•TPC•

6/29/07

Scratching their poems on styrofoam cups,
The orange jumpsuits pass them along,
Under the scorched-out Cuban sun, through bars,
Telling themselves—and reminding the world—
They are men, and this Inquisition
Also must pass, this auto da fe,
Flushed down history’s manhole,
Must bring shame in the Later Years
When men and women re-tell the past—
La Conquista, the Crusades, the Slaughter
Of the Innocents—all the lost causes.

There in the cups, drops of Christ’s blood
Appear out of nowhere, mingle with the tears
Of God, of Mohammed—the shepherd boys
Tending their flocks, dreaming under white-hot stars.
What distant fires illuminate their lives
On what worlds reaching beyond this hothouse?

Here is grief and love and hatred mixed
In bitter cups to be drunk at once
Tossing the head back carelessly; here is
The taste of this world—what we have become.
Does it go down easy, cause revulsion,
Trip-wire the memory? Does anything
Ever come to anything more than a dream
Of home, struggle, certainties of Truth,
A mother’s, father’s, lover’s, friend’s or child’s embrace?

Gary Corseri has posted/published work at Cyrano’sJournalOnline, ThomasPaine’sCorner, DissidentVoice, CounterPunch, CommonDreams, The New York Times, Village Voice and over 200 other venues worldwide. He can be reached at

5/25/07

This is a wonderfully refreshing examination of Canada’s role, current and historic, as supporter of and participant in the American Empire. Linda McQuaig makes accurate assessments of Canada’s current role in partnership with the United States and the ongoing development of this role historically. Unlike the regular media, she recognizes that Canada is subservient to the Americans in Afghanistan under the guise of a UN approved NATO force occupying that country. Quite clearly in her opening arguments she states that Canada’s current role has brought it “more into line with the U.S. Empire, even as Washington becomes a belligerent and lawless force in the world.”

The first chapter covers a series of mini-themes that exposes the American empire at the same time implicating Canada in its complicity with American actions. Familiar topics arise with Canada as they do with America abroad in the world: Canada’s recent implicit support of torture in Afghanistan by ‘rendering’ prisoners to Afghanis bases; military plans of attack, in this case against Canadian in the 1930’s, such that it would cause “devastation” and include “chemical warfare”; a view of American “exceptionalism”, another word for ignoring international norms, laws and institutions (illegal wars, torture, nuclear weapons double standards, UN, ICC, Kyoto, ICJ, Biological weapons); in other words a generalized withdrawal from international law and conventions.

McQuaig recognizes the incongruity of the U.S. “defending” itself against many created foes, focusing her arguments on the Persian Gulf, reiterating the American tale of woe about “vulnerability”, of America being under attack. While the majority of Canadians do not want to be a part of this militaristic exceptionalism, the “media, academic and corporate worlds – pander to Washington.” The elite see Canada as a renewed power, as an energy superpower, but what sort of superpower would give all its energy resources to another country before its own needs are guaranteed, leading to the author’s conclusion that Canada would not be viewed “with anything but contempt, as the bully’s unctuous [great choice of word – “simulation of affected enthusiasm” based on the root meaning of anointed with oil] little sidekick.”

Oil and free market economics flow via the Canadian elites “fiercely resisting such [social] planning in the Canadian national interest.” As Canada’s social services diminish and its resources are sold off liberally and cheaply, the reality is that “there is little connection between a country’s level of social spending and its ability to compete in the global economy.” Examples are evident for this, with Norway being the most successful, and with the countries of Latin America slowly turning away from the disastrously imposed free market policies.

In the second chapter, “No More Girlie-Man for Peacekeeping” the Canadian popular view of peacekeeping is explored, again exposing the elites, in this case Canada’s own copycat military-industrial-political he-man alliance, as manipulating events towards the American pre-emptive war attitude that searches out strategic control of oil and gas resources, hidden behind the hunt for terrorism, as “America’s vigilance against terrorism…just happens to coincide with its need for oil.” Once again the media come into the picture, a poorly defined picture of “distortion” that has “rendered the suffering of the Arab world invisible to us.” What is viewed in the west is far different than the view seen by others, “the ultimate horror of occupation: the powerlessness of an occupied people against an all-powerful foreign army.”

The argument then turns fully to Afghanistan where Canada is an invading army (and for those Canadian politicians ignorant of the role of oil in Afghanistan, it is a focal point for oil trans-shipment as well as having significant reserves of gas in its north-western provinces in the Caspian Basin), that has committed war crimes by “rendition” and the “collateral damage” of killed citizens. She concludes the section posing the question of security, “Because we realize our security is not actually at stake, and we sense that there is no compelling purpose to this mission….We’re not aggressors [arguable, but perhaps only semantic]. We’re just helping out the aggressor in order to protect our trade balance.”

In summary, McQuaig concludes that “Powerful forces inside the Canadian elite want to move Canada not only away from peacekeeping – as they’ve already succeeding in doing- but also away from an allegiance to the United Nations and the rule of law.” This is a strong statement that Canadians and the world need to be fully aware of.

In the next chapter the focus turns to three areas. The first is Canada’s successful promotion and signing of the land mines treaty, helped out by many NGOs, Princess Diana, and a persistent and vocal Canadian contingent led by Lloyd Axworthy and Jody Williams, the latter receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts. In contrast Canada caved on the issue of nuclear disarmament, effectively blocking “all meaningful progress on nuclear disarmament” even though Canada’s perceived status within the G8 and NATO “could have added a particular heft to the…countries trying to shine the flashlight on U.S. intransigence.” Finally there is recognition that Canada has been involved with the Palestine/Israel problem since World War II, with the outcome of its initial investigations that “Canadian support for partition” was based on the fear of “greater violence by Jewish extremists, who had shown their willingness to resort to terrorism to get their way.” This has evolved of course into recent full on support of Israel, as Canada accepted Israel’s attack on Lebanon as “proportionate”, were one of the first to deny the validity of the democratic election of Hamas, and continue to back U.S. views on Iran.

“The Most Dangerous Man in the English-Speaking World” turns out to be Lester B. Pearson, the Nobel Peace Prize winner for his efforts in the Suez War of 1956. In spite of this success Pearson “subscribed to many Cold War attitudes” and “bears considerable blame for Canada’s complicity in U.S. actions in Vietnam.” As with the U.S., evidence is given that strongly supports the idea of Canada having its own military-industrial complex accompanied by the over-hyped fear of being attacked. The latter as I have always argued could only be by the U.S., unless it was the scenario of nuclear war, in which case no amount of military preparation would do any good anyways.

Following these developments came “The Threat of Peace”, the collapse of the Soviet Union. Here the discussion turns more strongly to the UN and its role in comparison to the ideas formulated by Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfield, and the role of NATO in Yugoslavia. Canada’s role of ‘protection’ has been stretched to the arena of economic well-being, leaving the door “wide open to interventions” in order to open up other countries economies “to foreign investment and free trade,” the Washington consensus adopted in full.

Unlike many critical works, McQuaig also supplies some strong arguments that war, in spite of accepted opinion – at least in the current media –is an inevitable part of human nature; there is strong evidence to the contrary. She examines such arcane actions such as dueling and gladiatorial combat and more obvious examples of slavery and absolute hereditary monarchy, all ‘natural’ human institutions that have disappeared. The “mirage of prosperity” driven by war, needs to give way to popular opinion that will “undermine war’s acceptability.”

Finally, McQuaig returns to her beginning ideas, arguing again about Canada’s energy security (or lack thereof), the sabotage of Kyoto, the implicit acceptance of torture, contradictions in human rights arguments (Chinese prisoners versus U.S. prisoners), and the wonderful Professor Ignatieff who supports the “lesser evils” because of we are good and they are bad simplicities. The narrative ends with the recent Maher Arar case, with Canadian Justice O’Conner stating unequivocally that torture “can never be legally justified….torture is an instrument of terror,” while referring to many treaties that Canada has signed against torture.

This is a great history and current affairs book, not the kind with boring linear dates, but one that exposes thematic ideas that are not expressed in current media. By necessity it covers similar American history and current affairs, showing how Canada, against the wishes of the majority of its population, is directed by an elite “comprador class”, a plutocracy that is in full alignment supporting American exceptionalism, we are “holding the bully’s coat”. All Canadians should be challenged by this work, a challenge to their perceived image of themselves and the reality that lies behind the media and governmental spin.

Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews to Palestine Chronicles. His interest in this topic stems originally from an environmental perspective, which encompasses the militarization and economic subjugation of the global community and its commodification by corporate governance and by the American government.

by Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

5/25/07

Almost two years ago, on July 1, 2004, I published a column in this space on Alberto Gonzales. It was entitled “Counsel to the President.” Well, since that time the young man has risen even higher in the Georgite hierarchy. He is getting lots of publicity these days. The publishing industry’s view of publicity is that there is no such thing as “bad publicity,” only “publicity.” If that is true, well this particular good ol’ boy (who is one even if his grandparents on one side may have been illegal immigrants, they were assuredly poor) must be reveling in it right now. Since he is just so much in the news, I thought that the Gonzales subject would be one worth revisiting at this time.

Please note that this column is being written on May 17, 2007, for scheduled publication on May 23. I am convinced that Gonzales will still be in office on that day and indeed for a considerable time thereafter, a subject that we shall visit in Part 2 of this series, next week. If I am wrong about that, then all I can say is that everyone makes mistakes. This column is about some actions that Gonzales took when he was simply White House Counsel. I present them here to remind all of us that what he was doing back then was rather worse even than firing US Attorneys for party political reasons and trying to get a fellow reactionary (although apparently not a fascist) to sign off on a secret program that everyone knew was illegal, when the man was possibly at death’s door. Gonzales is a major cog in the Georgite wheel pushing forward the steamroller that is attempting to flatten US Constitutional Democracy into the tarmac. Consider.

On Jan. 25, 2002, then Counsel to the President, Alberto Gonzales, sent President George Bush a memo in which he warned the President about a United States law, the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 2441). That law prohibits the commission of “war crimes” by any U.S. officials or other personnel. Included in the definition are any violations of the Geneva Conventions concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. Gonzales told the President that the Justice Department had concluded that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to any apprehended members of al Qaeda. He also advised the President that the State Dept. did not agree with Justice. He proposed to the President that he make a determination that the Conventions did not apply to the Taliban or members of al Qaeda.

In Gonzales’ view, the “war on terror” had rendered certain sections of the Conventions obsolete; “quaint” was a descriptor he used. One John Yoo, a University of California law professor on leave with the Justice Department, had in the fall of 2001, as the invasion of Afghanistan was getting under way, begun working on ways and means for the US to avoid being charged with war crimes in reference to how certain prisoners taken in Afghanistan were treated. Why might he need to have done this? Because, according to The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh’s sources at least, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had authorized an approach to prisoner treatment that included physical coercion and sexual humiliation. The Pentagon denied these charges, of course. But, one might pause to ask, if such a plan did not exist, why on earth would they have had a legal defense for its implementation prepared? And they did.

We now know that the plan was implemented in Afghanistan. That implementation was then sent on to Iraq, via Guantanamo. That sequence of events led inexorably to the Abu Ghraib outrage (something mostly forgotten here, but very much alive in the Muslim world). We thus also know that what we saw in those first horrifying photos was not the work of a “few bad apples” among enlisted personnel, carrying out these atrocities on their own initiative, but rather the product of more than a few bad apples fairly high up in the Bush Administration. A primary question from the beginning has been; how high up the chain of command do knowledge and responsibility go?

The Pentagon, and the CIA, asked for legal rulings justifying the use of what most observers, as well as the usual interpretations of the Geneva Conventions, would term torture. Rumsfeld himself was involved. (A recent review of just how intimately involved Rumsfeld was in this whole horror show is to be found in Andrew Cockburn’s “ ‘Make Sure This Happens!’ How Rumsfeld Micromanaged Torture,” CounterPunch, May 1, 2007.) That put the chain of command knowledge level pretty high. Indeed, if it did not go so very high, why was the Counsel to the President briefing Bush on the legal issues involved? These are matters that have been and are being dealt with in great detail elsewhere (I wrote back in 2004. Sadly not much has happened since concerning those issues.) In this column, I take a brief look at certain Constitutional issues raised by the whole sordid mess.

Article VI of the Constitution says, among other things, that: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Sect. 2, Article II, empowers the President “. . . by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. . . .” The clause from Article VI quoted above has always been interpreted to mean that treaties are part of the Constitution.

The oath of office for the President is found in the Constitution, at the end of Article II, Sect 1. It says: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The impeachment provision is found in Section 4 of the same article: “The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” One would think that violation of one’s oath, as found in the Constitution itself, would constitute a high crime, or at least a misdemeanor.

Yoo was working on ways to have US personnel avoid charges of committing war crimes. Jay Bybee, now a Federal Appeals Court judge, of the Office of Legal Council of the Justice Department, the federal government’s ultimate legal advisor, wrote the principal memo that Gonzales used in advising the President. He decided that certain provisions of the Conventions were “outdated” and “quaint.” Further, he told the President that with a simple re-labeling of persons captured in Afghanistan from “prisoners of war” to something else, and a redefinition of “torture,” provisions of US law (passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic President, by the way) concerning the commission of war crimes could be by-passed.

In addition, a group of Pentagon lawyers told Rumsfeld that “inherent” in the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief, in war-time, was the authority to authorize essentially anything he wanted to, regardless of US law or treaties. In this case too, even if such power could be found anywhere in the Constitution (and I looked hard in Article I, Sect. 2 that defines those powers — and couldn’t find it) it happens that the only US government entity empowered to declare war is the Congress. Although the President and the Fox”News”Channel say over and over again that “we’re at war,” we are not, at least in Constitutional terms.

In the eyes of most of the rest of the world, what Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld’s lawyers did was unilaterally to amend a series of treaties. And they did this without bothering even to inform, much less negotiate with, our treaty partners (most of the other countries in the world). Since treaties are part of the Constitution, they were thus also unilaterally amending the Constitution without bothering to go through the amendment process. To this was added the interesting “inherent powers” doctrine that does the same thing. But the Bush folks are not strangers to amending the Constitution at the stroke of a pen. The USA Patriot Act does the same to Constitutional rights at home. I have previously pointed out in this space that the Act voids rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, thus amending the Constitution by de facto repealing of those amendments. It also amends the last clause of Article III, Sect. 2, in the body, to wit “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury . . . . “

It is breathtaking that, with reference to torture, all of these lawyers were looking for ways around treaty obligations and US law that they recognized existed. (It should be noted that other government lawyers, for example from the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Office and from the State Department, were horrified by all of this. Yoo has hardly hidden his position and responsibility for what horrified so many other government lawyers. His defense of his contribution to the Georgite destruction of Constitutional Democracy can be found stated most clearly and proudly in his book, The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11. Presumably Gonzales would subscribe to Yoo’s rationale.) But the most disturbing aspect of this is that, according to Gonzales’ advice to the President, as Counsel, all of these actions, from the endorsement of the use of torture in the face of our treaty obligations, to the suspension of Constitutional rights under the USA Patriot Act, allegedly are and can be done on Presidential authority alone. This is where Alberto Gonzales stood on the matters of the law and the Constitution back in 2004. We will get somewhat up-to-date on certain other issues next week.

________________
Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a TPJ contributing author. He is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author of over twenty-five books. Dr. Jonas is one of America’s most perceptive Democratic political analysts.