when the status quo frustrates.

Justice delayed

Thursday, April 24th, 2008

If you’re outside of Canada, you might not be hearing much these days about the case of the Toronto 18, or the Toronto 17, or the Toronto 11 (the number of suspects charged keeps dwindling as the case against them collapses). They are 15 men, mostly in their early 20s, and five kids, all Muslim, charged in 2006 with an absurd plot to storm the CBC and Parliament and behead the Prime Minister. Two years ago, the mainstream media was congratulating the RCMP for averting disaster, but after charges against four of the men were stayed and one man was acquitted, it is grudgingly coming around to the position that maybe some rights may have been violated here.

I’m not boasting of much when I tell you that I called bullshit from the beginning. I’m not convinced that real terrorists strategize in chat rooms or over e-mail. And more to the point, it appeared even early on in the case that the informant who went to the RCMP, Mubin Shaikh, was compensated rather generously for his help and was likely the mastermind behind the plot, a.k.a. entrapment. He certainly needed the money, given his little cocaine habit. Also, the supposed “terrorist training” that the men and boys engaged in was apparently paintball.

My prediction? The charges against all of them will likely be dropped within the next year or so. I don’t think that there was much of a case to begin with. Whether those responsible—the RCMP, Shaikh, and so on—for what is almost certainly a momentous fuck-up and a miscarriage of justice will ever be held accountable, and whether the accused suspects will see any compensation for their ordeal is a different story. We rest too easily when we think: “Oh, it’s okay, it took awhile but they were acquitted.” Some of these kids were still in high school when they were arrested. What support will they have to get on with their lives?

Anyway, if they didn’t have a reason to storm Parliament in 2006, they might have a little more cause now.

Good news, bad news

Monday, April 14th, 2008

Prisoner 345
Drawing by Sami al-Haj, imprisoned Al Jazeera cameraman

After over two years, the U.S. military is finally releasing AP photographer Bilal Hussein. Hussein, guilty of practicing journalism while Arab, had been imprisoned without evidence or charges, and presumably will be released without apology.

These days, holding folks for no reason, indefinitely, is apparently no big deal. (Even if they’re journalists.) So don’t expect the countless U.S. military prisoners in Iraq and Gitmo to be as “lucky” as the unfortunate Mr. Hussein, who has had years of his life taken away with absolutely no reason.

Imprisoning or killing journalists is generally thought of (by proponents of democracy, anyway) to be one of those no-nos, even in the middle of a war. But like torture, which also used to be taboo, such crimes have their purpose. They effectively silence freedom of the press without the need to pass any laws that might make people uncomfortable. In the current context, “enemy combatant” refers not only to those on the other side of a war that we declared, but also anyone suspected of dissent or critical thought. Better stick to being an embedded reporter. You don’t want to be Tariq Ayoub, Taras Protsyuk, or Jose Couso. You don’t want your camera mistaken for an RPG, like Mazen Dana’s was.

Every so often, some well-meaning progressive cries: “Why does the press concentrate on McCain’s barbecues or Britney’s escapades? What happened to serious journalism?”

Apparently, it’s been locked away.

The French are coming! The French are coming!

Wednesday, April 9th, 2008



They’re coming for your ass. And they brought a red.

As we draw nearer to the general election, I expect we’ll see more of our media members and family members come *back* around to defending our occupation of Iraq. Why? Because they’ll seek to rationalize their irrational support of John McCain, the national icon of our colonialism. “The surge is working!” “We’re going to give these people freedom if you give us enough time!” And so forth.

Despite eons of historical evidence to the contrary, plenty of Americans remain convinced that foreign invaders can somehow force a country’s people to accept the form of government favored by the occupiers, especially if it’s got cool bells and whistles. ‘Cause, like, who wouldn’t want elections and stuff? Somehow the idea of “freedom” being forced upon a people seems perfectly logical to the war-backers.

So the next time somebody at your dinner table defends the delivery of freedom through invasion, pose them this theoretical scenario:

Suppose [THEORETICALLY] the French suddenly got militaristic, showed up on our shores with tens of millions of soldiers, and occupied the US. After the invasion, the French declared that they were here to give us true democracy. The notion of a Republic was born of the technological limitations of the olden days that prevented easy dissemination of information and collection of votes, but with the Series of Tubes, the power of real democracy has arrived. So the French decided to invade and give us all true democratic powers — and they’ll even give a citizen free wine and cheese every time s/he chooses to vote on legislation and so forth. Wouldn’t that be AWESOME?

Now, you probably won’t have made it through the first sentence before your local invasion apologist tries to call the French pussies or something, but see if you can get them to play along. The next thing they’ll likely argue is that we’d nuke them if they even thought about invasion. If you can get them to pretend that we didn’t have nukes, or that our Big Red Button was in the shop at the moment (Or that Bush pressed his car’s keychain panic button by mistake), the apologist will probably fall back on the sheer impossibility of conquering our territory, or that we’d battle to the death before allowing some damn Frenchie to take our soil, etc.

The point is, they’ll fight you tooth and nail on the idea that we could be invaded. The whole idea seems impossible to them, but more importantly, it’s wholly reprehensible. The apologist cannot ever conceive of any of us allowing it to happen. I doubt you’ll ever even get to discuss whether it’s worth being invaded to receive an upgrade in governance structures (plus free cheese!). And since you can all predict where this is going, you can see how easily you can use this example to turn the tables on the apologist. They feel the same way about invasion as anybody else — it doesn’t matter what else the invaders brought with them, or how much better the foreigners swear they’re going to make it for everyone. Nobody likes an invasion and most peoples will fight to the death for hundreds of years to rid themselves of one. No. Matter. What. The. Invaders. Promise.

Even Brie.

Videos for you

Monday, March 3rd, 2008

Here’s one, from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, that should put a smile on your face:

Of course, we here in Canada recognize this as satire. I’m not sure that it reads that way to Americans. What do you think?

Hat tip: Audra Williams

And here’s one that really won’t put a smile on your face: American soldiers in Iraq: Protecting you from terrorist puppies.

(Warning: animal cruelty.)

Hat tip: mercenarytoast

Mr. Scalia’s iPod

Tuesday, February 26th, 2008

Mother Jones has gotten a hold of some of the music that U.S. troops use to “induce sleep deprivation, “prolong capture shock,” disorient detainees during interrogations—and also drown out screams.”

Lovely.

I find the use of Rage Against the Machine and Springsteen particularly abhorrent (not only because of the artists’ politics, but because I happen to like those songs). I wonder if they know about it. The music used to smoke out Noriega was far more creative.

This prompts me to ask: What music would you choose to drown out the screams of your victims? I’m thinking Anal Cunt’s “Hitler Was a Sensitive Man.”

Hat tip: Corvus.

Do YOU have what it takes?

Friday, November 30th, 2007

Are you hardcore? I mean, I know you think you’re hardcore, but are you seriously hardcore?

Slow down, slow down. I don’t need to hear your whole badass life story, because I’m not the one you need to prove it to — all hardcore credentials go through the Navy:

This full page ad was found at the back of last week’s Sporting News. In case the lower corner is tough to read, take a closer look:

Putting the “sexy” back in “military”

Saturday, November 24th, 2007

Via Pam at Pandagon, it appears our army’s desertion rate has skyrocketed to its highest total in almost 30 years. I’m disappointed that little things like inadequate equipment, extended tours, and, oh, I dunno, being forced to oppress a collection of peoples who hate your guts would bother our soldiers, but I guess they’re just not as tough as the boys of yesteryear.

To keep kids these days engaged in the military, we need to spice up the experience a bit. The Pentagon has traditionally taken its policy cues from punkassblog, and so I feel a responsibility to lend a helping hand. Thus, I present the 5 ways to avoid desertion in the US Army:

5) Make the unis look more like Halo soldiers.

They don’t have to work, they just have to look rad. Melt down old Transformer toys if you have to; just do whatever it takes to make some cool-ass molded plastic gear that would pass as a top-notch Halloween costume. Kids will be lining up to fight as long as their visor is the shit.

(more…)

Opportunity will knock you out

Wednesday, October 17th, 2007

Watch out, Palestinians and Israelis! Condoleezza Rice has seen another moment of opportunity:

Rice cautioned the going would be tough as she wrapped up four days of intense shuttle diplomacy during which she met twice with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to bridge wide gaps over a declaration the conference is to endorse.

“I do think it is moment of opportunity, but there is very hard work ahead,” Rice told reporters at a news conference with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who’s leading the Israeli negotiating team.

The last time Rice saw a moment of opportunity for the Palestinians was in regards to the death of Arafat and subsequent elections in 2005. We all know how that worked out.

Just last July, Prime Minister Poodle saw a moment of opportunity.

“I think there is a sense of possibility at the moment. I think this is a moment of opportunity,” Blair said in Ramallah after meeting Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

After earlier talks in Jerusalem with Israeli President Shimon Peres, Blair said translating those possibilities “into something” would require work and thought “over time”.

Moments of opportunity take two things: Lots of work, and lots of time. Apparently, the Israelis and Palestinians just haven’t worked hard enough or been patient enough to see their moments of opportunity through to completion. It has nothing to do with the history of Western interference and imperialist designs in the region.

Of course, there are moments of opportunity all over the Middle East. Bush saw one when Israel bombed the crap out of Lebanon in July 2006. His administration saw one for Iraq in February 2006, just a few days after the bombing of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, one of Shiite Islam’s holiest sites. As we all know, the Iraqis took full advantage of this moment of opportunity. There was another one in May of that year, with the *ahem* election of the current puppet government.

I guess the moral of this story is that if you live in the Middle East and a neocon mentions that he or she sees a moment of opportunity, stock up on bottled water and make a run for the nearest bomb shelter. Opportunity leaves a lot of corpses in its wake.

Yet another way in which America is screwing Iraq

Saturday, September 22nd, 2007

So we’ve all heard about the Blackwater thing by now, right? After last Sunday, when Blackwater Christofascist mercenaries went on a killing spree, murdering at least 28 people in cold blood, Iraq’s puppet government finally said “enough is enough,” and revoked Blackwater’s license to operate in the country. This isn’t the first time that Blackwater has done something like this—it’s easy, considering that Blackwater killers are immune from prosecution. They’re only killing Iraqis, after all.

Remember democracy in Iraq, and those teary-eyed American conservatives praising the courage of ordinary men and woman and their purple fingers? Well, turns out that the whole democracy-building adventure was as hollow as we anti-war cynics said it was, because despite the puppet government’s orders, the occupiers have resumed Blackwater convoys. This, despite how deeply horrifying the massacre really was:

Witnesses say the first victims of the shootings were a couple with their child, the mother and infant meeting horrific deaths, their bodies fused together by heat after their car caught fire. The contractors, according to this account, also shot Iraqi soldiers and police and Blackwater then called in an attack helicopter from its private air force which inflicted further casualties.

Pretty par for the course, though, burning parents and babies alive. We’re used to hearing news like that. Here’s a fresh new horror that America is foisting on the long-suffering Iraqi people: Order 81.

Most North Americans, even left-wing, anti-capitalist North Americans, don’t know about the epidemic of debt-related suicides among Indian farmers. You should take some time to learn about it, though—at least 4,500 farmers in central India have killed themselves in the past six years—even higher than the slightly-better-publicized 4,300 Palestinian deaths so far during the Second Intifada. And while neoconservatism has generated righteous anger for its genocidal ideology, the Indian tragedy is a reminder of how brutal neoliberalism has been for the people of the Third World.

So, why are the Indian farmers killing themselves? Because they can’t repay crop loans. Why can’t they repay crop loans? Well, the way farming has worked since the dawn of agriculture is that you have your initial investment, which includes seeds, and you keep reusing your seeds after each harvest. If you don’t have enough, you can trade seeds with your neighbour. But companies like the notorious U.S.-based Monsanto realized that they could make more money manufacturing and pushing genetically modified “terminator seeds,” which are sterile and cannot be reused, forcing farmers into dependence on the company for their livelihood. To make things worse, the genetically modified seeds tend to be hardier than the natural variety, so the sneaky company can just blow some onto an unsuspecting farmer’s field, and presto! The mutant crops overtake the natural crops, and you have a new Monsanto customer-for-life. Nice, huh?

Well, this has worked out so nicely for transnational corporations in India that the Americans have decided to try it in Iraq, because invading, murdering, and looting hasn’t permanently screwed the country enough. When he was administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, U.S. diplomat L. Paul Bremer issued a bunch of orders, including the aforementioned Order 81:

What Order 81 did was to establish the strong intellectual property protections on seed and plant products that a company like the St. Louis-based Monsanto — purveyors of genetically modified (GM) seeds and other patented agricultural goods — requires before they’ll set up shop in a new market like the new Iraq. With these new protections, Iraq was open for business. In short, Order 81 was Bremer’s way of telling Monsanto that the same conditions had been created in Iraq that had led to the company’s stunning successes in India.

Dr. Vandana Shiva, a scientist and activist who has done a tremendous amount to fight against the GM assault on India, explains the colonialist dimensions of terminator seeds thusly:

This epidemic of piracy is very much like the epidemic of piracy which was named colonialism 500 years ago. I think we will soon need to name this round of piracy through patents as recolonialization as a new colonialization which differs from the old only in this – the old colonialization only took over land, the new colonialization is taking over life itself.

While the Blackwater mercenaries will eventually be forced to leave, one way or another, terminator seeds are a great way to ensure that Iraq will remain, long into the foreseeable future, a wretched neo-colony of American corporations.

In other news, Karl Rove refuses to shit unless he eats more of it

Thursday, September 13th, 2007

Conspiracy theorists, you’ve been thwarted again!

I know there were tons of you out there grousing about how the invasion of Iraq was intended to garner more oil for the gluttonous needs of the ol’ US of A, but now we can prove that’s pure poppycock. Thanks to State of the Day, we’ve uncovered a Truthout document that shows just how backwards those wacky ideas are:

a recent GAO report stated an additional $57 billion in U.S. tax dollars will be needed to bring oil and electricity production to the level where it can satisfy Iraq’s domestic demand by the year 2015.

Boom goes the dynamite! Silly conspiracy types. We can’t have invaded Iraq for oil — they need a crapload of our money and 8 more years until they can satisfy their *own* oil and power needs. And given how spectacularly badly we’ve estimated everything to this point, I’d go ahead and triple those figures if we want to get the *complete* truth out.

I guess the only weird thing is that we’re running out of reasons why we fought this war. The whole WMD thing has been hammered to death (one tiny little fib; you’d think millions of people died for it or something!). We didn’t actually destroy any terrorist cells (and technically we probably created a few more than there were before). But hey, at least all you folks who thought our Fine President was pulling a Beverly Hillbillies have also been proven wrong.


Oil Barrel img
Texas tea

Now pay up. We have to hook the Iraqi economy on fossil fuels again and fast.

Hitchens is no longer Bush’s fanboy

Monday, August 27th, 2007

hitchenswatch

Add Christopher “gin-soaked ex-Trotskyite poppinjay” Hitchens to the list of people whom it’s almost too easy to poke fun at, were it not so intensely gratifying. Like that other “sensible liberal” Michael Ignatieff, the Hitch has tried for a public retraction of his previous unconditional and vocal support for the Anglo-American genocidal assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hitchens, circa 2002:

MOYERS: Well, [the deaths of American soldiers] was a significant factor, as you know, in the growing opposition to the Vietnam War.

As the body count kept coming back, the reality kept hitting home, and no amount of euphemistic language in defense of south Vietnam would suffice to answer the growing piles of body bags.

HITCHENS: Quite. Well, this won’t be the case this time.

Hitchens, circa 2004:

George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries.

Hitchens, circa 2006:

Contrary to innumerable sneers, [Bush in 2002] did not speak only about WMD and terrorism, important though those considerations were. He presented an argument for regime change and democracy in Iraq and said, in effect, that the international community had tolerated Saddam’s deadly system for far too long. Who could disagree with that?

Alas, in 2007, it isn’t quite as easy to mount a pseudo-intellectual defense of either failed war, or of the leaders who declared them. So while we irrational bleeding-hearts sadly shake our heads—the “prize” for being right is, unfortunately, a pile of dead Middle Easterners—Hitch is trying to backtrack a bit.

How do I dislike President George Bush? Let me count the ways. Most of them have to do with his contented assumption that ‘faith’ is, in and of itself, a virtue. This self-satisfied mentality helps explain almost everything, from the smug expression on his face to the way in which, as governor of Texas, he signed all those death warrants without losing a second’s composure.

“Faith” that is little different than that of Hitchens himself—who was, through his arguments, perfectly happy to sign the death warrants of Afghanis, Iraqis, and the soldiers of the occupation forces—if you only wish hard enough, your fantasies of a just, liberating, and permanent war will come true.

In this real-world argument, there is a very strong temptation for opponents of the war to invoke the lessons of Vietnam. I must have written thousands of words attempting to show that there is absolutely no analogy between the two conflicts.

Right. He’s still for the war. He’s just against Bush.

The bulk of the article is a bunch of hastily thrown together reasons why Iraq really, really had it coming, and Vietnam didn’t. (Ho Chi Minh quoted Thomas Jefferson, dontcha know? Those jihadis don’t have that much respect for America’s greatness.)

But what’s missing from Hitchens’ article is an honest assessment of why people (the Bush administration excepted; they have their own reasons) tend to make comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. The similarity isn’t between the victims. There’s a continuity, however, in the aggressor’s behaviour—an American-led imperialist adventure war against southeast Asia then, and an American-led imperialist adventure war against the Middle East now. It’s nowhere near as complicated as Hitch makes it out to be.

The problem is, of course, that Hitchens can’t admit that he was wrong, that he put his faith in a lying madman, that he glibly wrote off the human costs of the wars, and that millions of ordinary people, whom he regarded with nothing but disdain, were able to grasp what he couldn’t—that these wars were Very Bad Ideas. Failure to acknowledge this is worst sort of intellectual dishonesty. But would you expect anything less?

(Hat tip: springheel_jack)

To get fake revenge for 9/11, we created the likelihood of more 9/11s

Tuesday, July 17th, 2007

People say the Bush administration hasn’t learned from history, and maybe that’s true, but they’ve certainly learned from the future. Even if the date of that future is in the past. I guess what I mean to say is, “holy fuck did the Bush administration do a good job of making 1984 come alive.”

Any good Orwellian will tell you that you can’t live in permanent Big Brothery without constant war to distract and cow the populace. By scheming his way into the Iraq debacle, Bush has now officially made his lie the truth:

The [intelligence agency] findings focused most heavily on Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network, which was judged to remain the most serious threat to the United States. The group’s affiliate in Iraq, which has not yet posed a direct threat to U.S. soil, could do just that, the report concluded. Al-Qaida in Iraq threatened to attack the United States in a Web statement last September.

The Iraqi affiliate also helps al-Qaida more broadly as it tries to energize Sunni Muslim extremists around the globe, raise resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives — “including for homeland attacks,” according to a declassified summary of the report’s main findings.

Interestingly, an earlier version of this AP article explicitly noted that the Iraq version of al-Qaida went from non-existent to one of the most powerful arms of terrorism and the group most intent on attacking the US. Now, the piece just indicates that they are a danger; it dropped the suggestion that we created our greatest threat by invading Iraq. I’m sure that edit was totally grammar-related, though.

Of course, for all we know, this whole report is just partisan tripe designed to provide flimsy justification for continuing the war. It’s been well-documented that agencies have been purged at all levels of all but the toadiest of cronies. But whatever “scary foreign name” we choose to give them, I have no trouble believing our bumbling conquest has generated whole swaths of people who’d give their lives to strike back at America.

So, let’s review.

We have a president who stole one election to gain power and another to keep it, all while continuing to find new ways to violate our Constitution. He also occupied a country without cause and fostered so much international instability that we’ve lost our friends and made millions of enemies who have nothing to lose. As a result, the fake enemy is now real. And in the eyes of many, the unwinnable war must now be continued because we can’t afford to lose. And the future deaths of thousands of Americans and millions of people that don’t seem entirely real to those same Americans may be assured. All we have left to do is restart the Cold War.

Oh, wait.