing less.
And who also gets awarded huge contracts for rebuilding efforts in exchange for trade revaluations, arms agreements, etc?
It won’t happen. The reason? Because no nation can have the freedom of another projected upon it. It must, without question, reflect their own values and traditions, and it must ultimately be them that acquires it. This exact same thing has been attempted, and in each case it’s failed. The only time that it works is when military junta’s are supported and force is used to help them seize control and maintain it.
That said, after 600,000 deaths, how can we ever claim ourselves heroes? And what of other nations in the region? Are we to invade them as well? Because it’s not as if Iraqi democracy is spreading like wildfire throughout the Middle East. In fact, the unilateralist invasion and occupation of Iraq has probably set back Middle Eastern democratic movements by decades.
That’s a fallacy, and do you know why it is? Because if you knew why they had a gripe then you’d know that you actually don’t know very much about what we’re doing or what we have done.
Lastly, let’s also not forget here that the invasion of Iraq was based on lies, plain and simple. Human rights? Democracy? Magic tricks.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I am probably just point out the obvious but was it not the Liberal Party that sent the troops to Afghanistan?
How can they turn around and say “get the troops out, they shouldn’t have been there in the first place�. They are the ones that sent them.
Now back to topic, I am all for the troops coming home.
I don’t see us as a policing nation, we don’t start fights and I like to think that we don’t enter them unless it threatens our safety. Or if it for trying to keep the peace, but we are not a combative nation.
Like the Molson commercial says “I believe in Peacekeeping, not Policing�.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Indeed they did, and it’s called bullshit politics I believe.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
“Let me ask you, in the current media climate what has been swept under the rug more? The West’s past support of Saddam or Saddam’s crimes?”
Saddam’s crimes…the sweeping was done by the west in order to absolve themselves of being implicated in any of them…
Why do you think they hung him high and fast before other crimes were heard? There was plenty of time for Slobodan.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
shitty…good beat me too it again…as my irish gets up it is once again heading back to the dug out to ride the pine…
April 25th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Matthew wrote
“The fact that he is no longer in power is, obviously, good. But there are 100 Saddam Hussein’s out there. What about them? What about those that purchase arms from the US and others who then look the other way? That’s hypocrisy, not the spread of anything, certainly not freedom. It’s called business, nothing less.”
See, we agree its good. That was my only point there. It probably is 90% business with a convenient 10% freedom spread. It also depends on your view of business. Business tends to get a bad rap these days but there is nothing wrong with the pursuit of profit, as long as human rights aren’t trampled on in the process. Business is probably the number one factor in the lifestyle we enjoy here.
Matthew wrote
“And who also gets awarded huge contracts for rebuilding efforts in exchange for trade revaluations, arms agreements, etc?
I knew that was coming as I typed my original comment, I think this argument is beneath us both. It’s a win win situation in most cases, and is necessary so there is no point in arguing about the mixed motives.
Matthew wrote
“That’s a fallacy, and do you know why it is? Because if you knew why they had a gripe then you’d know that you actually don’t know very much about what we’re doing or what we have done.
Lastly, let’s also not forget here that the invasion of Iraq was based on lies, plain and simple. Human rights? Democracy? Magic tricks.”
I have to admit, I’m not sure what you are saying in the first part. My original point had nothing to do with what we are doing either way. The point was that I think its an admirable quality that the single biggest critic of the West is the West itself. I don’t see any of that on the other side.
As far as the invasion of Iraq being based on “lies, plain and simple” please don’t become Al Gore on us and say the “debate is over”. You are much better than that. There were many reasons given for going to Iraq and not all were lies. I’m not saying they were right but they weren’t lies. Calling Bush a liar has become very popular but its lazy. Did Bush lie about WMDs? Well if he did so did Clinton, Tony Blair, Military intelligence from several countries, The U.N, and many I’m probably forgetting. It seems that they got it wrong, but many people were wrong there. Did Bush lie about the connection between Iraq and 9/11? No of course not, there is a connection the problem is one side denies it completely and the other greatly exaggerates it. The Clinton government made the connections long before Bush was around, and a great deal of evidence has since come forward. However, none of it is the “smoking gun” some people want. Do I believe Saddam was working daily with the 9/11 terrorists and buying the plane tickets? Of course not, but there are links. I’m starting to come across as this super pro-Bush guy which I’m not at all. I just think the idea that the war is one big lie over simplifies it and doesn’t help create a solution to the problem of terrorism.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Pitt,
I’m going to stay involved in this debate and future debates just for the practice because I’m obviously a terrible written communicator. I have come to this conclusion because every time you respond to something I write you bring up something I never said or never meant to say.
Pitt wrote
“Saddam’s crimes…the sweeping was done by the west in order to absolve themselves of being implicated in any of them…
Why do you think they hung him high and fast before other crimes were heard? There was plenty of time for Slobodan.”
What does this have to do with anything I said? I think the Saddam trial was a joke and I think your reason for it was certainly part of it. But again I have to ask what does it have to do with me?
My point was that the West’s prior support of Saddam is well known and was being pushed pretty hard by media all over the world last year. And right now, Saddam’s crimes are taking a back seat because it suits a current political agenda. That’s the nature of politics sadly, its never all on the table. It’s like Matthew called it, a magic trick to try and get elected.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I was just trying to point out that your statement was a large generalization and essentially hollow rhetoric. No comparison meant between any of the objects, really. When you’re talking about or condoning the action of “eliminating” actual human beings, I’d take a guess that it’s pretty important to clarify exactly WHY, as well as the FACTS that lead to that conclusion.
Of course, my response is nowhere near as clear or articulated as this site’s author, but I’m a convoluted kind of guy. Knowing that, I’d never condone the elimination of anything or anyone, unless I knew them better than myself.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
I’m probably not getting your message, and I’ll temper my response given your desire to enter an honest discourse on the subject…
but it appears to me you wanted a rallied support to see through the missions in the Mid-East (most specifically Iraq and Afghan)…the point I’m making with regards to the Saddam execution happening in advance of all other of his crimes being heard is that the elements that implicate the developed western nations were never heard.
Had they been, our perspective of rallying the support to clean up the Mid-east (as above), force feed democracy to Iraq and Afghan, and re-dedicate our efforts in those areas would surely come under more scrutiny.
Ergo donc, I don’t think you would be as vocal as polarizing support to a maintained presence to exterminate “terrorists” or as you earlier corrected yourself - radical muslims.
Again, I would encourage you to hunt down the summed up declared end state of missions and operations in those areas and re-assess if going all in support would in fact actually lead to those ends.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Thats the funny thing about our written language, it sounds so good and so clear in your own head and then you sit back and watch people read it and get it so very wrong. I guess if I’m going to make a habit of getting involved in these debates I have to be much more careful. I’m glad the “radical muslim” misunderstanding is cleared up, and now I see even my use of the term eliminate was taken wrong. All I meant was terrorists have to be stopped, which doesn’t necessarily mean killing them, it also means arresting them and most importantly creating an environment where they don’t exist in the first place. I hope that clears it up.
Now for the final misunderstanding so we can move on. When I suggested as you said a “rallied support”. I wasn’t suggesting that we put our differences aside and just support the current mission. Not at all, what I meant was it would be nice if we as people and more importantly our politicians stopped to realize sometimes that we are on the same side. And when I say “we” I mean all freedom and peace loving people. I know the idea of “us versus them” scares some people but thats the way it should be, peaceful people vs these terrorists. However in this country we spend a lot of unproductive time in-fighting and even profiling peaceful Muslims because of our fears. Thats all I meant by being united, not that we have to agree on everything but to realize we have a common enemy that wants us all dead.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Sorry my last post got messed up and it won’t let me edit it.
Here’s what i was trying to say
Thats the funny thing about our written language, it sounds so good and so clear in your own head and then you sit back and watch people read it and get it so very wrong. I guess if I’m going to make a habit of getting involved in these debates I have to be much more careful. I’m glad the “radical muslim” misunderstanding is cleared up, and now I see even my use of the term eliminate was taken wrong. All I meant was terrorists have to be stopped, which doesn’t necessarily mean killing them, it also means arresting them and most importantly creating an environment where they don’t exist in the first place. I hope that clears it up.
Now for the final misunderstanding so we can move on. When I suggested as you said a “rallied support”. I wasn’t suggesting that we put our differences aside and just support the current mission. Not at all, what I meant was it would be nice if we as people and more importantly our politicians stopped to realize sometimes that we are on the same side. And when I say “we” I mean all freedom and peace loving people. I know the idea of “us versus them” scares some people but thats the way it should be, peaceful people vs these terrorists. However in this country we spend a lot of unproductive time in-fighting and even profiling peaceful Muslims because of our fears. Thats all I meant by being united, not that we have to agree on everything but to realize we have a common enemy that wants us all dead.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:28 am
Do you think the “terrorists” get up in the morning and go out side stretch, scratch their nuts and are like: “I was gonna play polo with a decapitated goats head today, but I think I will self sacrifice to take down the infidel dogs instead.”
Guy they don’t view themselves as terrorists. They view themselves freedom fighters. Just as you see us a “peaceful people” they see their cause as just and honoured.
I understand what you mean about motive and means: but you might see that those that are championing the current means have a motive not like the one you suppose is identical for everyone else.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:53 am
all in all, everyone still likes to kill some peoples.
kinda sad, i guess we can blame video games or mom getting beat, or not getting that honda for your birthday..
shit i thought war was about death all along, maybe i was wrong, maybe it is about saving baby seals as a hobby. Mute points can be bounced against a wall all day, and heated arguements are not going to get people anywhere, until all of mankind can sit down and take a chill pill, and learn to negotiate. everyone is gonna end up dead (im taking a bit of a hick approach to my typing and grammatical errors so please let it flow) and no matter what your religious views, your last breath will be bitter if your hating or fighting in some sort of way. I have been trying to lead by example, but it is hard when you cannot get through peoples thick skulls what you think is right. but then again, i guess they probobly just think that same way towards you when you walk up to them and say freedom, or out now.
Thats how buildings got blown up i guess. I wouldnt like to be fed an islamic view on life, and have my wife walk around in a head scarf (to be honest) I bet i would fight for my life too, or at least what it used to be
April 26th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/themardybum/473751682/
I’m loving the discussion here. Mad props to Shaggy for the “dissenting” viewpoint, and for expressing it and discussing it without being a pompous blowhard-type. Good on ya. :)
April 26th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
The whole concept of bringing democracy to the middle east is just hilarious.
For one thing the whole premise of democracy is to give equal say in matters to the population (well roughly anyway) so forcing a political system on a group of people is a direct contradiction of the whole idea. It’s just so sad it’s funny.
More importantly, democracy might be something north america might want to think about adopting, lets face it, we’re not happy with this system, call it democracy, dictatorship or fuckin rice krispies, it is not what we are told it is (choosing the leader of the ‘most powerful’ country in the world between two men from the same fraternity is not a choice, and someday I think people will look back at this time and laugh at us). We are not free, despite the unlimited potential we all possess.
And yeah, very nice to see people listening and discussing instead of getting personal or hostile, nice work Shaggy and Matt!
April 26th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Z@ch,
You said
“The whole concept of bringing democracy to the middle east is just hilarious.
For one thing the whole premise of democracy is to give equal say in matters to the population (well roughly anyway) so forcing a political system on a group of people is a direct contradiction of the whole idea. It’s just so sad it’s funny.”
I get what you are saying, and I agree you can’t force it on them but you can certainly help them have the choice. We can’t just say the “middle east” because there are several different political systems in place in that part of the world. So let’s talk Iraq. You said the idea of Iraq being democratic is hilarious. The reason you gave is because it would be a contradiction. Well what did they have before? Did they choose it? No, they had a ruthless dictator, so there was no choice then either. So in that regard nothing has changed. Now let’s forget the West’s motives for a minute, and consider what happened when Saddam was removed. The people of Iraq risked life and limb to go to the polls. Did anyone force them? No, and they went out in better numbers then we do in this country. In Iraq they had to risk their lives to vote and they did, here we have to miss a few minutes of a hockey game or American Idol and we can’t be bothered. Which leads perfectly to the next point you made.
You said “More importantly, democracy might be something north america might want to think about adopting, lets face it, we’re not happy with this system, call it democracy, dictatorship or fuckin rice krispies, it is not what we are told it is (choosing the leader of the ‘most powerful’ country in the world between two men from the same fraternity is not a choice, and someday I think people will look back at this time and laugh at us). We are not free, despite the unlimited potential we all possess.”
I agree with you on the point that in North America we have very little choice, and most of the candidates and parties are the same with a few different special interest groups they serve. However, the point you are missing is the reason for this. It’s not fear or corruption like it was in Iraq, its our fault. The majority of people don’t vote and even the ones that do aren’t very educated about what’s going on. You find the idea of democracy “hilarious”, start talking with your friends, neighbors, and co-workers about why they vote the way they do, and I guarantee you there will be some “hilarious” answers. There are fringe parties and truly independent candidates, we could vote for them once in awhile just to send a message, but we don’t. That is the big difference.
Thanks Z@ch and J.Canuck for the props, I believe civilized debate is the key to improvement of these political problems. Preaching to the choir hasn’t worked. It’s time to put free thinking back into politics.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Matt,
I believe in the past you’ve said that one of the main reasons you want Canadian troops out of Afghanistan is because the war there is being led & commanded by the U.S., and not NATO or the U.N. etc. Is there any scenario where you would support keeping troops in Afghanistan? If control of the war were transferred away from the U.S. & to NATO or the U.N., would you support it?
The torture revelations are horrible & should be rectified, but this & our being involved in the war are two seperate issues. I guess i don’t fully understand the reasons why you & others want to pull out of Afghanistan. Is it the distrust of a US-led mission? A realization the war is unwinnable or flawed in concept? Is it anti-war for anti-war’s sake (ie: pacifism).
So Matt i’m basically asking you to give me (or link me to) a reasoned argument why Canada should leave Afghanistan. I’m just lacking in info on this side of the war argument for myself & would like to make an informed opinion of it all.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Honestly I don’t think Canada has the right to leave Afganistan so boldly. Last year Canadians lead the NATO forces and succeeded in pushing the Taliban a long way back. This year the Dutch lead and the force is tasked with rebuilding primarily to liberating. There is some good with all that goes wrong and though that is hardly and excuss or justification I guess it comes down to practicing what we preach. I am involved in a rally to raise support to hla the genocide in the Sudan. This however cannot be acheived primarily with the Docters Without Boarders and requires military aid. I guess what I am saying is that if we mean to help around the world then we need to have a backbone and commit and work hard to stick to our morals within those lines. I do not support sencless killing, torure, war or much else tht somes with it, I do however support peacekeeping, a product of our nation and I believe Canada, being a responsible and understanding nation needs to have presence in this matter.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:27 am
My view is that the 2009 end date something we need to keep. I firmly believe (based on what I know) that we have done and are continuing to do good work in Afghanistan, but we can’t be expected to continue to carry the burden of the labour indefinitely. Making the 2009 date firm, letting NATO know so they can replace us, is definitely what needs to be done. I’m with the Liberals on that.
Also, the transfer of detainees needs to stop.
Unfortunately, I think “Out Now” sends the wrong message, and withdrawing immediately isn’t a good idea. But a firm date, now that is what we need. But I see what you are trying to accomplish, and I understand the reasons.
April 28th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I’d like to say that I just e-mailed my MP, both the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, and Stephen Harper, on this issue. I hope that I’m not the only one who has. I still feel very inconsequential, but as Matt said, it’s a small start in the right direction.
April 28th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I’m unable to provide an indepth response at the moment because I am in the middle of nowhere and borrowing someone’s computer. I think rather than this being a comment, I will make a post about it when I get the time so that I might exmplain myself better. That said, there is no defined goal in Afghanistan because the only one that ensures total victory is one that requires the sort of destruction that we have not yet seen.
As for the Taliban retreating - they were simply pulling back for the winter, just as they did against the Soviets. It is not because of military success on our part but because of strategy on theirs. They know the terrain, they know how to fight in it - dare I say, far better than we do.
April 28th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
[...] MATTHEW GOOD [...]
April 28th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Thanks Matt that would be great.
April 29th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Sure we in Canada might have cause to be proud of Canada’s stand and past actions on Human Rights.But that depends,if you are First Nations your Human Rights play second fiddle if they ever really matter.
One one hand Canada feels it has the moral authority to talk about Human Rights when it involves others.But at home Canada is just as hypocritical as many of those Canada,points at as failing in regards to Human Rights.
Nothing really new,Canada has always had another face when it comes to HR.Its just that many Cnd’s for what ever reason have bought into the story,while conventionality ignoring through ignorance or willful ignorance, examples of HR violation right here at home.
http://engagedspectator.wordpress.com/
April 30th, 2007 at 8:03 am
My photo.