To get away with murder in a war zone you have to have a few things going for you. For example…

1) No international body has the power to independently investigate allegations of war crimes, nor prosecute those found guilty under international law.

3) Only the internal judicial infrastructure of the body to which the accused belongs possesses the right to prosecute based on their findings alone.

That is how just powers get away with murder – by ensuring that when it comes to the possibility of negative attention due to criminality they retain the right to investigate themselves to ensure satisfactory outcomes, or at least those that placate domestic despondency, as domestic perceptions far outweigh other considerations. Winning hearts and minds in Iraq is by no means as important as, for example, punishing a few ‘bad apples’ involved at the lowest level of the Abu Ghraib scandal to placate the American public’s superior sense of morality. Even with a 30% approval rating, a democracy can continue to justify a military action simply because the buffer created by that 30% often means that the silent majority of the remaining 70% never really voice their dissatisfaction. That’s precisely how unpopular, costly, and wholly ludicrous wars endure in the face of seemingly overwhelming domestic disapproval. Added to that is the bizarre inability of so many to be able to grasp the difference between policy and support for those sent to enact it – who are always overwhelmingly represented by the nation’s poorest. Once upper middle class kids start coming home in metal boxes the acceleration of dissent becomes glaringly apparent, a phenomenon that was sadly crucial in helping turn public support against US involvement in Vietnam.

Some months ago I was emailed and provided a link to a story regarding the Haditha massacre. The email went on to ask if, given the contents of that story - which was that some of those involved that day had been cleared of wrong doing - would I be writing a retraction given my initial response to the event. My answer to that question remains the same. Until those Marines are tried in an Iraqi court of law, which was good enough for Saddam Hussein and his henchmen in the eyes of the American people and the current administration, or tried by the ICC, then no, I will not write a retraction. Because when wolves are allowed to investigate other wolves there is no security in the rule of law. Especially when the eyewitness reports of Iraqi civilians are treated as dubious or bias, once again reinforcing an engrained sense of Western moral superiority.

In truth, we will never know the full extent of US and British transgressions in Iraq. That reality was preordained prior to the invasion, a precedent that ensured that the Western public would only ever be presented with a one sided reality.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with who Viktor Bout is, Nicholas Cage’s character in the film Lord Of War was loosely based on him. Of course, Bout didn’t grow up in New York, as Cage’s character did in the film. He was born and raised in Russia, attended the Moscow Military Institute, and was a member of the KGB. After the fall of the Soviet Union he became one of the world’s premier arms traffickers, dealing all over the world with governments and groups possessing frightening and notorious reputations. It eventually earned him the moniker ‘the merchant of death’.

Bout was apprehended in Thailand during a lengthy sting operation involving US agents posing as Colombian FARC rebels looking to purchase arms (a rather timely coincidence, given current events). The United States is now in the process of having Bout extradited to the United States for attempting to sell arms to a group designated as a terrorist organization.

But what will not be given any attention is the fact that, between 2003 and 2005, transport planes belonging to Bout flew US supply missions in Iraq. Even more, that Paul Wolfowitz, then Assistant Defense Secretary, admitted to Congress in 2005 that the United States conducted business with companies that subcontracted work out to those that leased aircraft from him. It should also be mention that, at the time that this occurred, Bout was an internationally wanted fugitive. In total, the United States government paid companies controlled by Bout some $60 million dollars to transport supplies in Iraq between 2003 and 2005, the majority of it paid in fuel costs with the US air force supplying his planes 500,000 gallons of fuel from the Baghdad airport. The fact that Bout didn’t turn a profit on it is something that should also be taken into consideration.

Douglas Farah, one of the authors of the book written about Bout’s life, claimed in an interview today that Bout may have done work on behalf of the US government as recently as last year.

There’s absolutely no question that men like Viktor Bout are dangerous and should be brought to justice. But that said, what Bout has accomplished as an illegal arms dealer is, in truth, so insignificant in comparison to the business done on a global scale by the likes of the United States, China, France, and Russia on a yearly basis as to stupefy.

There is no question that Bout is facing months, if not longer, of questioning at the hands of various US intelligence agencies – at which I am also sure he has a few friends. Whether he ever sees the inside of a courtroom is another matter. If he does, it will most likely occur after he’s cut a deal.

First, just to draw attention to it, Lydia Polgreen focuses on recent events in Darfur in today’s edition of the New York Times. Unfortunately, and as one might expect, the news isn’t good.

That out of the way, the Canadian military has resumed the transfer of detainees to Afghan authorities. In a statement made by Lt.-Col. Grant Dame, the military will be “exercising discretion” during each transfer to ensure that prisoners are not placed in situations where they will be abused.

The reasoning behind this is that it is not the responsibility of the Canadian military to maintain facilities that house prisoners, nor to provide oversight regarding their treatment. That, according to the Canadian military, is the responsibility of the Afghan government. We are in Afghanistan to combat the Taliban and aid in reconstruction efforts, not to act as jailers – a rather convenient position to be in.

The Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan, Ron Hoffmann, has claimed that since allegations first arose that detainees being transferred from Canadian custody to Afghan authorities faced abuse, there have been considerable improvements made. But as Amnesty International’s Alex Neve has pointed out…

“To think that somehow that’s all been remedied almost overnight, such that we can get back to situation normal, defies belief and is simply not something that should have happened”.

This has all taken place, of course, only weeks after Federal Court Justice Anne Mactavish…

“…expressed “serious concerns” over how effective Canadian efforts have been to ensure the safety of their prisoners and what safeguards have been put in place.”

First, it should not be overlooked that the United States continues to maintain a detention facility at Bagram Airbase, which has been traditionally used to house those ultimately destined for the US facility at Guantanamo and Black Sites, such as Ethiopian prisons known for their use of harsh interrogation methods where the CIA and FBI have been active of late. Given our position on the transfer of prisoners, how are we to know that they won’t ultimately end up in the hands of the Americans and shuttled off to foreign locales to be interrogated?

Further to this, simply because Afghan authorities have claimed that they have made efforts to purge their own system of abusive practices, the War On Terror has set a very solid precedent with regards to the interrogation of those viewed as individuals of opportunity. It is therefore completely naïve to think that the use of harsh techniques will stop. If anything, this entire affair has only provided a valuable lesson to those within the Afghan infrastructure that such undertakings should be conducted in venues that will not afford foreign media the opportunity to gain access to those that have been abused in recognized facilities.

The reality here is that as long as such practices go underground, so to speak, we can rest easy believing that our military is not complicit in the ultimate abuse of prisoners. Unfortunately, and no matter your position on the matter, the reality remains that the transfer of prisoners to those that do employ such practices is in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, and if we are willing to ignore that fact, then not only will we continue to be complicit, but also guilty of the violation of international law. And that; like it or not, completely debases those ‘noble attributes’ provided us by our government with regards to our participation in Afghanistan.

Much of the world is simply asleep if it believes that the use of harsh interrogation methods has been suspended by the likes of the United States and others. While they might claim that such practices have stopped, the truth is that they have more than likely just learned from past mistakes and become far more skilled at the art of continuing such practices in ways that are extremely difficult to uncover.

After years of cataloguing and commenting on world events on this website, I must admit that it has become somewhat of a chore. Obviously, my personal beliefs remain unaltered, but as the years have passed I have found myself suffering from a bizarre form of self induced anxiety because I feel that I’m unable to grant a myriad of subjects the attention that I feel they deserve, and in a manner that reflects their seriousness by providing the sort of attention to them that simply cannot be provided by a single person within a 24 hour time frame.

Being that the geopolitical landscape is fluid, it is very difficult to keep on top of a variety of events. Being that this website isn’t a news organization, nor do I have at my disposal the sorts of resources that such organizations have, it makes attempting to disseminate current events in a timely fashion rather difficult without simply posting an array of hyperlinks. In short, blogging isn’t supposed to be about directing readers to likeminded websites that contain information, but rather exist to provide an individual a platform to comment on those things that they feel important.

In my case, the problem is that so many of the things that I find important are interlinked with occurrences elsewhere, many of them steeped in the intrusions of foreign interventionism. Therefore, when commenting on, for example, the genocide in Sudan, a myriad of other factors become relevant, such as the fact that while the United States has declared it genocide, it works behind the scenes with the government in Khartoum on a program to use Sudanese nationals to infiltrate radical groups in Iraq. That, of course, then leads to Iraq and events regarding such radical groups. The same can be said of Somalia, where Ethiopian forces were backed by the United States to displace the ICU, which has led to one of the most overlooked humanitarian crises in Africa. In that instance, while the focus should be placed on the disastrous consequences of Ethiopia’s actions with regards to ordinary Somalis and what they have had to endure, it also cannot be overlooked that the United States not only supported the initial invasion of the country with Special Forces teams and air strikes, but that the US currently uses notoriously harsh Ethiopian jails to house detainees (Clarification with regards to my initial mention of AFRICOM).

Given these contradictions, it becomes extremely important to include them when dealing with base issues, those largely being the plights of the innocent simply caught in the middle, and who, while they have the world’s sympathy, remain in a state of perpetual limbo because ideological methodology remains at the root of such problems. In the case of Darfur, given China’s relationship with Sudan, the chances of the UN Security Council adopting a unanimous declaration that genocide is taking place in Darfur is slim to none. Were it to, given the UN Charter, immediate and substantial action would have to be taken. Therefore, it costs the Americans very little to claim it genocide. Knowing full well that China’s position will ensure that the Security Council does not reach a unanimous consensus, and therefore require that real action be taken, assuming the position that genocide is occurring costs the US nothing. And if that sounds ridiculous to some of you, consider Rwanda. At the time of the Rwandan genocide, much of the Security Council was unwilling to categorize it as genocide precisely because it would have meant that they would have had to intervene on a much greater level. Instead, they did not, and UNAMIR was left to wither, literally forcing its commander to go against his orders and refuse to leave the country after being told that UNAMIR’s mandate had been exhausted. In that instance, the French were particularly suspect being they had been involved in arming those that would ultimately undertake the slaughter, not to mention evacuating numerous individuals that were involved in masterminding it. Given the disaster that had befallen the US in Somalia prior to that, it too had very little desire to become involved in fear of a domestic backlash. Thus, while the world’s attention was on events in the Balkans, some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred.

With regards to Darfur, initially AMIS (whose mandate forbade them to use force to protect civilians) was instituted after the UN found itself in the position of facing funding problems because many of the world’s wealthier nations refused to commit military resources to a substantial peacekeeping initiative. Obviously there were underlying issues, such as China’s opposition given their reliance on Sudanese oil and the fact that they are the primary supplier of arms to the Sudanese. But last summer, after things has become far too catastrophic to ignore any longer, UNAMID was instituted, which is a joint UN-AU force authorized by UN resolution 1769 whose mandate is set to last one year. It is under the command of Nigerian General Martin Luther Agwai.

Nothing is easy, not even responding to a genocidal situation. Like an onion, it has layers of conditions and corruptions, all of which must not only be seen to before the killing of innocents can be addressed, but must also be examined when confronting the reality of why such a situation is allowed to continue. Thus, while simply blogging about what has occurred in Sudan on a base level is important, is it equally as important to seriously confront such issues to reveal the hypocrisies of those who have, all along, possessed the ability to act, or to even aggressively demand that action be taken, but have failed to do so in a timely fashion. That includes the government of Sudan itself, which forbade the presence of UN peacekeepers until last year, and which, with regards to culpability and crimes against humanity, makes them susceptible to applicable international laws regarding genocide. Unfortunately, given the damage done the ICC since the invasion of Iraq and the US position that it will not adhere to its authority, the Sudanese find themselves in a comfortable gray area in which they too can ignore international law, having been provided precedent to fall back on with regards to war crimes prosecution.

That said; there’s an example of how a simple statement can become multidimensional in a matter of a few paragraphs. And, in truth, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. One of the most crucial aspects is, of course, personal experience. When it comes to Darfur, I will say that I deeply regret not going when I was offered the opportunity several years ago. Unfortunately, I was scheduled to begin touring at the time and therefore had to turn it down.

What Is Simple And What Is Not

Complexities reign. No situation is as black and white as it’s made out to be, not even those that are painted as struggles of good against evil.

I commented after the release of The Manley Report that if we’re to take confronting the Taliban in Afghanistan seriously then we must face the hard, cold truth that the abandonment of our morality is something that we are going to have to come to terms with. With most in government adamantly opposed to any process of negotiation, the alternative is – what? The pretense of nobly confronting and overcoming the Taliban? And how is that to be accomplished? By holding down the fort long enough for the Afghan military to reach a level of professionalism to deal with the problem? The truth is, a considerable portion of the Afghan military, including its leadership, is comprised of ex-Northern Alliance members that are, by no means, strangers to conflict, specifically fighting the Taliban. Therefore, how long will we have to wait before they’re able to return to doing what they did prior to the 2001 invasion, which was fighting the Taliban?

Of course, they did a piss poor job of it, and infighting didn’t help their cause either. That being the case, having tens of thousands of foreign troops around to work towards accomplishing what they couldn’t doesn’t seem like something they’d be in favour of disparaging. Which brings us back to our confrontation of the Taliban and what we hope to achieve.

If there is no place for the Taliban in the new Afghanistan, then it only stands to reason that they have to be eliminated, which means the application of overwhelming and inhumane force to decimate their will to wage war and disenfranchise that portion of the civilian population that supports them. That means that everyone, fighters and civilians alike, are equal opportunity targets. And given that the United States has ruled that Omar Kahdr, who was 15 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan, can be classified an enemy combatant because he belonged to an organization that is not recognized as a legitimate military force, child soldiers are fair game as well.

If you’re labouring under the misconception that there’s a more noble way to go about it, you’re dreaming. Unless, that is, you want Canadians to be in Afghanistan until hell freezes over and believe that the Taliban can actually be ‘waited out’. Because the reality is that were international forces to leave the country tomorrow, Mr. Karzai would be on a plane a day later headed for a life in exile and Kabul would be overrun in a matter of weeks. Therefore, given that reality, the most prudent course of action is to abandon this arrogant assumption that we’re ‘better’ than those we’re fighting and get to the business of eradicating them with extreme prejudice.

As for the inevitable backlash that it will occur on a global scale, what would it matter? We’re already in bed with the most despised nation on earth, no need to split hairs. We can’t retain our reputation and be involved in the sort of undertaking required to ensure victory without it being pissed on.

In March, this country may very well go to the polls over this issue, at great expense to the people of this country to boot. Thus, if you’re willing to support our continued role in combat operations in Afghanistan, stop hiding behind lame preconceived notions of nobility and justice and at least have the guts to admit that the only way that the job is going to get done is if we start displaying the same zealotry as those we’re fighting.

Handing prisoners over to be tortured by local authorities? It’s a waste of valuable time. We should just do it ourselves, on the spot, and forgo having to wait for actionable intelligence. If nothing comes of it, well, at least that’s one less enemy combatant to worry about. A sympathetic bullet to the back of the head and on with the business of winning. Because that’s what we’re there to do, win. Not fuck about worrying whether the people of the country we’re saving on their behalf have a problem with our tactics, not to mention bleeding hearts here at home. According to The Manley Report, the majority of Afghans want us there anyway, so our alteration in tactics is just going to have to be something they get used to if liberty is at all important to them.

Pakistan, of course, remains a problem. Our actions will, without question, plunge that nation into a further state of chaos, which means that we might have to be prepared to deal with it as well. Given that Bhutto is dead, and out best chance at implementing a puppet regime that would allow us free reign in Waziristan is gone, we’ll have to tread lightly until we see what becomes of Musharraf’s government. If Musharraf were willing to help us undertake the elimination of those in his own military establishment that have ties to radical groups, we could offer him some future considerations with regards to Afghanistan (what’s Karzai going to say, honestly?). We could even demand that the IAEA be granted access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, which would, of course, provide us a backdoor with which to compromise it, and in doing so throw Musharraf a few extra bones, such as gifting him arms and promises that we will aid in any effort to protect his regime from other political elements within the country. Of course, we’ll also have to make him President as well, which, after putting a few key ‘international electoral observes’ in place, shouldn’t be a problem.

If any of that sounds dirty to you, and completely counter to everything that we stand for, it’s time to get your head out of the dark recesses of your ass and see the world for what it is. Because justice and decency are only as good as their domestic projections. They win elections, they don’t win wars, nor do they have any place in foreign policy when it comes to global interests.

This is the game we’re now playing, and it’s time that Canadians got used to it. We did our bit in the Great Wars, that was all well and good, but times change. We can no longer fall back on the past to comfort ourselves with regards to what now must be done and the ugliness that we must be willing to embrace to see it accomplished.

We live in a free country and have an all-volunteer army. If our elected officials send those volunteers into harms way, it only stands to reason that some of them are going to come home in boxes. The hard reality facing Canadians is the differentiation between casting those deaths in some wholly romantic and patriotic light, or one that represents the reality that they were ordered into action to kill and therefore run the risk of being killed. But, most importantly – to kill.

That must, at the end of the day, be the goal. And it is here that the hard, cold mathematics of warfare have to be applied and seen for what they are. If ten Canadian deaths mean the deaths of 100 Taliban fighters, or those civilians that support them, then it was worth it. During the Second World War, those sorts of numbers would have been cause for celebration. In this case, being that we are engaged in a global war against terrorism, its primary front being in Afghanistan, it only stands to reason that they should be cause for celebration as well. Of course, the loss of any of our fighting men and women is always terrible, but that’s what soldiers are ultimately for, is it not? If our government orders them into a situation in which they are to kill an enemy, then it only stands to reason that their role is accept death as a consequence. Despite what many might believe, especially given that we haven’t been involved in a serious conflict for generations, that’s the reality of the combat soldier. They are tools with which to kill and be killed in turn. If that were not the case, then they would not be trained to kill because simple logic dictates that when you’re profession is to go to war and kill others, your own death is something that might also come with the package.

So here we are, on the raggedy edge.

When the legal system in a nation attempts to block the disclosure of war crimes for fear of ‘adverse publicity’, you have to wonder just how much we, as the public, don’t know with regards to abuse in war zones, or with regards to detainees in The War On Terror.

Most of us enjoy clinging to conservative reports of wrong doing, of civilian casualty levels, in the hopes that what we don’t know is therefore not the truth, nor ever could be. For example, despite a report some weeks ago that claimed between 100,000 and 150,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the 2003 invasion, ORB recently released a comprehensive report that, after conducting interviews with almost 2,500 Iraqi adults…

“…found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.

The last complete census in Iraq conducted in 1997 found 4.05 million households in the country, a figure ORB used to calculate that approximately 1.03 million people had died as a result of the war, the researchers found.

The margin of error in the survey, conducted in August and September 2007, was 1.7 percent, giving a range of deaths of 946,258 to 1.12 million.

ORB originally found that 1.2 million people had died, but decided to go back and conduct more research in rural areas to make the survey as comprehensive as possible and then came up with the revised figure.

The research covered 15 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. Those that not covered included two of Iraq’s more volatile regions — Kerbala and Anbar — and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work.”

Of course, that can be written off as false, especially given the number of contradictory figures floating around out there. Thus, it can’t be taken as gospel, which is fantastic with regards to the ability of millions to sleep at night with untroubled consciences.

There’s also sectarian violence to take into consideration, a point that is often deferred to by many that still seem unable to come to terms with the fact that without the occupation such violence would never have become prevalent. Sure, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, but it should also be pointed out that during his regime the only time when civilian deaths were of such outrageous proportions was when international sanctions were imposed in the 90’s.

Of course, it’s easy to argue the realities of the loss of innocent lives from thousands of miles away. Being entirely unaffected by the war, the responsibility for such deaths can be picked apart and convoluted and shuffled around until it appears as though hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have simply been hit by lightning since 2003.

Anyway, back to covering our tracks…

“An Astonishing attempt to keep secret very serious allegations of torture levelled against British soldiers in Iraq was finally thrown out by two High Court judges yesterday. Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Silber overruled a previous decision that a forthcoming case in which survivors and relatives are to sue the Ministry of Defence over the alleged torture should not be reported in full. They prevented the press from reporting what the allegations of torture were, who is claiming compensation and the names of the regiments said to be involved.

The judge at the original ruling granted the order, saying that the “adverse publicity” the case would generate would be “highly undesirable”.

That perverse decision was finally overturned yesterday on the basis that the very serious allegations should be in the public domain.

The allegations surround a battle in May 2004, after which 31 Iraqis were taken into custody by British armed forces. More than 20 of those held died subsequently, their corpses showing signs of mutilation, and the nine survivors claim they were tortured and abused.

There are often very good reasons for restrictions on the reporting of court cases. Sparing the blushes of the Ministry of Defence is not among them.”

No, you didn’t read that wrong.

When it comes to abuse, how many more ‘isolated incidents’ have to come to light before we acknowledge a pattern? When it comes to the deaths of innocents, does it ultimately matter if the figure is 150,000 or 900,000? What in God’s name can we look to that could even begin to justify such deaths given the circumstances and the blatant propaganda used to justify the war?

September 11th? Does that sound like a decent trade?

Some 3,000 innocent people for somewhere between 100,000 and 1 million Iraqi lives, millions more displaced, and the world’s worst child mortality rate? And that’s not even taking into consideration that over 4,000 American Soldiers, and others besides, have died as well.

September 11th? I thought that’s why Afghanistan was invaded.

This whole post-9/11 fantasyland has become nothing more than a golden ticket for wholesale slaughter. The irony, of course, is that those responsible will never be held accountable for their actions. The only people that will ever be held accountable for the actions of those that are guilty are the innocents that have lost their lives because of them.

Now, remind me. Who has that oh so glorious monopoly on civility again?

Kris Kotarski made an excellent point with his article U.S. ‘wrongly’ on torture list? in yesterday’s Calgary Herald…

“Does the United States torture prisoners? This is the question Canadians should be asking after a Foreign Affairs training manual made public earlier this month listed the U.S. as a country where prisoners are at risk of torture.

The manual, released by Foreign Affairs as part of a court case addressing Canada’s now-halted policy of handing over detainees to the Afghan government, placed our neighbours in the company of Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Syria. It also listed U.S. interrogation techniques such as forced nudity, isolation, sleep deprivation and the blindfolding of prisoners under its definition of torture.

So, does the United States torture prisoners?

This question is far more important than whether Canada committed a diplomatic gaffe when the manual was mistakenly released to Amnesty International.

It is also far more important than whether Stephen Harper’s government is embarrassed, angry or humiliated by the inclusion of the U.S., and another Canadian ally, Israel on the list.

Does the United States torture prisoners?

It’s an important question, not only because of our close ties to the U.S. law enforcement system, but also because of our cultural proximity to our southern neighbours.

It is also a question that no longer should be ignored by Canadians, since, sadly, all signs point to the fact that the answer is “yes.”

The apologists in Ottawa that have scrambled about in an attempt to placate the US with regards to their removal from the Foreign Affairs manual should, of course, been seen for what they are – cowards. We are, after all, currently engaged in a struggle for freedom and justice on the other side of the world, a cause that is trumpeted by those exact same individuals. One of the primary points often referred to when justifying our involvement in that conflict is that the preceding regime was responsible for human rights abuses and that to not participate in the defense of the new democratic government would ensure its return, and thus the return of such practices. Of course, we have, ourselves, been guilty of handing over prisoners to Afghan authorities that have then employed torture, so perhaps there is a good reason why Mr. Harper’s government was so quick to denounce the manual. But beyond that, how can we, as a nation that purports to champion human rights, not view the unscrupulous actions of the United States for what they are? Even more, how can we, as Canadians, stand by and watch our government bow and scrape to ensure that those with whom we are politically aligned can be assured that we wouldn’t dare include them in the company of those that have been vilified for the very same reasons?

George Tenet.

Whenever I write or hear that name one word comes to mind – scapegoat. Not surprisingly, it seems that the CIA’s former clandestine service chief, Jose Rodriguez, might not be in the mood to join Tenet in that distinction.

Rodriguez, on whose watch the now infamous CIA tapes were destroyed, has indicated that might be willing to cut an immunity deal regarding his upcoming testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee.

So the question has to be asked – what damaging information does Rodriguez possess that would push him to consider such a deal? Even more, was Rodriguez even directly involved in the decision making process or did he simply follow orders? And if so, then what was on the tapes that was so damaging that it prompted members of the administration to seek their destruction?

From the Times Online…

“The House intelligence committee has subpoenaed Rodriguez to appear for a hearing on January 16. Last week the CIA began opening its files to congressional investigators. Silvestre Reyes, a Democrat who is chairing the committee, has said he was “not looking for scapegoats” – a hint to Rodriguez that he would like him to talk.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer, believes the scandal could reach deep into the White House. “The CIA and Jose Rodriguez look bad, but he’s probably the least culpable person in the process. He didn’t wake up one day and decide, ‘I’m going to destroy these tapes.’ He checked with a lot of people and eventually he is going to get his say.”

Johnson says Rodriguez got his fingers burnt during the Iran-contra scandal while working for the CIA in Latin America in the 1980s. Even then he sought authorisation from senior officials. But when summoned to the FBI for questioning, he was told Iran-contra was “political – get your own lawyer”.

He learnt his lesson and recently appointed Robert Bennett, one of Washington’s most skilled lawyers, to handle the case of the destroyed interrogation tapes. “He has been starting to get his story out and was smart to get Bennett,” said Johnson.”

Ron Suskind’s book The One Percent Doctrine includes FBI sources that claim that the individual interrogated on the tapes, Abu Zubaydah, was…

“…mentally unstable and tangential to Al-Qaeda’s plots, and that he gave reams of unfounded information under torture - information that led law-enforcement bodies in the US to raise terror alert levels, rushing marshals and police to shopping malls, bridges and other alleged targets as Zubaydah tried to get the torture to stop. No one disputes that Zubaydah wrote a diary - and that it was written in the words of three personalities, none of them his own.

A former FBI agent who was involved in the interrogation, Daniel Coleman, said last week that the CIA knew Al-Qaeda’s leaders all believed Zubaydah “was crazy, and they knew he was always on the damn phone. You think they’re going to tell him anything?” Even though preliminary, legal interrogation gave the US good - though not unique - information, the CIA still asked for and received permission to torture him in pursuit of more data and leads.”

That, right there, may very well be the reason why the tapes were destroyed – because they contained evidence that the intelligence gleaned from Zubaydah’s torture was baseless and that the administration acted on it despite that fact for their own ends.

In the end, fear is a powerful tool. Even if it’s baseless. Better yet, especially if it’s baseless.

When it comes to the unfolding drama regarding Iran, look no further than the Israelis for proof positive that hypocrisy is alive and well. Yesterday, Israeli’s newly appointed ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, uttered the following…

“At the current rate of progress, Iran will reach the technical threshold for producing fissile material by 2009,” he said.

“This is a global threat and it requires a global response.

“It should be made clear that if Iran does not co-operate, then military confrontation is inevitable. It is either co-operation or confrontation.”

“There needs to be full verification of what is happening in Iran,” Mr Prosor said. “In Israel, there is a belief that the Iranians are continuing with their nuclear weapons program.”

While I’m sure that I’ll catch flack for this entry, I must admit to being tired of hearing the Israelis go on about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program when they themselves have refused to acknowledge that their own program even exists, have never allowed the IAEA to inspect it, have not signed the NPT, and jailed the one person that had the fortitude to come forward and tell the world that Israel does, in fact, possess a nuclear arsenal.

As of 2002, Israel is believed to possess between 75 and 200 nuclear weapons. Among them are neutron bombs, nuclear mines, submarine borne missiles, and other variants. Despite the fact that, in 1975, highly classified US government documents, now declassified, show that the United States was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons, the US has never called for an international inquiry into their existence or production, nor pushed for the UN to be granted access to Israeli facilities to determine the scope of their program.

In Ness Ziona, at the Israel Institute for Biological Research, the Israelis have also undertaken research and development into vaccines to counteract the effects of chemical and biological weapons. And while it is currently believed that they are not producing chemical and biological weapons of their own, such research could be used to constitute an offensive chemical and biological arms program. Given that last statement, why is that of little to no concern to anyone? Because we, in the West, simply accept the fact that Israel wouldn’t initiate an offensive chemical and biological weapons program? And if so, why is it that the West is so unsuspicious of Israeli programs?

In all seriousness, here we are talking about a nation in the Middle East that, in truth, has been given free reign by the West for no other reason than it represents the West’s foremost military proxy in the region. Even Israel’s creation was the result of a heavily Western backed initiative via the United Nations, largely spearheaded by the Truman administration. It has, since that time, been one of the largest recipients of US military aid in the world, a trend that continues to this day. In fact, to counteract a recent ten year, $20 billion dollar, arms agreement with various Arab states, the United States pledged to provide Israel alone with $30 billion dollars in military aid over the same period of time.

I’ll not disagree that the Iranian government’s position on Israel’s right to exist is tired and counterproductive, because it is. Then again, since the Islamic revolution, no overt military action has been taken against Israel by Iran itself (in truth, Iran, then Persia, has not invaded another country since the 19th century). True, Iran has been complicit in funding groups such as Hezbollah, but how is that any different that the Israelis being funded by the United States and exploiting that relationship to institute policies that have basically ghettoized a people and been responsible for human rights violations and war crimes?

If you’re under the assumption that that isn’t the case, that Israel has enacted such policies solely for purposes of security, then why did Avi Dichter, Israel’s Public Security minister, recently turn down an invitation to travel to the UK in fear that he could be arrested on war crimes charges in connection with the attack in Gaza on Saleh Shehadah which killed at least 13 civilians in July of 2002?

I’m not going to claim that it doesn’t go both ways, but there is a vast difference between radical Palestinian groups armed with RPG’s and Kalashnikovs, not to mention children hurling rocks, and the IDF, which has at its disposal some of the most advanced weaponry in the world, including a state of the art air force. True, suicide attacks are one of the tools employed by radical groups, though it must be said – if they possessed attack helicopters, armor, and fighter planes, they would most likely resort to employing the sorts of weapons that we commonly condone as ‘honourable’. Let’s face it – there is, as far as Western perceptions are concerned, no honour in blowing oneself up and taking others with you. But it is honourable to use state of the art attack helicopters to do the same thing – correct?

Now, with regards to Iranian support for Hezbollah, I will again not argue that Iran hasn’t been complicit. But as I’ve said, how is that any different than US support for Israel? In truth, Iran’s military support for Hezbollah is vastly minimal by comparison. Of course, the counter argument is that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that the government of Israel is not. Then again, the last time I checked, Hezbollah was not responsible for the million bomblets from Cluster Bombs that still litter Southern Lebanon, the majority of which were dropped in the last days of that conflict, and that still continue to maim and kill Lebanese civilians on a daily basis.

The fact remains that while Israeli’s foremost military enabler scrutinizes Iran’s intentions and programs, Israel escapes scrutiny. There is nary a word about Israel’s nuclear program, or the fact that the Israelis refuse to allow it to be inspected by the very same body that has been pushed to scrutinize Iran’s nuclear program. No National Intelligence Estimate regarding Israel’s nuclear program has been undertaken, and if it has it hasn’t been publicized for the sole reason that it would expose the hypocrisy of not only the Israelis, but the United States as well. In fact, the influence of the Israeli lobby in the United States would probably ensure that it was killed before it even saw the light of day.

Is the Iranian government guilty of human rights violations? Absolutely. Is Israel? Absolutely. Of course, it can be argued that Iran’s violations are considerably worse, and one would expect that. Then again, the same sorts of violations occur in other counties with which the US has close relations and they are rarely, if ever, scrutinized – Saudi Arabia being a primary example.

When it comes to this issue, we live in a society that lacks objectivity, and to claim as much is to offer ones self up for target practice for daring to say so. Deep and indoctrinated lines have been drawn regarding this issue, and to attempt to look at it objectively, or to hold all those involved to the same standards, is something that is, rather ironically, not acceptable.

No matter what you happen to believe, peace is a universal proposition. It is not one that comes with caveats penned by those that possess greater military capabilities. We have been programmed to believe that the latter is standard practice and, not surprisingly, peace continues to elude us.

There is no side worth being on that does not transparently promote justice, equality, and security without agenda. Those besides are nothing more than avenues paved for the weak willed to travel. Ironically, the fantasy author JK Rowling might have put it best when she wrote – the time will soon come to choose between what is right and what is easy. When it comes to how we view global events, that maxim is of incredible import. For behind those behind the curtains there are ordinary people that outnumber them by the billions, all of them connected by the simplest of bonds - the universal desire to live lives without fear and to escape those entrenchments that have pitted them against one another for far too long.

Home. Finally.

Unpacked, doing laundry, walked the dogs, clean bed linens. Put Leopard on my iMac, went and got some milk, packed the fridge full of left over beer, water, and Coke from the tour.

A few things of interest. According to the FBI investigation into the Nisour Square massacre…

“Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case.

The F.B.I. investigation into the shootings in Baghdad is still under way, but the findings, which indicate that the company’s employees recklessly used lethal force, are already under review by the Justice Department.

Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the F.B.I. declined to discuss the matter.

The case could be one of the first thorny issues to be decided by Michael B. Mukasey, who was sworn in as attorney general last week. He may be faced with a decision to turn down a prosecution on legal grounds at a time when a furor has erupted in Congress about the administration’s failure to hold security contractors accountable for their misdeeds.”

I’m going to hold with my initial opinion – I don’t think anyone involved in the incident that day will be brought to justice. Then again, given the sensitive nature of the subject and the Iraqi government’s position on the legal status of foreign contractors, it can’t be entirely ruled out. But it should be noted that if legal action is taken, the State Department will also be scrutinized, something that I simply can’t see happening.

Also of interest is an article in today’s Jerusalem Post…

“The newly formed Genocide Prevention Task Force indicated Tuesday night that it will not be examining whether Israel has committed genocide in the West Bank and Gaza despite earlier statements that it would be addressing the subject.

The task force of prominent former US officials was announced at a press conference earlier Tuesday and will be working over the next year to help the American government best respond to and prevent genocide.

Though one of the co-chairs, former US Defense Secretary William Cohen, originally said that the situation in the West Bank and Gaza would be considered, the task force later clarified that such an inquiry would be beyond the scope of the panel.

“Its task is not to determine which situations, past or present, including the West Bank and Gaza, constitute genocide, but to develop policy recommendations that enable the United States to prevent future genocides from occurring,” Cohen, along with co-chair Madeleine Albright, said in a statement issued Tuesday night.”

Never you mind the present. It’s the future of genocide we’re interested in.

In the last entry I made about the practice of waterboarding, it was pointed out that the technique has been used in the past in the training of US special forces. The purpose of its role in their training being to help them resists interrogation by way of torture. From an article in today’s Independent entitled Waterboarding is torture - I did it myself, says US advisor, comes the following paragraph…

“In a further embarrassment for Mr Bush yesterday, Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised “hundreds” of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that “waterboarding is a torture technique – period”.

Tomorrow is Remembrance Day. Like many other Canadian families, members of my own participated in the war – my grandfather and two great uncles. On the 11th of November we remember the sacrifices made by those that fought in the major wars of the last century, the most devastating and globally impacting of those being the Second World War.

During that war, both the Japanese and the Gestapo, the German secret police, employed the practice of waterboarding. At its conclusion, those guilty of such practices were tried for war crimes. At that time, the United States considered the practice to be torture.

Given the gravity of what tomorrow represents, I find it reprehensible that a debate about this subject even exists and that the practice is even employed. If anything, the actions of the United States and its allies in the War On Terror, Canada included, demonstrates that when you are the victors of one of the world’s greatest conflicts, it’s easy to write the rules of condemnation and, at the same time, dismiss them when they are applicable to yourself – no matter how much time has passed.

We are not afforded the luxury to mourn the fallen tomorrow and, at the same time, claim that times have changed and that the morality and sacrifice that we reverently observe on November 11th cannot be tarnished by the employment of practices that are entirely counter to the hopes of those that laid down their lives. To do so not only dishonours them; but renders their sacrifice, and the belief that it helped protect something sacred, moot.

We are arrogant; there is no denying that. Our crimes are not crimes because we are the judge and jury of the world. To admit to criminality is to admit that that which we promote as the pinnacle of civility is little more than a fraud – which it most certainly, and always has, been. In the end, given the existence of places such as Guantanamo, of secret Black Sites, of what has occurred at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the practice of Rendition, we have become no better than those that our now celebrated dead once fought to wipe from the face of the earth.

Perhaps that is why we cling to the past, to the remembrance of those that fell. Perhaps, somewhere sleeping within us, we still realize that the true purpose of their sacrifice was to ensure that we, the people, retained the right to ensure that such things could never be done in our name, that we remained free from that which gripped the world all those years ago – fascism.

Make no mistake, fascism is not an ideology that is limited to set parameters. Given the right conditions it can rise in even the most liberal of nations. In truth, its seeds grow far faster, and far less recognized, in such soil. The belief that decency and greatness resides at the core of a society is precisely what it requires to flourish, for only then can it be justified in times of fear, uncertainty, and strife. It is only where the free can be convinced to give up their freedoms that the specter of fascism can be found. It is only when those that profess to champion justice, equality, and liberty turn to the employment of torture that the roots of fascism begin to take hold.

Sixty-two years ago the Second World War ended. At its conclusion, more lives were lost in those short years than at any other point in human history. During that war, men of this nation, and others, fought against a global tyranny that threatened those principles that we now claim to champion. Therefore, tomorrow our duty is not wholly to remember the individuals that sacrificed themselves for the continued existence of those principles, but the principles themselves. And in doing so, we should be ashamed that we have allowed them to be tarnished, that we have become apathetic with regards to their execution, and that we have wrapped ourselves in our own mythology to such an extent that we have almost become unfamiliar with what they represent.

This is not a nation under one God. It is a nation in which its people have the right to worship whatever God they chose knowing that church and state remain separate. This is a nation in which the colour of your skin, or your ethnic background, should not be cause for suspicion. It is one in which all people, no matter their background, come together to constitute what we call Canada.

But most of all – this is a nation. It is not a convenient military or political proxy for the benefit of others. It is not a nation that is so insignificant that it must bend to the will of greater powers to feel significant. This is a nation that, throughout the course of modern events, has more to be proud of than ashamed – and even then, one that should have the decency to address its misgivings and make amends.

It is time that the people of this country realized that, lest this not be a nation. For if we are incapable of that realization, then those that sacrificed themselves for it will be marginalized to the point of becoming little more than statues in park squares and in front of government buildings that are pointed to when the need arises to justify the diminishment of our freedoms rather than being symbols of why we possess them.