Paul S. Graham

Pepsi versus Coke meets Republican versus Democrat

by Anthony J. Hall, Professor of Globalization Studies, University of Lethbridge

Just as fresh revelations keep oozing out about the broad extent of the international criminality perpetrated by the regime of the former US president, Canada is becoming the main site of a corporate-driven effort to re-brand George W. Bush as a legitimate political pundit. On May 29 Mr. Bush joins Bill Clinton on the stage of the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre in an event hosted by the TD Financial Group and several other sponsors. The hosts include the Calgary-based Bennett Jones law firm, the global accounting giant Ernst and Young, the Toronto Board of Trade as well as the Toronto-based Globe and Mail newspaper.

The Clinton-Bush gig in Canada’s biggest metropolis is happening about a month after the former president “tested the waters” as a public speaker by addressing an audience of 1,400 executives of mostly Texas-based oil conglomerates in an event hosted by Calgary’s Chamber of Commerce. Bush’s luncheon address was accompanied by the protests of several hundred demonstrators who advanced the case that there is a huge body of evidence already in the public domain that should be sufficient to prohibit Bush from entering Canada or, failing that, to necessitate his arrest on Canadian soil. In a widely published article, which I introduced in early March at an invited lecture at the University of Winnipeg, I outlined the legal and political terrain underlying Bush’s first major public foray outside the United States. That paper, which has proliferated widely on many Internet sites, is entitled “Bush League Justice: Should George W. Bush Be Arrested in Calgary Alberta and Tried for International Crimes?”

My academic intervention was one part of a larger collective effort aimed at advancing the case that the international crimes of George W. Bush and many of his ministers and advisers have been so obvious and gigantic that citizens must mobilize globally to insist that the rule of international criminal law should be made to prevail over the rule of force and political expediency. Many of the core legal principles awaiting enforcement are those that coalesced in the course of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. Its chief prosecutor, the renowned US jurist Robert Jackson, initiated the proceedings in 1945 by insisting that humanity’s future depended on removing “immunity for practically everyone concerned in the really great crimes against peace and mankind.” No longer could “so vast an area of legal irresponsibility” be “tolerated” because “because modern civilization puts unlimited weapons of destruction in the hands of men.”

Read more: George Bush and Bill Clinton Do Toronto (PDF)

In response to the reported slaughter of 25,000 Tamil civilians last week, members of Winnipeg’s Tamil community held a candle light vigil at the Manitoba Legislative Building in Winnipeg on May 17, 2009. At the vigil, they prayed for peace and called upon the Canadian government to do more to prevent further bloodshed in Sri Lanka. Here are some highlights from video I shot.

Question: What do you call a government that

1. refuses to defend the constitutional rights of a Canadian, imprisoned as a child and tortured by the Americans in Guantanamo Bay and refuses to repatriate another Canadian trapped in a kafkaesque nightmare in Sudan
2. refuses to allow war resisters to remain in Canada, despite two resolutions passed by the House of Commons to that effect
3. plans to bring back draconian national security laws including preventive detentions of people alleged on the basis of secret charges to be planning terrorist activity
4. continues to detain immigrants on the basis of secret evidence
5. imposes a no-fly list on Canadians that is compiled on the basis of secret allegations and against which there is no effective appeal
6. continues to fight a war in Afghanistan against the will of the majority of Canadians while barring critics and welcoming war criminals
7. shamelessly promotes an environmental disaster known as the Alberta tar sands despite the wishes of Canadians for environmental sustainability
8. considers its leader to be above the law, as demonstrated by the Cadman affair
9. protects former Tory Prime Minister from facing the Criminal Code of Canada with its flawed from the get-go Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry
10. prorogues Parliament to avoid facing a vote of confidence and certain defeat at the hands of a Parliamentary coalition representing two-thirds of Canadians who voted in the last election

Answer: Dangerous. Absolutist. Menacing. A subversive force that is undermining democracy in Canada. Thugs in blue sweaters. A government that must be defeated and sent packing as soon as possible.

Last month, I posted an Al Jazeera video shot in the aftermath of the March 22nd dawn raid on the town of Kunduz, Afghanistan, by troops believed to be U.S. Special Forces that left five Afghan men dead. The townspeople claimed the men were unconnected to the insurgency and that some were killed as they slept. The Americans claimed they were killed in a firefight after they responded to a demand for surrender with gunfire.

Kunduz is no stranger to murder or to U.S. Special Forces. Following the Siege of Kunduz in November 2001, three thousand captured Taliban fighters were packed into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. When the prisoners began shouting for air, Northern Alliance soldiers fired into the trucks, killing many of them.

Witnesses say that when the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the containers, most of the people inside were dead. They also say U.S. Special Forces re-directed the containers carrying the living and dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried.

This atrocity is described in Afghan Massacre: the Convoy of Death, a documentary produced and directed by Irish filmmaker Jamie Doran.

Fast-forward to 2009 — a new report by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting provides chilling, compelling and credible evidence that the March 22, 2009 American raid on Kunduz, Afghanistan was cold blooded murder. Read on.

IWPR Probe Challenges US Account of Kunduz Killings

Findings suggest five men killed by US forces in counter-insurgency operation had no extremist connections.

By IWPR reporters in Kunduz (ARR No. 319, 16-Apr-09)

An IWPR investigation has challenged the American military’s account of a recent raid by its forces on a town close to the border with Tajikistan, in which a number of men were either killed or taken away for questioning.

Over the past few weeks, local and international media reports have speculated about the motive for the March 22 dawn attack on Imam Sahib and the identity of those killed and detained.

The United States military has insisted that its forces stormed what it describes as a militant stronghold in Kunduz. It claims the troops battled insurgents, killing five and detaining four. But an IWPR probe, based on extensive interviews with local people, questions key aspects of the US army’s version of events.

The principal IWPR findings suggest the five men killed had no connection with extremists and cast doubt on the American claim that the victims had opened fire on the troops. Reporters’ enquiries indicate that only one of those killed owned a weapon and that two were asleep when they were shot.

It was the middle of the night, about 3.30 am, when the two Chinook helicopters landed in Imam Sahib, residents told IWPR, and approximately 60 soldiers zeroed in on a compound belonging to the mayor of the town, Sufi Abdul Manan. They blew in the gate, and then, equipped with night-vision goggles and guns with silencers, advanced into the courtyard and surrounded a guesthouse where visitors to the town often stayed, locals claim.

I was awoken by the sound of these large helicopters and saw Americans approaching the gate of the guesthouse,” said the owner of a fuel station nearby. “They had things on their helmets. I hid, so I could not be seen. I heard a sound from shots – like a ‘phhht-phhhht’.”

A baker in an adjoining compound said,

I could not see anything, but I heard a big bang, I think it was the Americans blowing up the gate.

Townsfolk say there were nine men in the guesthouse that night. Judging by the position of the bodies, seen by an IWPR reporter in an amateur video shot by a local right after the incident, the soldiers shot two men as they lay sleeping in their beds: Hassan Jan and Almed Imam.

Residents say the former made tea for guests and enjoyed listening to his music in the garden; while the latter, a long-time resident of the guesthouse, did some cleaning and washed vehicles parked inside the compound.

The soldiers also shot the mayor’s driver Obaidullah, who – from the video evidence – appeared to be trying to run away, and the mayor’s bodyguard, Nasrullah, along with his cousin Naqibullah, who had been living in the guesthouse for several weeks while he looked for a job in Imam Sahib, locals say.

They insist Nasrullah was the only one of the victims to possess a gun – his Kalashnikov was registered with the local authorities and was used to protect the mayor.

We were in a room near the courtyard of the guesthouse, and we could hear the shots – those ‘phhht’ sounds of guns with silencers,” said the mayor. “We could hear Nasrullah, my bodyguard, who was probably standing in front of the gate to our house. He was begging the Americans not to enter, he kept saying ‘there are women and children there.’ Then there was another shot, and we did not hear Nasrullah any more.”

Article continues . . .

On the weekend the Winnipeg Free Press was defending the use of information obtained through torture. Today it is formenting fear of immigrants as a major source of communicable diseases.

The editorial is designed to inspire fear and loathing of immigrants. The first half focuses on the case of Johnson Aziga, an HIV-positive immigrant from Uganda who was convicted on Saturday in Ontario of aggravated assault and first degree murder because he had unprotected sex with a large number women who he did not warn of his disease.

That part, at least, is factual. The Free Press then makes astonishing claims about tuberculosis, HIV and immigration procedures that can be refuted by anyone with 10 minutes free time and access to Google. Erroneously claiming that immigrants are not screened for communicable diseases, the Freep states:

TB is a highly infectious disease that is easily passed like the common cold. It was once almost eradicated in Canada, but it is on the rise again, largely because immigration rules do not require applicants from countries where the disease is common to be tested for it. Some are tested after they have arrived here, but, putting Indian reserves aside, almost two-thirds of Canadians affected with tuberculosis are immigrants or refugees.

Tuberculosis is easily curable but hard to avoid when it appears. HIV is almost entirely avoidable but as yet incurable. Both can be deadly. Canadians should ask their politicians why they are being needlessly exposed to either.

Let’s examine the claims.

Is TB easily contracted, as the Freep claims? No. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC):

TB is not as contagious as other diseases, such as the flu or chickenpox. To get infected, you would usually have to spend many hours every day with someone with infectious TB disease. If you live in overcrowded housing with poor air circulation, you may be more at risk of getting latent TB infection.

Is TB on the rise in Canada? According to the PHAC, the rate of TB in Canada is decreasing, not increasing. The agency writes:

The TB case rate in 2007 was the lowest recorded since data collection began in Canada.

Are immigrants from countries where TB and HIV are common allowed to immigrate without medical testing? No. They must undergo extensive medical examinations as a part of the application process.

What about newcomers and TB rates? According the Freep, “putting Indian reserves aside, almost two-thirds of Canadians affected with tuberculosis are immigrants or refugees.”

According to the PHAC:

In 2007, foreign-born individuals accounted for 66% of all reported TB cases in Canada. Canadian-born non-Aboriginal and Canadian-born Aboriginal cases made up 11% and 20%, respectively (Table 3). However, the TB rate in the Canadian-born Aboriginal group continues to be the highest of the three groups, approximately five times the overall Canadian rate.

This “putting Indian reserves aside” is a racist distortion of statistics that permits the Freep to minimize the suffering in Aboriginal communities and exaggerate the scope of the problem in immigrant communities.

TB is rooted in poverty. Poor people living in over-crowded conditions get it. Poor people in prisons get it. Poor people living on the streets get it. Poor immigrants get it too, not because they are immigrants, but because they are poor.

It is time for the Winnipeg Free Press to “get it!” At best, the Freep is guilty of sloppy journalism; at worst, racism and xenophobia. I leave it to you to decide which best applies. Neither is acceptable.

By condoning the use of information obtained through torture, the editorial board of the Winnipeg Free Press is digging its own grave.

In “Tortured Information” an editorial writer for the Winnipeg Free Press declares: “. . . as long as one does not promote or condone torture, it would be grossly irresponsible for any security service, any government, including Canada’s, to refuse to use it to defend the safety of its citizens.”

Unfortunately, Canada is not the merely the innocent recipient of torture-tainted information. Inquiries into the detention and torture of Canadians Maher Arar and Ahmad El Maati have shown that CSIS participated in their interrogations and provided the “intelligence” that led to their detention.

Abousfian Abdelrazik was imprisoned in Sudan in 2003 on the recommendation of CSIS and tortured. He interrogated on at least one occasion by people he identified as Canadian. Despite being declared innocent of any crime by the Sudanese government, our government refuses to let him return to Canada.

The issue is not merely that of refusing to use information obtained from torture to defend Canadian citizens. It involves refusing to participate in the torture of Canadian citizens.

Canada must not only denounce torture, it must refuse to participate in it in any way. This includes directing CSIS to respect human rights and dismissing any Canadian officials who refuse to follow this direction.

Whether the Winnipeg Free Press knows it or not, its editorial board has come out on the side of torture. Whether wilfully or through incompetence, the editorialist has told only a small part of the story — enough to obfuscate the reality of Canada’s role in undermining human rights in the world, enough to hide the fact that Canadian institutions are complicit in the detention and torture of Canadian citizens.

What will it take for the Freep, as it is known colloquially in these parts, to understand that it must defend human rights? In siding with the torturers, the Freep is digging its own grave, because if our government is allowed to continue on its present course, we have to wonder how long freedom of the press will be allowed to continue.

Human rights advocate, and author of Dark Days, Kerry Pither, reports that “CSIS continues to believe that information obtained under torture can be useful, and will use it in certain situations.” Commenting on testimony given at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security by CSIS lawyer Geoffrey O’Brian on March 31, 2009, she quotes O’Brian as saying: “The simple truth is, if we get information which can prevent something like the Air India bombing, the Twin Towers – whatever, frankly – that is the time when we will use it despite the provenance of that information.”

Pither believes that Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan should issue a directive prohibiting the use of information obtained under torture and she describes how Canada’s spooks have contributed to and benefited (in their distorted view) from the torture of Canadians in foreign prisons.

It seems unlikely that the torture of innocent citizens such as Ahmad El Maati and Maher Arar made the world safer from terrorist attacks. I guess they fall into Mr. O’Brian’s “whatever” category.

I wish this were an anomaly, but the CSIS mindset is not merely the product of a rogue gang of James Bond wannabees. It has a scary basis in Canadian law. As I have noted elsewhere, Canadian law already allows judges to consider, in secret, evidence that would not be admissible in a Canadian court, to determine who is a terrorist. Immigrants can be detained and deported on the basis of “evidence” they are not permitted to see. And the Tories want to bring back “preventive detentions” and other draconian measures, all in the name of fighting terrorism.

I agree that with Kerry Pither. Mr. Van Loan should rein in his spooks and tell them to start respecting the human rights of Canadians and anyone else in a foreign torture chamber. Given the Tory penchant for draconian anti-terrorism laws, I doubt he will.

Because of the best efforts of the Canadian government to silence free speech, George Galloway spoke to Canadians in 20 cities last night. Had they let him come into the country without incident, he’d have been heard in four. (Thank you Jason Kenney.) Watch the speech he didn’t want you to hear at rabble.tv.

The Interview The Government Doesn’t Want You to See: George Galloway on The Hour, Monday March 30th

by The Hour Blog, Mar. 27, 2009

British member of parliament George Galloway speaks to the protesters downtown Vienna, Austria, Wednesday, June 21, 2006, as they rally against U.S. President George W. Bush

**FRIDAY UPDATE:** George Galloway is challenging the decision not to let him into in Canada. Galloway’s lawyers will go before a Federal Court on Sunday to reverse the decision barring him from entering.

Galloway’s lawyers filed papers yesterday saying the decision to keep him out was a “politically motivated” attack on freedom of expression.

Galloway has indicated that if the decision is overturned he will come to the set of The Hour on Monday for his interview, if the legal attempts fail we are working to arrange a satellite interview. Expect a few questions regarding the government’s decision, his view on Afghanistan/the Taliban, and his relationship with Hamas. He will be on the show, Monday March 30th, 11 p.m., on CBC. We will also update this blog and Twitter as the interview is recorded. Should be quite the interesting interview.

The Canadian government refused entry to Galloway, citing him as a national security threat. According to CBC.ca, Galloway called the decision “irrational, inexplicable and an affront to Canada’s good name,” and said he would fight the ruling with “all means at my disposal.”

Some of you may recall we had George Galloway on the show two seasons ago.

For those of you that aren’t familiar with him, I highly recommend watching his previous appearance on The Hour here. What are your thoughts? Is this truly a security concern or is this censorship?

More . . .

First George W. Bush, now Condoleeza Rice. Is there no end to Calgary’s war criminal welcome mat?

She’s been invited by the University of Calgary to help launch its new School of Public Policy on May 13. One might wonder what kind of public policy they envision when they invite folks of the ilk that were strung up at Nuremburg following WW2.

WarCriminalsOut is organizing a reception for those who won’t get invited by the U of C. Maybe you’d like to help out . . .