Manitoba Tories throw support behind Martin
So now we have not only former PC leader Joe Clark, but also conservatives in Alberta and Manitoba supporting Martin over Harper. So far, at least, there seem to be more high-profile conservatives leaving Harper, the supposed front-runner, than there are liberals leaving Martin, who supposedly is losing.
I'm also beginning to wonder about the extent to which the whole "winner/loser" thing based entirely on polls. For example, the Star Phoenix today trumpets the Ipsos-Reid poll saying that "56 per cent of decided voters surveyed in Saskatchewan and Manitoba said they'd vote for the Tories if the election was held now."
But it turns out, reading further into the story - the 14th paragraph - that this poll size was 68 people.
In other words, 38 people spread across Manitoba and Saskatchewan said they would vote Tory. Well, a sample size this small is just not meaningful. I'm still waiting for some real polls.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Another Conservative against Harper
CBC News: Former PC president to vote for Liberals
Good for him -- and thanks, Mike, for the link.
"As party president, Easton worked for the merger of the Progressive Conservative and the Alliance parties, but he's clearly not comfortable with the Alliance domination of Harper's party. Easton fears that Harper would make cuts to social programs and take the country back into a deficit if he follows through on his promises. "
So maybe someone else is actually reading the platform!
Good for him -- and thanks, Mike, for the link.
"As party president, Easton worked for the merger of the Progressive Conservative and the Alliance parties, but he's clearly not comfortable with the Alliance domination of Harper's party. Easton fears that Harper would make cuts to social programs and take the country back into a deficit if he follows through on his promises. "
So maybe someone else is actually reading the platform!
9.11 deconstructed
This 9/11 commission staff statement No. 16 is fascinating -- more intriguing than any mystery novel. It describes the 9.11 plot in detail, what the hijackers did, how they trained, their conflicts and arguments, their many, many trips within the US and overseas. This is where all the news stories are coming from today, about how Al Qeada and Hussein did not cooperate. But read the whole thing.
Particularly chilling was the last bit, about how the attacks might have been called off ". . . the Taliban leader was under pressure from the Pakistani government to keep al Qaeda from engaging in operations outside Afghanistan. While some senior al Qaeda figures opposed the 9/11 operation out of deference to Omar, others reportedly expressed concern that the U.S. would respond militarily. Bin Ladin, on the other hand, reportedly argued that attacks against the United States needed to be carried out immediately to support the insurgency in the Israeli occupied territories and to protest the presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia. Bin Ladin also thought that an attack against the United States would reap al Qaeda a recruiting and fundraising bonanza. In his thinking, the more al Qaeda did, the more support it would gain. Although he faced opposition from many of his most senior advisers—including Shura council members Shaykh Saeed, Sayf al Adl, and Abu Hafs the Mauritanian—Bin Ladin effectively overruled their objections, and the attacks went forward."
So the last, best chance to avoid 9.11 and all that has followed was maybe not the FBI investigations or CIA survelliance operations, but Bin Laden's own choice.
It reminded me of The Road Not Taken
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Particularly chilling was the last bit, about how the attacks might have been called off ". . . the Taliban leader was under pressure from the Pakistani government to keep al Qaeda from engaging in operations outside Afghanistan. While some senior al Qaeda figures opposed the 9/11 operation out of deference to Omar, others reportedly expressed concern that the U.S. would respond militarily. Bin Ladin, on the other hand, reportedly argued that attacks against the United States needed to be carried out immediately to support the insurgency in the Israeli occupied territories and to protest the presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia. Bin Ladin also thought that an attack against the United States would reap al Qaeda a recruiting and fundraising bonanza. In his thinking, the more al Qaeda did, the more support it would gain. Although he faced opposition from many of his most senior advisers—including Shura council members Shaykh Saeed, Sayf al Adl, and Abu Hafs the Mauritanian—Bin Ladin effectively overruled their objections, and the attacks went forward."
So the last, best chance to avoid 9.11 and all that has followed was maybe not the FBI investigations or CIA survelliance operations, but Bin Laden's own choice.
It reminded me of The Road Not Taken
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
"I don't understand it"
Harper asks Canadians for 'strong mandate'
Just another example of Tory policies that are actually opposed to Canada's best interests: "Polls in Windsor suggest the usually left-leaning city is set to elect its first Tory MP in 50 years. 'I don't understand it,' said Lewenza, whose union has officially endorsed local NDP candidates. 'I'm frustrated because they seem to be doing better than they've ever done in this area,' he said of Tory contenders. Lewenza says Harper's plan to cut business grants in exchange for lower business taxes will drive investment elsewhere. Such government support is crucial if Canadian auto plants are to compete globally, Lewenza said. 'Every other state looks at it as an investment. Harper looks at it as a subsidy. I don't understand it.' On Monday, Liberals offered millions in aid to automakers as the campaign entered the home stretch toward the June 28 vote. Lewenza said voters wanting to vent frustration with the current government should think twice before handing power to the Tories. Meting out such so-called punishment could wind up costing thousands of jobs, he said. "
For the most part, the Conservatives haven't had to defend their platform at all in this election campaign -- the media is more interested in Harper's zingers against the sponsorship scandal than in the patchy, inconsistent piece of fiberboard that Conservatives are calling their platform.
The section that Lewenza is referring to says
"• Cut wasteful corporate subsidies in order to reduce taxes for all businesses." - whatever that means.
Lewenza isn't alone -- basically, no one knows where they fit in the Conservative plan.
Witness the stunning lack of content about farming, agriculture, trade, subsidies, BSE, and all the other issues that are crucial to the Prairie economy.
There only one reference to Agriculture that I can find --
"• Support Canada’s farmers, fishers, and forestry workers."
Now, this sounds nice, but to lump farmers, who have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in their land and machinery, in with fishermen, who I guess own their boats and licenses, and with forestry workers, who maybe have to buy their own boots -- well, it shows a profound misunderstanding about Canadian agricultural production. This is ridiculous and meaningless, and it trivializes what farmers do.
I had thought there was also something in the platform somewhere about dumping the Wheat Board, but now I cannot find it -- and dumping the Wheat Board would be a disaster for western agriculture.
But I did find this one --
"• Become an environmental world leader by focusing on clean air, clean water, clean land, and clean energy."
What is "clean land" -- does this mean outllawing pesticides and herbicides? Eliminating the use of GM seed, like Monsanto's roundup-resistant canola?
No one knows because no one -- including as far as I can tell, any of our media in Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary or Edmonton -- is demanding that Harper or any of the Prairie conservative candidates here explain it.
Just another example of Tory policies that are actually opposed to Canada's best interests: "Polls in Windsor suggest the usually left-leaning city is set to elect its first Tory MP in 50 years. 'I don't understand it,' said Lewenza, whose union has officially endorsed local NDP candidates. 'I'm frustrated because they seem to be doing better than they've ever done in this area,' he said of Tory contenders. Lewenza says Harper's plan to cut business grants in exchange for lower business taxes will drive investment elsewhere. Such government support is crucial if Canadian auto plants are to compete globally, Lewenza said. 'Every other state looks at it as an investment. Harper looks at it as a subsidy. I don't understand it.' On Monday, Liberals offered millions in aid to automakers as the campaign entered the home stretch toward the June 28 vote. Lewenza said voters wanting to vent frustration with the current government should think twice before handing power to the Tories. Meting out such so-called punishment could wind up costing thousands of jobs, he said. "
For the most part, the Conservatives haven't had to defend their platform at all in this election campaign -- the media is more interested in Harper's zingers against the sponsorship scandal than in the patchy, inconsistent piece of fiberboard that Conservatives are calling their platform.
The section that Lewenza is referring to says
"• Cut wasteful corporate subsidies in order to reduce taxes for all businesses." - whatever that means.
Lewenza isn't alone -- basically, no one knows where they fit in the Conservative plan.
Witness the stunning lack of content about farming, agriculture, trade, subsidies, BSE, and all the other issues that are crucial to the Prairie economy.
There only one reference to Agriculture that I can find --
"• Support Canada’s farmers, fishers, and forestry workers."
Now, this sounds nice, but to lump farmers, who have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in their land and machinery, in with fishermen, who I guess own their boats and licenses, and with forestry workers, who maybe have to buy their own boots -- well, it shows a profound misunderstanding about Canadian agricultural production. This is ridiculous and meaningless, and it trivializes what farmers do.
I had thought there was also something in the platform somewhere about dumping the Wheat Board, but now I cannot find it -- and dumping the Wheat Board would be a disaster for western agriculture.
But I did find this one --
"• Become an environmental world leader by focusing on clean air, clean water, clean land, and clean energy."
What is "clean land" -- does this mean outllawing pesticides and herbicides? Eliminating the use of GM seed, like Monsanto's roundup-resistant canola?
No one knows because no one -- including as far as I can tell, any of our media in Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary or Edmonton -- is demanding that Harper or any of the Prairie conservative candidates here explain it.
Olympics coming
Well, its a sign that the Olympics are approaching when I start reading stories about it. I love the Olympics and try to watch as much as I can -- and darn it, I'm in for another year of watching softball at 3 am, because its being played on the other side of the world. My only criteria for a "good" Olympic site is one where I don't have to watch in the middle of the night.
I remember during Sydney, idly flipping over to the triathlon at about 5 am for no good reason, listening to the Canadian announcers describing the event but no one mentioning any Canadian participants in the swimming and biking legs. Then watching the final sprint -- and there came Simon Whitfield, amazing the announcers as well as the rest of us -- Its a Canadian! -- and there I was, shouting at the TV, Go, Go, Go! What a memory, and to think I would have missed it if I hadn't been watching at 5 am.
So I haven't really been following what is going on in the States, but the Washington Post has a nice little update site -- see this story about Marion Jones,Jones Wants Public Hearing and check the sidebar on the right which sums up what has been happening there. You know, if this were Canada, all of it would be headline news every day, but I haven't had the impression that the US news outlets are making a big deal about it. Anyway, I am glad that the US is finally taking the doping issue more seriously, at least judging by the list of major athlets already suspended and the ones being investigated -- I recall lots of criticism of the US in Sydney for letting athletes participate who had maybe tested positive but were appealing and they weren't telling anyone about it.
And just for everyone's reference, here is the Canadian Olympic Committee's Athens site.
I remember during Sydney, idly flipping over to the triathlon at about 5 am for no good reason, listening to the Canadian announcers describing the event but no one mentioning any Canadian participants in the swimming and biking legs. Then watching the final sprint -- and there came Simon Whitfield, amazing the announcers as well as the rest of us -- Its a Canadian! -- and there I was, shouting at the TV, Go, Go, Go! What a memory, and to think I would have missed it if I hadn't been watching at 5 am.
So I haven't really been following what is going on in the States, but the Washington Post has a nice little update site -- see this story about Marion Jones,Jones Wants Public Hearing and check the sidebar on the right which sums up what has been happening there. You know, if this were Canada, all of it would be headline news every day, but I haven't had the impression that the US news outlets are making a big deal about it. Anyway, I am glad that the US is finally taking the doping issue more seriously, at least judging by the list of major athlets already suspended and the ones being investigated -- I recall lots of criticism of the US in Sydney for letting athletes participate who had maybe tested positive but were appealing and they weren't telling anyone about it.
And just for everyone's reference, here is the Canadian Olympic Committee's Athens site.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
More analysis
Analysis: On-line panel calls the debate
I thought these opinions were interesting, too -- worth reading.
I thought these opinions were interesting, too -- worth reading.
Monetary union?
The CTV coverage is here and the CBC coverage is here
The CathiefromCanada instant analysis and one WTF moment:
The Winnah!! -- The CBC "At Issue" panel (Alan Gregg and Chantal Hebert) thinks Martin won by not losing, and the CTV Ottawa bureau chief Craig Oliver thinks Harper won by not losing. CTV's instant poll had Harper winning the debate, while Martin won the "Which leader would make the best prime minister" question. Go figure!
The Difference -- As much as Mike Duffy's CTV panel tried to blather about how the debate wasn't going to make any difference, I did think that the divisions between how the Conservatives would run the country, and how the Liberals would do it, were made clearer. Gregg and Hebert both agreed that the race is wide-open now, and we'll see a lot of campaigning in the next two weeks, particularly in Ontario.
The WTF Moment -- Did anyone else notice this? At one point near the end, Harper started to talk about the US-Canada relationship and said that one of the points for discussion should be "monetary union". No one picked up on this -- I think one or two of the others were yapping at the time -- and there is no reference to it in the post-debate news stories. But that's what he said!
UPDATE - hey, POGGE heard it too -- it was in the midst of a health care discussion segment, when they were talking about US corporate health care.
The CathiefromCanada instant analysis and one WTF moment:
The Winnah!! -- The CBC "At Issue" panel (Alan Gregg and Chantal Hebert) thinks Martin won by not losing, and the CTV Ottawa bureau chief Craig Oliver thinks Harper won by not losing. CTV's instant poll had Harper winning the debate, while Martin won the "Which leader would make the best prime minister" question. Go figure!
The Difference -- As much as Mike Duffy's CTV panel tried to blather about how the debate wasn't going to make any difference, I did think that the divisions between how the Conservatives would run the country, and how the Liberals would do it, were made clearer. Gregg and Hebert both agreed that the race is wide-open now, and we'll see a lot of campaigning in the next two weeks, particularly in Ontario.
The WTF Moment -- Did anyone else notice this? At one point near the end, Harper started to talk about the US-Canada relationship and said that one of the points for discussion should be "monetary union". No one picked up on this -- I think one or two of the others were yapping at the time -- and there is no reference to it in the post-debate news stories. But that's what he said!
UPDATE - hey, POGGE heard it too -- it was in the midst of a health care discussion segment, when they were talking about US corporate health care.
Yearning for dictatorship?
Whiskey Bar: Room Service
Wow - here are some prophetic quotes posted by Josh Prophet on Billmon's comments site:
"'You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.' Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas. Governing Magazine 7/98.
'I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator,' Bush joked. CNN.com, December 18, 2000
'A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, ' [Bush] said. Business Week, July 30, 2001.
Is this what the republicans mean about being "on message"?
Wow - here are some prophetic quotes posted by Josh Prophet on Billmon's comments site:
"'You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.' Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas. Governing Magazine 7/98.
'I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator,' Bush joked. CNN.com, December 18, 2000
'A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, ' [Bush] said. Business Week, July 30, 2001.
Is this what the republicans mean about being "on message"?
"He looked frightened."
Torture and Rumors of Torture: Archive Entry From Brad DeLong's Webjournal:
I'm reprinting most of this post, which consists of notes taken by writer Rick Pearlstein of a talk given by Seymour Hersh at the University of Chicago:
He asserted several things that he says he didn't have nailed down enough to write, but that he was confident of.... [snip]He connected the dots, and spoke of the CIA secret prisons we haven't heard about yet: 'We're basically in the disappearing business.' He made the first of several criticisms of our humble profession: 'there's no learning curve in America. There's no learning curve in the press corps.'... Unsurprisingly, he flagged the extraordinary importance of the WSJ memo revealing the government's plans to torture, including its assertion that it's not against the law if the president approves it, and mocked the New York Times headline "9 Militias Are Said to Approve a Deal to Disband," suggesting in its stead, "Bush Administration Offers Hoax in Hopes of Convincing U.S. There's Some Peace." His assessment of the postwar settlement: "It's going to come down to who has the biggest militia will win."... [snip] "NATO's falling apart in Afghanistan now." And this was one of the most stunning parts. He had just returned from Europe, and he said high officials, even foreign ministers, who used to only talk to him off the record or give him backchannel messages, were speaking on the record that the next time the U.S. comes to them with intelligence, they'll simply have no reason to believe it.... He lamented of his journalistic colleagues, "I don't know whey they don't just tell it like it is."... He said the people most horrified by the way the war was planned were the military commanders responsible for protecting their troops.... He talked about the horror of the 1000 civilian deaths in Fallujah (but was careful to note the Marines were doing their job, placing the blame with their superiors).... He talked about how hard it is to get the truth out in Republican Washington: "If you agree with the neocons you're a genius. If you disagree you're a traitor." Bush, he said, was closing ranks, purging anyone who wasn't 100% with him. Said Tenet has a child in bad health, has heart problems, and seemed to find him generally a decent guy under unimaginable pressure, and that people told him that Tenet feared a heart attack if he had to take one more grilling from Cheney. "When these guys memoirs come out, it will shock all of us."... He said that after he broke Abu Ghraib people are coming out of the woodwork to tell him this stuff. He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, "You haven't begun to see evil..." then trailed off. He said, "horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run." He looked frightened.
And read some of the comments following this post.
Frogsdong, we need your help now, because its either laugh or cry!
I'm reprinting most of this post, which consists of notes taken by writer Rick Pearlstein of a talk given by Seymour Hersh at the University of Chicago:
He asserted several things that he says he didn't have nailed down enough to write, but that he was confident of.... [snip]He connected the dots, and spoke of the CIA secret prisons we haven't heard about yet: 'We're basically in the disappearing business.' He made the first of several criticisms of our humble profession: 'there's no learning curve in America. There's no learning curve in the press corps.'... Unsurprisingly, he flagged the extraordinary importance of the WSJ memo revealing the government's plans to torture, including its assertion that it's not against the law if the president approves it, and mocked the New York Times headline "9 Militias Are Said to Approve a Deal to Disband," suggesting in its stead, "Bush Administration Offers Hoax in Hopes of Convincing U.S. There's Some Peace." His assessment of the postwar settlement: "It's going to come down to who has the biggest militia will win."... [snip] "NATO's falling apart in Afghanistan now." And this was one of the most stunning parts. He had just returned from Europe, and he said high officials, even foreign ministers, who used to only talk to him off the record or give him backchannel messages, were speaking on the record that the next time the U.S. comes to them with intelligence, they'll simply have no reason to believe it.... He lamented of his journalistic colleagues, "I don't know whey they don't just tell it like it is."... He said the people most horrified by the way the war was planned were the military commanders responsible for protecting their troops.... He talked about the horror of the 1000 civilian deaths in Fallujah (but was careful to note the Marines were doing their job, placing the blame with their superiors).... He talked about how hard it is to get the truth out in Republican Washington: "If you agree with the neocons you're a genius. If you disagree you're a traitor." Bush, he said, was closing ranks, purging anyone who wasn't 100% with him. Said Tenet has a child in bad health, has heart problems, and seemed to find him generally a decent guy under unimaginable pressure, and that people told him that Tenet feared a heart attack if he had to take one more grilling from Cheney. "When these guys memoirs come out, it will shock all of us."... He said that after he broke Abu Ghraib people are coming out of the woodwork to tell him this stuff. He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, "You haven't begun to see evil..." then trailed off. He said, "horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run." He looked frightened.
And read some of the comments following this post.
Frogsdong, we need your help now, because its either laugh or cry!
I'd like to see Bush try to take communion!
This -- Bush Asked for Vatican's Help on Political Issues, Report Says is appalling. Josh Marshall also has some additional detail.
How stupid are the Roman Catholic bishops these days, that they would fall into this kind of trap, and on behalf of such an immoral administration. The bishops tried to pull this in Canada, too, when Chretien moved to support gay marriage, but Chretien shut them up by saying that he governed on behalf of the Canadian people, not on behalf of his religion. And the Canadian media couldn't be tricked into doing some kind of 'communion watch" on Chretien or Martin.
But I wonder if Bush is now going to start listening when the Pope says the Iraq War is immoral -- and I wonder just when Bush is going to say mea culpa for all those executions in Texas -- and I wonder what guidance Bush will be seeking from the Pope in determining whether its OK for US troops to torture people?
How stupid are the Roman Catholic bishops these days, that they would fall into this kind of trap, and on behalf of such an immoral administration. The bishops tried to pull this in Canada, too, when Chretien moved to support gay marriage, but Chretien shut them up by saying that he governed on behalf of the Canadian people, not on behalf of his religion. And the Canadian media couldn't be tricked into doing some kind of 'communion watch" on Chretien or Martin.
But I wonder if Bush is now going to start listening when the Pope says the Iraq War is immoral -- and I wonder just when Bush is going to say mea culpa for all those executions in Texas -- and I wonder what guidance Bush will be seeking from the Pope in determining whether its OK for US troops to torture people?
Sunday, June 13, 2004
I think its priceless
Kerry, on Radio, Hails Stem Cell Research
So, with all the Reagan tribute stuff on the Bush-Cheney website, with a week of national mourning and wall-to-wall coverage of the Reagan Legacy, etc etc. what's the one thing which his family wants as a permanent, lasting memorial? Approval of stem-cell research to investigage and perhaps cure Alzheimers.
And what's the one thing that the Bush Republicans dare not approve, because their religious right base think it is murder? Stem-cell research. And what's one thing that Kerry, the evil democrat, is promising? Stem-cell research. So I presume the Reagans will be campaigning for Kerry now?
So, with all the Reagan tribute stuff on the Bush-Cheney website, with a week of national mourning and wall-to-wall coverage of the Reagan Legacy, etc etc. what's the one thing which his family wants as a permanent, lasting memorial? Approval of stem-cell research to investigage and perhaps cure Alzheimers.
And what's the one thing that the Bush Republicans dare not approve, because their religious right base think it is murder? Stem-cell research. And what's one thing that Kerry, the evil democrat, is promising? Stem-cell research. So I presume the Reagans will be campaigning for Kerry now?
Friday, June 11, 2004
Here's two questions
U.S. responsible for global crisis, Annan says
Reading this story, two questions occured to me:
If Brian Mulroney had been Secretary-General, would he have handled the Iraq crisis the same way Annan did?
And would the Bush administration have been more likely to have listened to him?
Reading this story, two questions occured to me:
If Brian Mulroney had been Secretary-General, would he have handled the Iraq crisis the same way Annan did?
And would the Bush administration have been more likely to have listened to him?
How could they do this to the dogs, not to mention the people?
Use of dogs to scare prisoners was approved Its funny, but sometimes people will get more outraged about abuse of animals than of people -- so maybe THIS will finally outrage the US radio-talk-show hosts who think Abu Ghraib was a fraternity hazing.
This is so cruel for the dogs, who naturally love and respect people. This is animal abuse, as well as prisoner abuse -- how could any responsible handler allow his dog to be used this way? Good for dog handler Kimbro that he wouldn't allow it.
We have two dogs now, yellow labs, and their trusting good natures would be ruined if they ever were encouraged to attack people. Actually, I'm not sure you could get a yellow lab to attack a person, no matter what the provocation.
Compare this miserable story to the stories of how many dogs gave their lives following 9/11, when they got so ill from the dust as they searched for survivors but they wouldn't quit. And in Oklahoma City, I've read that the rescue dogs were getting so depressed and unhappy about not finding any survivors that their handlers had to set up some fake "survivors" for the dogs to find. That's just the way dogs are.
This is so cruel for the dogs, who naturally love and respect people. This is animal abuse, as well as prisoner abuse -- how could any responsible handler allow his dog to be used this way? Good for dog handler Kimbro that he wouldn't allow it.
We have two dogs now, yellow labs, and their trusting good natures would be ruined if they ever were encouraged to attack people. Actually, I'm not sure you could get a yellow lab to attack a person, no matter what the provocation.
Compare this miserable story to the stories of how many dogs gave their lives following 9/11, when they got so ill from the dust as they searched for survivors but they wouldn't quit. And in Oklahoma City, I've read that the rescue dogs were getting so depressed and unhappy about not finding any survivors that their handlers had to set up some fake "survivors" for the dogs to find. That's just the way dogs are.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
So what else is the US Justice Department doing?
Terror suspect freed: documents I'm beginning to wonder about the US Justice Department. This is a department with a proud history -- they won civil rights cases against Klansmen when nobody believed it could be done. But under Ashcroft, there's something bizarre going on here -- they're spending their time developing justifications for torture instead of dealing with real cases. They demand that the Patriot Act be extended, but they don't even seem to be trying to convict anyone of terrorism in court -- they're either just locking them up without a trial, or shipping them out of the country.
A couple of years ago, they did prosecute the Lackawanna Six though it is still unclear whether they really had a case, or whether the guilty pleas were just the result of government threats -- and there's been the shoebomber case and that case against the Canadian fellow running the arms training camp, which was laughable, but that's all I can remember reading about.
So is it that these lawyers and prosecutors are so incompetent that they couldn't win a case? I cannot believe they wouldn't get convictions -- the US is so scared of terrorism, a jury would convict even if the evidence is difficult or complex or has a few holes.
More logically, I suspect, they haven't been able to gather any actual evidence of terrorism against these people, just a bunch of hearsay and rumour and profiling -- but they followed the political bidding to make some high-profile 'show" arrests anyway because everyone believes there are terrorists hiding around every corner.
In searching for "terrorist convictions" by Google, I came across this December 2003 press release from the ACLU, which said:
. . . more than half of all 879 terrorism or anti-terrorism-classified convictions since 9/11 resulted in no jail time. Only 23 convicts received sentences of five years or more . . . since 9/11, 80 international terrorism convictions resulted in no jail time and 91 received sentences of less than a year (suggesting) that even successful prosecutions that the government claims are linked to terrorism are for very minor crimes . . . the ACLU said, the report raises serious questions about the premise of the Justice Department’s post-9/11 focus on preemption and prevention: how does aggressively prosecuting alleged terrorists who do not end up behind bars contribute to the interdiction of terrorist acts?
And I found the April, 2004 issue of the Atlantic with this short article about how the Justice Department defines terrorism:
In the two-year period following the World Trade Center attacks, federal investigative agencies referred significantly more cases classified as "terrorism" (3,500) to prosecutors than in the two years prior to the attacks. More such cases (730) were also prosecuted, and more convictions were won (341). Yet during the two years after the attacks, only sixteen people were sentenced to five years or more in prison for terrorism—fewer than during the two years preceding 9/11. Moreover, this "terrorist" tally includes not only the would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid but also such threats to national security as a Georgia man who detonated a pipe bomb in his girlfriend's empty car and a Texas man who conspired from his prison cell to assassinate a federal judge. Other facts cast additional doubt on the efficacy of the Justice Department's wide net: for instance, federal prosecutors deemed only 41 percent of the terrorism referrals they received worth pursuing (whereas 68 percent of all criminal cases referred to the department were prosecuted); and the majority of terrorism convictions (276 out of 341) resulted in no prison at all or sentences of less than a year. Even among those convicted within the narrower category of "international terrorism," the median sentence was fourteen days—the stuff of traffic violations, not al-Qaeda operations.
Not very impressive, is it? Back in the 50s, Americans convinced themselves there were communists in every closet, just waiting to pounce. Are 'terrorists lurking around every streetcorner' just the same myth?
UPDATE: And maybe the myth also explains the memos -- imagine the frenzy these attorneys and prosecutors and FBI and CIA must feel when they just "know" the US is harbouring terrorists, terrorists everywhere, yet they just can find any, or get anyone to admit knowing one or helping one? So they start thinking that maybe with a little "persuasion" they'll find all the terrorist cells . . . and suddenly there they are, having a Pinochet Moment as they justify the righteousness of beatings, dog attacks and electrodes.
A couple of years ago, they did prosecute the Lackawanna Six though it is still unclear whether they really had a case, or whether the guilty pleas were just the result of government threats -- and there's been the shoebomber case and that case against the Canadian fellow running the arms training camp, which was laughable, but that's all I can remember reading about.
So is it that these lawyers and prosecutors are so incompetent that they couldn't win a case? I cannot believe they wouldn't get convictions -- the US is so scared of terrorism, a jury would convict even if the evidence is difficult or complex or has a few holes.
More logically, I suspect, they haven't been able to gather any actual evidence of terrorism against these people, just a bunch of hearsay and rumour and profiling -- but they followed the political bidding to make some high-profile 'show" arrests anyway because everyone believes there are terrorists hiding around every corner.
In searching for "terrorist convictions" by Google, I came across this December 2003 press release from the ACLU, which said:
. . . more than half of all 879 terrorism or anti-terrorism-classified convictions since 9/11 resulted in no jail time. Only 23 convicts received sentences of five years or more . . . since 9/11, 80 international terrorism convictions resulted in no jail time and 91 received sentences of less than a year (suggesting) that even successful prosecutions that the government claims are linked to terrorism are for very minor crimes . . . the ACLU said, the report raises serious questions about the premise of the Justice Department’s post-9/11 focus on preemption and prevention: how does aggressively prosecuting alleged terrorists who do not end up behind bars contribute to the interdiction of terrorist acts?
And I found the April, 2004 issue of the Atlantic with this short article about how the Justice Department defines terrorism:
In the two-year period following the World Trade Center attacks, federal investigative agencies referred significantly more cases classified as "terrorism" (3,500) to prosecutors than in the two years prior to the attacks. More such cases (730) were also prosecuted, and more convictions were won (341). Yet during the two years after the attacks, only sixteen people were sentenced to five years or more in prison for terrorism—fewer than during the two years preceding 9/11. Moreover, this "terrorist" tally includes not only the would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid but also such threats to national security as a Georgia man who detonated a pipe bomb in his girlfriend's empty car and a Texas man who conspired from his prison cell to assassinate a federal judge. Other facts cast additional doubt on the efficacy of the Justice Department's wide net: for instance, federal prosecutors deemed only 41 percent of the terrorism referrals they received worth pursuing (whereas 68 percent of all criminal cases referred to the department were prosecuted); and the majority of terrorism convictions (276 out of 341) resulted in no prison at all or sentences of less than a year. Even among those convicted within the narrower category of "international terrorism," the median sentence was fourteen days—the stuff of traffic violations, not al-Qaeda operations.
Not very impressive, is it? Back in the 50s, Americans convinced themselves there were communists in every closet, just waiting to pounce. Are 'terrorists lurking around every streetcorner' just the same myth?
UPDATE: And maybe the myth also explains the memos -- imagine the frenzy these attorneys and prosecutors and FBI and CIA must feel when they just "know" the US is harbouring terrorists, terrorists everywhere, yet they just can find any, or get anyone to admit knowing one or helping one? So they start thinking that maybe with a little "persuasion" they'll find all the terrorist cells . . . and suddenly there they are, having a Pinochet Moment as they justify the righteousness of beatings, dog attacks and electrodes.
Keep on truckin' Martha
Stewart seeks new trial, citing witness I think Stewart deserves a new trial -- as I recall her trial last winter, there was no smoking gun. It was the cumulative weight of the circumstantial government case that convinced jurors to convict -- that, and their resentment at her "rich bitch" lifestyle. Personally I don't think she should have been found guilty. But anyway, the fraudulent ink testimony went a long way toward creating the appearance that Stewart was lying. Good luck, Martha.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)