Friday Nite Video: Cat Stevens - Oh Very Young

This is Cat Stevens' (now known as Yusuf Islam) website. And here's the link to his children's charity "Small Kindness".

This is just one of their projects:

IRAQ
As the chaos continues in Iraq, Small Kindness is one of only a brave handful of organisations concentrating its efforts amidst the skirmishes and terrible conditions of this war-torn country.

The lives of ordinary Iraqis have been turned upside down. What they need now more than ever is stability and real hope for the future. As fighting rages all around, children are having to dodge bullets to get to and from school. Small Kindness is supporting some three hundred orphans in the region with regular payments plus scholarships to over a hundred university students. In 2004 the charity opened the first EMTEC in the heart of Baghdad University under the auspices of Iraq’s Ministry of Education. The Centre has over three hundred Iraqi girls on roll, providing free tuition in information technology, management studies, language, and accountancy skills.

Fisk: The Globe and Mail Stole an Article From The Independent

Busted.

In his latest article for The Independent, Robert Fisk recounts the story of G&M columnist Jan Wong and the stir she caused following the Dawson College shootings and then reveals this:

Now I happen to know a bit about the Globe's "quality control process". Some time ago, I discovered that the paper had reprinted an article of mine from The Independent about the Armenian genocide. But they had tampered with it, altering my word "genocide" to read "tragedy".

The Independent's subscribers promise to make no changes to our reports. But when our syndication folk contacted the Globe, they discovered that the Canadian paper had simply stolen the article. They were made to pay a penalty fee. But as for the censorship of the word "genocide", a female executive explained to The Independent that nothing could be done because the editor responsible had "since left the Globe and Mail".

Fisk concludes with:

It's the same old story, isn't it? Censor then whinge, then cut and run. No wonder the bloggers are winning.

Well, most bloggers anyway - those who don't need to pander to a party, group, organization, corporation or whoever's paying their bills.

Interesting that Canada's supposedly "left-wing" newspaper, the G&M, should willfully edit one of Fisk's articles (that they stole) to censor the word "genocide". Who or what are they afraid of? I suppose the truth is just too much for our mainstream media to handle.

Related: April, 2004 - Canadian Parliament recognizes Armenian genocide

Update: I see that Fisk also addressed the theft of his article during a talk he gave with Noam Chomsky in May, 2006. Oh well. It's news to me.
 

Bush Bans Torture? Not exactly

While George Bush issued an executive order on Friday "prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment, including humiliation or denigration of religious beliefs, in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects" while still keeping acceptable interrogation methods secret, the Center for Constitutional Rights brought us this news:

On July 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling in two Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) petitions that, while ostensibly giving attorneys access to all government information for the DTA hearings, would also withhold key evidence that would likely point to torture of detainees. The ruling also includes a new protective order that would drastically curtail the ability of all attorneys to work with clients at Guantánamo and erodes attorney-client privilege.

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the government’s failure to comply with its own Combat Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) procedures reinforces concerns about the adequacy of the CSRT process as a substitute for habeas corpus. But it also stated that “highly sensitive information” – likely to be information concerning the torture of detainees – can be withheld from attorneys.

The new protective order, issued as part of the ruling in Parhat v. Gates and Bismullah v. Gates, would:
• Allow the U.S. government to withhold “certain highly sensitive information” from attorneys, with certain classified information only offered on a “need to know” basis;
• Allow legal mail between attorneys and detainees to be inspected;
• Let the government redact from inspected mail any information that doesn’t specifically refer to events leading to the detainee’s capture and the conduct of the CSRT’s, including information relating to fears of repatriation to torture; and
• Allow only two attorney visits with detainees to obtain representation authorization (but would not require a detainee to sign a document giving authorization as the government had wished). This can be difficult when dealing with people who have been traumatized and have significant reasons not to trust the people they meet with.

So, of what use is an executive order against torture when a victim can't even get access to evidence of such treatment?

Further, there is no word yet on whether Bush's new order affects the section of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that gives American government perpetrators of torture immunity from prosecution and since Bush conveniently opted out of the International Criminal Court in 2003, it's extremely unlikely that any CIA agent will ever be prosecuted for the war crime of torture.

Just more smoke and mirrors from Bush's legal advisors.

Related: The US isn't the only country that's trying to rework the ban on torture. See European Court of Human Rights: Ban on torture is absolute and universal.
 

Iraq: Forget About That September Report

The conclusion is already out there. They need more time.

WASHINGTON — The No. 2 U.S. general in Iraq said July 19 that it would be at least November before he could fully assess whether the military strategy in Iraq is working.

The Bush administration has urged Congress to wait until a report in September from Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker before considering a reduction of the 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, Petraeus’ deputy, told reporters at the Pentagon via video link from Baghdad that there had been “significant success in the security arena” in recent weeks but that September might be too soon to say with certainty whether the progress was “just a blip.”

“In order to do a good assessment, I need at least till November to do that,” Odierno said.

That's right. Just keep stalling while more people die.

And then tell everyone in October that you'll let them know in January. And from there, you still won't have had enough time so beg for patience until at least March. And on and on.

The WaPo has more.

"I will not present the Iraqi government as a model of smoothly functioning efficiency," Crocker said. "Because it's not. . . . The stresses and strains and tensions throughout society are reflected in the government." If he had to choose one word to sum up the atmosphere at every level in Iraq, he said, "that word would be 'fear.' " Replacing fear with "trust and confidence [is] what the process is all about."

If I had to choose one word to sum up the US congress' refusal to defund the war and bring their troops home, I'd use exactly the same word: "fear". Except, in that case, they're afraid for their political careers.
 

Video: Go to Iraq and fight, Mr President

transcript

Excerpt:

Sen. Clinton has been sent — and someone has leaked to The Associated Press — a letter, sent in reply to hers asking if there exists an actual plan for evacuating U.S. troops from Iraq.

This extraordinary document was written by an undersecretary of defense named Eric Edelman.

“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq,” Edelman writes, “reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.”

Edelman adds: “Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.”

A spokesman for the senator says Mr. Edelman’s remarks are “at once both outrageous and dangerous.” Those terms are entirely appropriate and may, in fact, understate the risk the Edelman letter poses to our way of life and all that our fighting men and women are risking, have risked, and have lost, in Iraq.
[...]
This, sir, is your war.

Sen. Clinton has reinforced enemy propaganda? Made it impossible for you to get your ego-driven, blood-steeped win in Iraq?

Then take it into your own hands, Mr. Bush.

Go to Baghdad now and fulfill, finally, your military service obligations.

Go there and fight, your war. Yourself.

Amen to that.
 

'Rescue Mexico from US Guns'

While most Americans worry about who or what is coming into their country from Mexico, I doubt many realize the extent to which guns are being smuggled out of the US and into Mexico.

A Christian Science Monitor article reveals:

It's not only poverty propelling Mexicans into the US. Rising gun violence by drug gangs, and lately a military surge against them, have driven many to cross the border. And where do these drug cartels get their arsenal of weapons? El Norte, of course.

Lax gun laws and lax enforcement in the United States have made it easy for Mexican gunrunners to buy and transport everything from AK-47s to Stinger antiaircraft missiles, which then allows the cartels to use these high-powered weapons against rival gangs or against a military attack. More than 90 percent of the thousands of guns confiscated yearly in Mexico have been traced to US origin.

Square that with this:

The Bush administration has waked [sic] up late to Mexico's gun problem. Last year, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told Congress he didn't know where most of the confiscated weapons in Mexico come from.

Obviously Chertoff didn't have one of his infamous "gut feelings" about that situation.

Just as the US expects Mexico to curtail illegal migration, the US needs to do far more to help Mexico in its current campaign against powerful drug cartels and to block these private armies from getting US guns. More than 1,300 people this year have been killed in Mexican drug-gang-related shootings.

The US and Mexico already work together against drug trafficking. But it is weak gun laws in the US – compared with strict ones in Mexico – that help drive the cross-border gun trade. Mexico itself can do more, too, such as curbing corruption among customs agents. But if Americans want to help improve life for Mexicans, they'll need to stand up to the gun lobby in Congress and state legislatures.

And with groups like the NRA lobbying congresspeople and spending tens of millions to do so, it's going to take much more than the do-nothing effort congress has made to this point. Then again, that begs the question: just how much do Americans really "want to help improve life for Mexicans"?
 

Should City Government Vehicles Display 'Support the Troops' Ribbons?

That controversy is currently brewing in Calgary. What do you think?

Proponents of slapping Support the Troops decals on city vehicles say they're backed by a groundswell of support.

But Mayor David Bronconnier fears the decals will open divisions over the Afghan war.

Ald. Ric McIver is hoping council on Monday will pass his motion to have donated stickers adorn city vehicles, adding he's being deluged with suport [sic].

"I'm getting phone calls steadily and people are stopping me and saying, 'Do it,' " said McIver.

He said the freedom Canadians take for granted come courtesy of the nation's military "and it's high time we show appreciation for that."

But Bronconnier said using a taxpayer-funded canvas for the yellow troop-supporting stickers would antagonize those who feel the message sanctions a war they oppose.

"I don't believe this council should be involved in politicizing a decision that wasn't theirs," said the mayor.

"The debate deteriorates to whether Canada should have a role to play in Afghanistan."

He said almost half the phone calls he's received are from anti-war residents opposed to the proposal.
[...]
The city will hold send-off and welcome-home events for Calgary-based troops deployed in Afghanistan, added Bronconnier.

But Sean Burnand, whose business is willing to give 5,000 of the stickers for the city's fleet, said his efforts drummed up at least $20,000 in corporate donations for military families in four hours.

"I'm extremely disappointed -- (the mayor) doesn't want to use city vehicles for advertising, but the last time I saw a city bus it was covered in advertising," said Burnand of Can West Labels.

Of course there's an obvious difference between displaying revenue-generating advertizing on buses and slapping on troop support ribbons, so that point is moot.

I think the point Bronconnier makes about the decision to go to war not having been made or endorsed by the city council is a valid one. (Full disclosure: I am antiwar.) Consider the fact that several towns and cities in the US, including Portland, Oregon have issued resolutions against supporting the Iraq war. Since Calgary's city council has never issued a resolution in support of Canada's role in the Afghanistan war on behalf of Calgarians, why should it now agree to show ribbons of support on city vehicles?

On the other hand, "support the troops" to some means not supporting the war, but bringing the troops home as quickly as possible - although, to state the obvious, that's not really what that generic statement means to most of the public. I'm sure most would relate the phrase to supporting the war. And we've all seen the public arguments where the word "traitor" has been flung around or someone's patriotism has been criticized if they refuse to endorse the blanket statement "support the troops".

So, I side with Bronconnier here. City vehicles are not the appropriate venue for political statements. According to the latest Strategic Council poll, "Only seven per cent of Canadians strongly support the Afghanistan mission."

The survey, conducted between July 12-16 for CTV and The Globe and Mail, suggests the level of intensity for Canadians strongly opposed to the mission is far greater than those who are in firm support: (percentage point change from a July 12-15, 2006 poll in brackets):

* Total Support: 36 per cent (-3)
* Strongly Support: 7 per cent (-1)
* Support: 29 per cent (-2)
* Oppose: 31 per cent (same)
* Strongly oppose: 27 per cent (+2)
* Total Oppose: 59 per cent (+3)

Calgary's city council would be wise to defeat this motion. If you live in Calgary, please contact your alderperson to let them know what you think about this issue.
 

Plame's Lawsuit Dismissed

According to a federal judge, Bush administration officials had the right to leak her name:

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.

While Bates did not address the constitutional questions, he seemed to side with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

"Unsavory" isn't the word for it.

No word yet on whether Wilson and Plame will appeal this decision.

Update: Melanie Sloan, lawyer for Plame and Wilson, stated on Hardball that she intends to appeal.

Update: Novak Justifies Outing Plame and Sources

He also says in his book that if given the chance, he’d print her name again. “I broke no law and endangered no intelligence operation,” Novak writes. This morning, he added he felt “disappointed in the journalism profession” for its reaction to his printing Plame Wilson’s name. “I thought we stuck together in things like this. I guess that wasn’t the case.”

Impeachment On: Apply Directly to the Congress

Information Clearing House calls this video clip "How to create an Angry American". I call it "How to create an Angry World".

Harper's Unrealistic Expectations About Afghanistan

Whining in Chile about the fact that there are not enough international troops to get the job done, Harper also added the following:

"Afghanistan is a daunting challenge ... but I think that if the international community works together we can make progress in that country to the point where it becomes irreversible and it becomes a functioning nation," said Harper.

Steve is obviously not a student of history. No foreign occupier has ever been successful in shaping Afghanistan into something of its own making.

And, if he truly wants it to be a "functioning nation", he needs to stop propping up the so-called military solution and place his focus on the politics. His rationale is the same as Bush's in Iraq - more troops that are supposed to provide increased security in order for a political solution to be found. It's not working in Iraq and it's not working in Afghanistan. The longer NATO stays in Afghanistan in a combat role while continuing to kill innocent civilians, (even more than the Taliban have this year), the more Afghans there will be who rise up against them. It's a lose/lose situation and Canadians are getting that message.

On Sunday, an Ipsos-Reid poll for the CanWest chain of newspapers showed that support for the mission had slipped to 50 percent from a high of 57 percent at the end of 2006.

Faced with that reality, Harper throws out a strawman:

"I don't think it's actually an option for Canada or anybody else ... to simply close our eyes and pretend there aren't severe problems in other parts of the world," said Harper.

No one is doing that. Nice try, Steve.

Related: U.S.: Afghanistan to break opium record

Taliban fighters are believed to tax and protect poppy farmers and drug runners, but so are Afghan government officials and pro-government tribes.