Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The Strange Reversals of a Pentagon Blockbuster


Torturing Iron Man: The Strange Reversals of a Pentagon Blockbuster
By Nick Turse

[For complete article reference links, please see source here.]

"Liberal Hollywood" is a favorite whipping-boy of right-wingers who suppose the town and its signature industry are ever-at-work undermining the U.S. military. In reality, the military has been deeply involved with the film industry since the Silent Era. Today, however, the ad hoc arrangements of the past have been replaced by a full-scale one-stop shop, occupying a floor of a Los Angeles office building. There, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense itself have established entertainment liaison offices to help ensure that Hollywood makes movies the military way.

What they have to trade, especially when it comes to blockbuster films, is access to high-tech, tax-payer funded, otherwise unavailable gear. What they get in return is usually the right to alter or shape scripts to suit their needs. If you want to see the fruits of this relationship in action, all you need to do is head down to your local multiplex. Chances are that Iron Man -- the latest military-entertainment masterpiece -- is playing on a couple of screens.

For the past three weeks, Iron Man --a film produced by its comic-book parent Marvel and distributed by Paramount Pictures -- has cleaned up at the box office, taking in a staggering $222.5 million in the U.S. and $428.5 million worldwide. The movie, which opened with "the tenth biggest weekend box office performance of all time" and the second biggest for a non-sequel, has the added distinction of being the "best-reviewed movie of 2008 so far." For instance, in the New York Times, movie reviewer A.O. Scott called Iron Man "an unusually good superhero picture," while Roger Ebert wrote: "The world needs another comic book movie like it needs another Bush administration… [but] if we must have one more… ‘Iron Man' is a swell one to have." There has even been nascent Oscar buzz.

Robert Downey Jr. has been nearly universally praised for a winning performance as playboy-billionaire-merchant-of-death-genius-inventor Tony Stark, head of Stark Industries, a fictional version of Lockheed or Boeing. In the film, Stark travels to Afghanistan to showcase a new weapon of massive destruction to American military commanders occupying that country. On a Humvee journey through the Afghan backlands, his military convoy is caught up in a deadly ambush by al-Qaeda stand-ins, who capture him and promptly subject him to what Vice President Dick Cheney once dubbed "a dunk in the water," but used to be known as "the Water Torture." The object is to force him to build his Jericho weapons system, one of his "masterpieces of death," in their Tora Bora-like mountain cave complex.

As practically everyone in the world already knows, Stark instead builds a prototype metal super-suit and busts out of his cave of confinement, slaughtering his terrorist captors as he goes. Back in the U.S., a born-again Stark announces that his company needs to get out of the weapons game, claiming he has "more to offer the world than making things blow up." Yet, what he proceeds to build is, of course, a souped-up model of the suit he designed in the Afghan cave. Back inside it, as Iron Man, he then uses it to "blow up" bad guys in Afghanistan, taking on the role of a kind of (super-)human-rights vigilante. He even tangles with U.S. forces in the skies over that occupied land, but when the Air Force's sleek, ultra high-tech, F-22A Raptors try to shoot him down, he refrains from using his awesome powers of invention to blow them away. This isn't the only free pass doled out to the U.S. military in the film.

Just as America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to bring various Vietnam analogies to mind, Iron Man has its own Vietnam pedigree. Before Tony Stark landed in Afghanistan in 2008, he first lumbered forth in Vietnam in the 1960s. That was, of course, when he was still just the clunky hero of the comic book series on which the film is based. Marvel's metal man then battled that era's American enemies of choice: not al-Qaedan-style terrorists, but communists in Southeast Asia.

Versions of the stereotypical evil Asians of Iron Man's comic book world would appear almost unaltered on the big screen in 1978 in another movie punctuated by gunfire and explosions that also garnered great reviews. The Deer Hunter, an epic of loss and horror in Vietnam, eventually took home four Academy Awards, including Best Picture honors. Then, and since, however, the movie has been excoriated by antiwar critics for the way it turned history on its head in its use of reversed iconic images that seemingly placed all guilt for death and destruction in Vietnam on America's enemies.

Most famously, it appropriated a then-unforgettable Pulitzer prize-winning photo of Lt. Colonel Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnam's national police chief, executing an unarmed, bound prisoner during the Tet Offensive with a point blank pistol shot to the head. In the film, however, it was the evil enemy which made American prisoners do the same to themselves as they were forced to play Russian Roulette for the amusement of their sadistic Vietnamese captors (something that had no basis in reality).

The film Iron Man is replete with such reversals, starting with the obvious fact that, in Afghanistan, it is Americans who have imprisoned captured members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban (as well as untold innocents) in exceedingly grim conditions, not vice-versa. It is they who, like Tony Stark, have been subjected to the Bush administration's signature "harsh interrogation technique." While a few reviewers have offhandedly alluded to the eeriness of this screen choice, Iron Man has suffered no serious criticism for taking the imprisonment practices, and most infamous torture, of the Bush years and superimposing it onto America's favorite evil-doers. Nor have critics generally thought to point out that, while, in the film, the nefarious Obadiah Stane, Stark's right hand man, is a double-dealing arms dealer who is selling high-tech weapons systems to the terrorists in Afghanistan (and trying to kill Stark as well), two decades ago the U.S. government played just that role. For years, it sent advanced weapons systems -- including Stinger missiles, one of the most high-tech weapons of that moment -- to jihadis in Afghanistan so they could make war on one infidel superpower (the Soviet Union), before setting their sights on another (the United States). And while this took place way back in the 1980s, it shouldn't be too hard for film critics to recall – since it was lionized in last year's celebrated Tom Hanks film Charlie Wilson's War.

In the cinematic Marvel Universe, however, the U.S. military, which runs the notorious prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan where so many have been imprisoned, abused, and, in some cases, have even died, receives a veritable get out of jail free card. And you don't need to look very closely to understand why -- or why the sleek U.S. aircraft in the film get a similar free pass from Iron Man, even when they attack him, or why terrorists and arms dealers take the fall for what the U.S. has done in the real world.

If they didn't, you can be sure that Iron Man wouldn't be involved in a blue-skies ballet with F-22A Raptors in the movie's signature scene and that the filmmakers would never have been able to shoot at Edwards Air Force base -- a prospect which could have all but grounded Iron Man, since, as director Jon Favreau put it, Edwards was "the best back lot you could ever have." Favreau, in fact, minced no words in his ardent praise for the way working with the Air Force gave him access to the "best stuff" and how filming on the base brought "a certain prestige to the film." Perhaps in exchange for the U.S. Air Force's collaboration, there was an additional small return favor: Iron Man's confidant, sidekick, and military liaison, Lt. Col. James "Rhodey" Rhodes -- another hero of the film -- is now an Air Force man, not the Marine he was in the comic.

With the box office numbers still pouring in and the announcement of sequels to come, the arrangement has obviously worked out well for Favreau, Marvel, Paramount -- and the U.S. Air Force. Before the movie was released, Master Sergeant Larry Belen, the superintendent of technical support for the Air Force Test Pilot School and one of many airmen who auditioned for a spot in the movie, outlined his motivation to aid the film: "I want people to walk away from this movie with a really good impression of the Air Force, like they got about the Navy seeing Top Gun."

Air Force captain Christian Hodge, the Defense Department's project officer for Iron Man, may have put it best, however, when he predicted that, once the film appeared, the "Air Force is going to come off looking like rock stars." Maybe the Air Force hasn't hit the Top Gun-style jackpot with Iron Man, but there can be no question that, in an American world in which war-fighting doesn't exactly have the glitz of yesteryear, Iron Man is certainly a military triumph. As Chuck Vinch noted in a review published in the Air Force Times, "The script… will surely have the flyboy brass back at the Pentagon trading high fives -- especially the scene in which Iron Man dogfights in the high clouds with two F-22 Raptors."

Coming on the heels of last year's military-aided mega-spectacular Transformers, the Pentagon is managing to keep a steady stream of pro-military blockbusters in front of young eyes during two dismally unsuccessful foreign occupations that grind on without end. In his Iron Man review, Roger Ebert called the pre-transformation Tony Stark, "the embodiment of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against in 1961 -- a financial superhero for whom war is good business, and whose business interests guarantee there will always be a market for war."

Here's the irony that Ebert missed: What the film Iron Man actually catches is the spirit of the successor "complex," which has leapt not only into the cinematic world of superheroes, but also into the civilian sphere of our world in a huge way. Today, almost everywhere you look, whether at the latest blockbuster on the big screen or what's on much smaller screens in your own home -- likely made by a defense contractor like Sony, Samsung, Panasonic or Toshiba -- you'll find the Pentagon or its corporate partners. In fact, from the companies that make your computer to those that produce your favorite soft drink, many of the products in your home are made by Defense Department contractors -- and, if you look carefully, you don't even need the glowing eyes of an advanced "cybernetic helmet," like Iron Man's, to see them.




Nick Turse is the associate editor and research director of Tomdispatch.com. He has written for the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Adbusters, the Nation, and regularly for Tomdispatch.com. His first book, The Complex, an exploration of the new military-corporate complex in America, was recently published in the American Empire Project series by Metropolitan Books.

Copyright 2008 Nick Turse

Malignant Brain Tumor: Kennedy Released from Hospital


Senator Edward Kennedy released from hospital
CBC News

Senator Edward Kennedy waves as he leaves Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston Tuesday. (CBC)

Accompanied by friends and family, Senator Edward Kennedy slowly walked out of a Massachusetts hospital Wednesday, a day after being diagnosed with a cancerous brain tumor that experts say is almost certainly fatal.

A crowd of well-wishers applauded the 76-year-old Democrat as emerged from the doors of Massachusetts General in Boston. He smiled, waved back and gave a thumbs-up. His dogs greeted him at the hospital door.

His doctors say Kennedy "has recovered remarkably quickly" from a biopsy conducted after he suffered a seizure last weekend.

They say he will await further test results and treatment options while convalescing at home on Cape Cod over the U.S. Memorial Day weekend.

The last son of one of America's most famous political families was diagnosed with a malignant glioma in his left parietal lobe after suffering a seizure in his home on Saturday.

Malignant gliomas are diagnosed in about 9,000 Americans a year.

In general, half of all patients die within a year.

Kennedy's wife, Vicki, told friends the grim diagnosis was "a real curveball" that left his family stunned even as he joked and laughed with them, but she expressed pride in how her husband was handling the news.

"Teddy is leading us all, as usual, with his calm approach to getting the best information possible," she wrote in an e-mail Tuesday to friends.

"He's also making me crazy (and making me laugh) by pushing to race in the Figawi this weekend," she rote, referring to the annual sailing race from Cape Cod to Nantucket.

The diagnosis cast a pall over Capitol Hill, where the Massachusetts Democrat has served since 1962, with members from both sides of the aisle reacting emotionally to the news.

Canada: 'Throttling' Net Neutrality

Stop The Throttler!

http://StopTheThrottler.ca

Bell and Rogers are changing how the Internet works by dictating how Web users access content. Bell is limiting Sympatico subscribers from downloading content. Subscribers of Internet hosting companies that buy wholesale services from Bell have already been feeling the pinch since mid-March. This policy is more accurately referred to as ‘throttling’, and it fundamentally changes how the Internet works. Meanwhile, Rogers,
in addition to its own traffic shaping activities, has announced it will charge subscribers more for Internet activities that use more bandwidth. Instead of users deciding how we use the Internet, ISPs are now trying "shape" our traffic.

The companies argue they are trying to limit activities that use up a lot of bandwidth in order to maintain speed for all users. But there is a dangerous reality hidden beneath the companies' apparent concern for subscribers.

Using the same "traffic shaping" principle, the companies can steer subscribers to their own content, or content produced by affiliated companies, and away from that offered by competitors - including the public broadcaster. For example, some Internet users who recently tried to download CBC's The Next Greatest Prime Minister on Bittorrent were told it would take hours to do so.

For more than a decade, the Internet was a neutral resource for people around the world to share information with each other.

Do we really want Bell and Rogers to be able to tell us what we can and cannot view and do on the Internet?

LEARN MORE about Net Neutrality

An insightful blog entry by Michael Geist on the matter Charlie Angus Pressures Industry Minister On Net Neutrality (VIDEO)

Why a throttled Web is a Net loss, Wayne MacPhail

NUPGE resources on net neutrality campaign

CDM Media release: Campaign for Democratic Media launches “Stop the Throttler” campaign

Join the STOP THE THROTTLER facebook group.


Please help us keep the Internet Open - Support the Campaign:

Recent News (see link: http://democraticmedia.ca/throttler)
BBC presses case for universal broadband

NDP calls for net neutrality

Wireless Nomad calls on CRTC to Support Net Neutrality

NDP Calls On Prentice To Deal With Net Throttling

Does Bell Really Have a P2P Bandwidth Problem?

Primus Jumps Into CAIP-Bell Throttling Case

Comcast to spearhead creation of P2P Bill of Rights

Canadians finally talk network neutrality

Poll: Do you think ISPs that sell bandwidth to third parties have the right to "shape" that bandwidth?

Net Freedom Threatened by ISP Policies, Say Critics

'Throttling' Net Traffic

Bell Canada takes heat from clients for limiting online speed

Pressure growing for CRTC to deal with net neutrality

Bell Canada Violates CRTC Decision in Order to Stifle Competition

Bell Canada Seeks To Stifle Market Competition

Harper government sides with big telecom companies

It’s up to you: Prentice to Canadians on traffic throttling

Bell Canada Seeks Death Blow For Indie ISPs

Why a Throttled Web Is a Loss

How Bell Shapes ISP Traffic

Bell's Web Choke

Charlie Angus Pressures Industry Minister On Net Neutrality

CBC The National on Traffic Shapping

CYBERLAW: Plan to limit bandwidth is threat to competitive 'Net

New Bell Canada scandal looms

Federal Ethics Comm. Stifles Review of Mulroney-Schreiber Situation

Federal Ethics Commissioner Files Motion to Try to Stop Court Review of Her Ruling That Prime Minister and His Cabinet Are Not in a Conflict of Interest Over Mulroney-Schreiber Situation, But Rules Liberal MP is in a Conflict of Interest

OTTAWA - Today, Democracy Watch released its response to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson's motion which she filed in the Federal Court of Appeal in April.. The motion is an attempt to stop a review by the Court of her ruling issued on January 7, 2008 which concluded that, even when the Prime Minister's and his Cabinet ministers' own actions and the actions of their close associate Brian Mulroney are in question, they are not covered by the Conflict of Interest Act and it is fine for them: to choose whether an inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber situation will take place; to set the scope of the inquiry; to choose the inquiry commissioner(s) who will judge them and Mr. Mulroney, and; to control the legal proceedings against Karlheinz Schreiber even though he made allegations about them.

Last week, Ethics Commissioner Dawson ruled that Liberal MP Robert Thibault is in a conflict of interest over the Mulroney-Schreiber situation because Mr. Mulroney had filed a lawsuit against him demanding Mr. Thibault pay more than $2 million for making libellous comments on TV about Mr. Mulroney. This is a legally correct ruling based on the rules in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (which came into force in October 2004) that say you can't take part in discussions or decisions on matters that affect your private financial interests. The ruling is a welcome change from the past ridiculous rulings of former Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson and former Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro, who almost always did everything they could to ignore ethics rules and let people off the hook even when they had clearly violated ethics rules.

Commissioner Dawson's ruling on Liberal MP Thibault highlights just how legally incorrect her ruling on Prime Minister Harper and his Cabinet ministers is. Extraordinarily, Commissioner Dawson's motion claims that she did not even make a ruling concerning the Prime Minister and his Cabinet ministers, even though she sent the ruling in writing to Democracy Watch in response to the complaint it filed with her on November 26, 2007, and the ruling sets out 12 decisions that lead to Commissioner Dawson's overall conclusion that it was not within her jurisdiction to even investigate the Prime Minister and his Cabinet ministers, let alone find them in a conflict of interest with regard to the Mulroney Schreiber situation.

"It is unethical for the federal Ethics Commissioner to uphold or ignore ethics rules depending on whom the Commissioner's ruling affects, and very unfortunately this is what seems to have happened with the Commissioner's rulings that Liberal MP Thibault is in a conflict of interest concerning the Mulroney-Schreiber situation but Prime Minister Harper and his Cabinet ministers are not," said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. "Democracy Watch hopes the Federal Court of Appeal will reject the Ethics Commissioner's ruling and make it clear that federal politicians and government officials cannot discuss or make decisions about matters in which they, their relatives or friends have an interest."

Even Prime Minister Stephen Harper has acknowledged, and stated publicly, that he and all members of his government are in a conflict of interest concerning the Brian Mulroney-Karlheinz Schreiber situation, given that Mr. Mulroney acted until very recently as an adviser to the Prime Minister, Mr. Schreiber sent documents to the Prime Minister and named him in a court affidavit, and the government was involved in legal proceedings to extradite Mr. Schreiber to Germany. However, despite recognizing their own conflict of interest, Mr. Harper and his Cabinet continue to take part in and make decisions about the situation.

Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson's ruling ignored clear measures in the Conflict of Interest Act, well-established legal standards, and the public interest, in reaching the following legally incorrect conclusions, thereby letting Prime Minister Harper and his Cabinet ministers and Cabinet staff off the hook:

TO SEE the list of decisions, and links to other key documents, go to:
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsMay2108.html

It should be noted that Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson was appointed Associate Deputy Minister of Justice by then-Prime Minister Mulroney in 1988, and was selected by Prime Minister Harper and his Cabinet to be the Ethics Commissioner in spring 2007.

Democracy Watch is being represented on a pro-bono basis in the case by Yavar Hameed of the Ottawa law firm Hameed Farrokhzad St-Pierre. The Federal Court of Appeal case file number is A-174-08. The Ethics Commissioner's motion is expected to be ruled upon by the end of May.

- 30 -

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, May 21, 2008

NEWS RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179

See this news release with links to all key documents at:
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsMay2108.html


Democracy Watch
P.O. Box 821, Stn. B
Ottawa, Canada
K1P 5P9
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Fax: (613) 241-4758
Email: dwatch@web.net
Internet: http://www.dwatch.ca

Since 1993, cleaning up and making governments and corporations more responsible and accountable to you, and making Canada the world's leading democracy -- please donate now at: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/support.html

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Enemies List

Bush's Islamist Enemies List
by Mohamad Bazzi


President George W. Bush was rightly condemned last week when he implied that Democrats want to "negotiate with terrorists" because they are driven by "the false comfort of appeasement," while Republicans are committed to fighting terrorism. But in his speech before Israel's Knesset, Bush made another dangerous statement that got far less attention: He lumped together Al Qaeda with the Islamist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.


It is yet another example of the Bush Administration's flawed understanding of basic forces in the Middle East: conflating disparate groups with opposing ideologies to suggest that they have a single-minded focus in attacking the United States. Bush has done this before, most notably in his State of the Union speech in January 2007, when he presented a misleading description of "the enemy" that the United States faces abroad. "The Shiite and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes," Bush said. "They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale."


Led by Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda is the terrorist group responsible for the September 11 attacks. It has no geographical base, no realistic political platform and its main objective is to kill civilians -- both in the Muslim world and the West. But Hamas and Hezbollah are traditional Islamist and nationalist movements based in specific countries. Each group has a military wing that committed acts of terrorism during its history. They also have an important social base, provide services to their communities and are active in the political process.


This might seem like another example of Bush's ignorance. But it is dangerous because the Administration could be laying the groundwork for attacks against Hamas or Hezbollah -- more likely by Israel than directly by the United States -- in the same vein as the false intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq. Bush's repeated portrayal of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist groups that want to kill Americans, in the same way that Al Qaeda does, conflates Sunni and Shiite extremism -- an approach that obscures and underestimates the resilience of both.


Hezbollah ("Party of God") is a Shiite movement, while Hamas and Al Qaeda are Sunni. In lumping together Shiite and Sunni militants, the Administration fails to grasp that these groups have disparate ideologies and, in many cases, hate one another. Al Qaeda and other extremist Sunni groups label the Shiites as heretics who should be killed. It is stunning that even after five years of occupying Iraq, the Bush Administration still does not understand basic facts about militant Islam.


In his May 15 speech before Israel's Knesset, Bush portrayed the battle between militant Islam and the West in his usual messianic terms, as a struggle between pure good and ultimate evil. "They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis," he said. "And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the 'elimination' of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant 'Death to Israel, Death to America!' That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that 'the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.' "


In his 2007 State of the Union speech, Bush described Hezbollah as "second only to Al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken." He was referring to the 1983 suicide bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut. That bombing, which has been widely blamed on Hezbollah, killed 241 troops and led to the US withdrawal from Lebanon.


Most Americans associate Hezbollah with the Marine barracks bombing, which followed US intervention in the Lebanese civil war. During the US deployment, American warships bombed Shiite areas controlled by Hezbollah and its allies. Bush has repeatedly tried to portray the Hezbollah of today as the same group it was in the 1980s -- intent on killing Americans and kidnapping Westerners. But since the late 1980s, the group has mainly focused on fighting Israel, waging an eighteen-year guerrilla war that forced Israel to end its occupation of southern Lebanon in May 2000. (Washington brands Hezbollah a terrorist organization, while the European Union does not.)


These days, Hezbollah is not so much focused on battling America as on exerting control over the Lebanese state in order to perpetuate its ability to fight Israel. The group has evolved into a political movement with a formidable militia. It draws its strength from the Shiite community, which is the largest sect in Lebanon, making up about 40 percent of a total population of 4 million. Hezbollah runs a virtual mini-state, controlling the crowded Shiite suburbs of Beirut and much of southern Lebanon. It holds twelve seats in the Lebanese parliament; controls two government ministries; operates a television station; and runs schools, hospitals and charities.


Since it was founded in the early 1980s, Hezbollah has received financial, military and political support from Iran. Iran's militant clerics, including the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, once hoped that the group would help export their Islamic revolution to the Arab world, but Hezbollah later abandoned the cause of creating an Islamic state in multi-confessional Lebanon.


This is not to say that Hezbollah is a democratic or liberal movement. After the Israeli withdrawal, many Lebanese wanted it to disarm and become a strictly political party. Hezbollah's leaders refused, and they have since gone to great lengths to protect their weapons. The group has also shown little willingness to become accountable to the non-Shiite communities in Lebanon.


Over the past eighteen months, Hezbollah has led a mostly nonviolent campaign to topple the US-backed Lebanese government. But earlier this month, Hezbollah ignited the worst internal fighting since the end of Lebanon's fifteen-year civil war. On May 6, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his cabinet issued an order outlawing Hezbollah's private communications network, and another order dismissing the security chief at the Beirut airport. Hezbollah accused the United States and Israel of instigating the two decisions.


In response, Hezbollah dispatched hundreds of heavily armed fighters into the largely Sunni areas of West Beirut. They quickly routed Sunni militiamen, seized their political offices and shut down media outlets owned by the Sunni leader Saad Hariri. On May 15, Siniora's government rescinded its orders, Hezbollah pulled its fighters off the streets and leaders for the two factions headed to Qatar to negotiate under the Arab League's auspices.


Like his focus on Hezbollah, Bush has also presented a flawed description of Hamas and its intentions. The group has never targeted Americans, nor has it threatened to do so. Whether Bush likes it or not, Hamas represents a significant part of the Palestinian population. It is a nationalist political and social force -- and no viable settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is possible without its involvement.


In his Knesset speech, Bush took a veiled swipe at Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama, who has expressed willingness to negotiate with Syria, Iran and other regimes branded as "rogue states" by the Bush Administration. "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said, without mentioning Obama by name. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."


"Appeasement" quickly became the latest catchphrase in media coverage of the presidential race. The debate has focused on whether Obama will "appease" Hamas (or Iran) if he is elected. But few are asking the more important question: why shouldn't the United States engage Hamas or Hezbollah? That does not mean America must accept their politics or "give in" to their demands; rather, Washington must recognize that they have to be negotiated with because they represent significant segments of their societies.


After Hamas won 74 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian legislature in January 2006, the United States and Israel decided to isolate the group and pushed Europe to follow along. Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. Israel and the West demand that Hamas renounce violence, recognize the Jewish state and promise to abide by past peace agreements such as the 1993 Oslo Accords.


Last June an internal conflict between Hamas and the Fatah movement led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turned into open warfare. After Hamas took control of Gaza by force, Abbas deposed the Hamas-led government. The two factions now run separate administrations in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel and the United States resumed negotiations with Abbas, while Israel imposed a tight economic blockade on Gaza and its 1.4 million residents. Israel claims the siege is intended to turn Palestinians against Hamas. Of course, that has not worked, and Palestinians instead directed their anger at Israel and Abbas.


Those who advocate excluding Hamas do not offer any solutions for ending the current stalemate. Israel refuses to stop its air raids and attacks on Gaza, or to lift the siege. In turn, Hamas refuses to end its rocket strikes on civilians in southern Israel or attacks on Israeli soldiers stationed at the border.


In his speech to the Knesset -- intended to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of Israel -- Bush laid out a vague vision for a democratic Middle East in another sixty years. "From Cairo to Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies," he said. "Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause."


At the heart of Bush's fantasy is that Muslims would reject Islamist groups if they could choose their own political leaders in free and fair elections. But that argument was undercut in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, two of the most liberal and diverse societies in the region. Both Hezbollah and Hamas have gained political power and strength in recent years, partly through the ballot box. People who live under foreign or military occupation -- or who feel excluded from the dominant political structure, as the Shiites still do in Lebanon -- often choose militant groups to represent them and resist on their behalf. That is the appeal of Hamas and Hezbollah today. Hamas has also succeeded in positioning itself as an alternative to the corrupt, inefficient and largely discredited Fatah leadership.


If the US goal is to disarm and pacify Hezbollah and Hamas, Washington cannot approach them in the same way it deals with Al Qaeda. That is the mistake the United States made with the insurgency in Iraq: failing to recognize early on that US troops were not facing lone terrorists but rather a movement that had support from a significant portion of the Iraqi population. The next US administration must stop pretending that Hezbollah and Hamas are the same as Al Qaeda, and acknowledge that these are political and military movements deeply embedded in their societies. That would be the first step toward genuine dialogue -- and a pragmatic foreign policy.




Mohamad Bazzi
, who was Newsday's Middle East bureau chief for four years, is currently the Edward R. Murrow Press Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.


Copyright © 2008 The Nation

Irony Man

Tomgram: Nick Turse, Irony Man

Back in the mid-1990s, in my book, The End of Victory Culture, I wrote the following about the adventure films of my childhood (and those of earlier decades):


"For the nonwhite, annihilation was built not just into the on-screen Hollywood spectacle but into its casting structures. Available to the Other were only four roles: the invisible, the evil, the dependent, and the expendable…. When the inhabitants of these borderlands emerged from their oases, ravines, huts, or tepees, they found that there was but one role in which a nonwhite (usually played by a white actor) was likely to come out on top, and that was the villain with his fanatical speeches and propensity for odd tortures. Only as a repository for evil could the nonwhite momentarily triumph. Whether an Indian chief, a Mexican bandit leader, or an Oriental despot, his pre-World War II essence was the same. Set against his shiny pate or silken voice, his hard eyes or false laugh, no white could look anything but good."

Having spent a recent evening in my local multiplex watching the latest superhero blockbuster, Iron Man, all I can say is: such traditions obviously die hard (even in the age of Barack Obama). The Afghans and assorted terrorists of the film, when not falling into that "invisible" category -- as backdrops for the heroics or evil acts of the real actors -- are out of central casting from a playbook of the 1930s filled with images of Fu Manchu or Ming the Merciless: Right down to that shiny bald pate, the silken voice, the hard eyes, and that propensity for "odd tortures."

It's lucky, then, that, in the real world, the Bush administration has made the decision to expand our no-charges, no-recourse, no-courts, no-lawyers prison network in Afghanistan to hold such monsters. Give Eric Schmitt and Tim Golden of the New York Times credit for their recent front-page scoop: "The Pentagon is moving forward with plans to build a new, 40-acre detention complex on the main American military base in Afghanistan, officials said, in a stark acknowledgment that the United States is likely to continue to hold prisoners overseas for years to come… [the new prison will be] a more modern and humane detention center that would usually accommodate about 600 detainees -- or as many as 1,100 in a surge -- and cost more than $60 million." The real money quote in the piece, however, lay buried inside the fold. The reporters quote an anonymous Pentagon official speaking of the infamous older American prison at Bagram Air Base where some of those "odd tortures" have taken place: "It's just not suitable. At some point, you have to say, 'That's it. This place was not made to keep people there indefinitely.'"

So, the new prison, then, is apparently for holding people "indefinitely." Lurking in that word, of course, is the logical thought that we'll just have to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, too. Otherwise, who's going to do the necessary imprisoning? Perhaps it's worth noting as well that, at this moment, the Pentagon is also expanding its major prison in Iraq, Camp Bucca, already stuffed with up to 20,000 prisoners, to hold another 10,000, assumedly in case a future prisoner "surge" comes along, and assumedly once again "indefinitely." In fact, when it comes to prisons, the Pentagon and its contractors are the busiest of beavers. After all, they've been expanding Guantanamo in Cuba, too, while Bush administration officials talk idly about shutting that prison down. Even kids aren't immune. A recent report claims that the U.S. now holds at least 500 "juveniles," mainly in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan, and perhaps elsewhere as "imperative threats to security." (Guantanamo evidently now has no juveniles only because two prisoners have been held there long enough to grow into adulthood.)

These are expansive American facts on the ground in two occupied countries where, you might say (though you wouldn't know it from Iron Man), imprisonment is our middle name and "odd tortures" what we've built our rep on. Of course, at a time when the U.S. is hemorrhaging real jobs, Americans have made quite a living from building and expanding prisons and prison populations at home, too.

Once upon a time, there was an all-American superhero who fought for "truth, justice, and the American way." But that's passé today. As a nation, we're not much into justice anymore; what we're into is incarceration, punishment, and those "odd tortures." It's increasingly our métier, our truth, the American way. So maybe Iron Man, an arms dealer by day, is, as Nick Turse, author of the superb exposé of the new Pentagon, The Complex, indicates, exactly the right superhero to illuminate our American moment. Tom


Torturing Iron Man
The Strange Reversals of a Pentagon Blockbuster
By Nick Turse

"Liberal Hollywood" is a favorite whipping-boy of right-wingers who suppose the town and its signature industry are ever-at-work undermining the U.S. military. In reality, the military has been deeply involved with the film industry since the Silent Era. Today, however, the ad hoc arrangements of the past have been replaced by a full-scale one-stop shop, occupying a floor of a Los Angeles office building. There, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense itself have established entertainment liaison offices to help ensure that Hollywood makes movies the military way.

What they have to trade, especially when it comes to blockbuster films, is access to high-tech, tax-payer funded, otherwise unavailable gear. What they get in return is usually the right to alter or shape scripts to suit their needs. If you want to see the fruits of this relationship in action, all you need to do is head down to your local multiplex. Chances are that Iron Man -- the latest military-entertainment masterpiece -- is playing on a couple of screens.

For the past three weeks, Iron Man --a film produced by its comic-book parent Marvel and distributed by Paramount Pictures -- has cleaned up at the box office, taking in a staggering $222.5 million in the U.S. and $428.5 million worldwide. The movie, which opened with "the tenth biggest weekend box office performance of all time" and the second biggest for a non-sequel, has the added distinction of being the "best-reviewed movie of 2008 so far." For instance, in the New York Times, movie reviewer A.O. Scott called Iron Man "an unusually good superhero picture," while Roger Ebert wrote: "The world needs another comic book movie like it needs another Bush administration… [but] if we must have one more… ‘Iron Man' is a swell one to have." There has even been nascent Oscar buzz.

Robert Downey Jr. has been nearly universally praised for a winning performance as playboy-billionaire-merchant-of-death-genius-inventor Tony Stark, head of Stark Industries, a fictional version of Lockheed or Boeing. In the film, Stark travels to Afghanistan to showcase a new weapon of massive destruction to American military commanders occupying that country. On a Humvee journey through the Afghan backlands, his military convoy is caught up in a deadly ambush by al-Qaeda stand-ins, who capture him and promptly subject him to what Vice President Dick Cheney once dubbed "a dunk in the water," but used to be known as "the Water Torture." The object is to force him to build his Jericho weapons system, one of his "masterpieces of death," in their Tora Bora-like mountain cave complex.

As practically everyone in the world already knows, Stark instead builds a prototype metal super-suit and busts out of his cave of confinement, slaughtering his terrorist captors as he goes. Back in the U.S., a born-again Stark announces that his company needs to get out of the weapons game, claiming he has "more to offer the world than making things blow up." Yet, what he proceeds to build is, of course, a souped-up model of the suit he designed in the Afghan cave. Back inside it, as Iron Man, he then uses it to "blow up" bad guys in Afghanistan, taking on the role of a kind of (super-)human-rights vigilante. He even tangles with U.S. forces in the skies over that occupied land, but when the Air Force's sleek, ultra high-tech, F-22A Raptors try to shoot him down, he refrains from using his awesome powers of invention to blow them away. This isn't the only free pass doled out to the U.S. military in the film.

Just as America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to bring various Vietnam analogies to mind, Iron Man has its own Vietnam pedigree. Before Tony Stark landed in Afghanistan in 2008, he first lumbered forth in Vietnam in the 1960s. That was, of course, when he was still just the clunky hero of the comic book series on which the film is based. Marvel's metal man then battled that era's American enemies of choice: not al-Qaedan-style terrorists, but communists in Southeast Asia.

Versions of the stereotypical evil Asians of Iron Man's comic book world would appear almost unaltered on the big screen in 1978 in another movie punctuated by gunfire and explosions that also garnered great reviews. The Deer Hunter, an epic of loss and horror in Vietnam, eventually took home four Academy Awards, including Best Picture honors. Then, and since, however, the movie has been excoriated by antiwar critics for the way it turned history on its head in its use of reversed iconic images that seemingly placed all guilt for death and destruction in Vietnam on America's enemies.

Most famously, it appropriated a then-unforgettable Pulitzer prize-winning photo of Lt. Colonel Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnam's national police chief, executing an unarmed, bound prisoner during the Tet Offensive with a point blank pistol shot to the head. In the film, however, it was the evil enemy which made American prisoners do the same to themselves as they were forced to play Russian Roulette for the amusement of their sadistic Vietnamese captors (something that had no basis in reality).

The film Iron Man is replete with such reversals, starting with the obvious fact that, in Afghanistan, it is Americans who have imprisoned captured members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban (as well as untold innocents) in exceedingly grim conditions, not vice-versa. It is they who, like Tony Stark, have been subjected to the Bush administration's signature "harsh interrogation technique." While a few reviewers have offhandedly alluded to the eeriness of this screen choice, Iron Man has suffered no serious criticism for taking the imprisonment practices, and most infamous torture, of the Bush years and superimposing it onto America's favorite evil-doers. Nor have critics generally thought to point out that, while, in the film, the nefarious Obadiah Stane, Stark's right hand man, is a double-dealing arms dealer who is selling high-tech weapons systems to the terrorists in Afghanistan (and trying to kill Stark as well), two decades ago the U.S. government played just that role. For years, it sent advanced weapons systems -- including Stinger missiles, one of the most high-tech weapons of that moment -- to jihadis in Afghanistan so they could make war on one infidel superpower (the Soviet Union), before setting their sights on another (the United States). And while this took place way back in the 1980s, it shouldn't be too hard for film critics to recall – since it was lionized in last year's celebrated Tom Hanks' film Charlie Wilson's War.

In the cinematic Marvel Universe, however, the U.S. military, which runs the notorious prison at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, where so many have been imprisoned, abused, and, in some cases, have even died, receives a veritable get out of jail free card. And you don't need to look very closely to understand why -- or why the sleek U.S. aircraft in the film get a similar free pass from Iron Man, even when they attack him, or why terrorists and arms dealers take the fall for what the U.S. has done in the real world.

If they didn't, you can be sure that Iron Man wouldn't be involved in a blue-skies ballet with F-22A Raptors in the movie's signature scene and that the filmmakers would never have been able to shoot at Edwards Air Force base -- a prospect which could have all but grounded Iron Man, since, as director Jon Favreau put it, Edwards was "the best back lot you could ever have." Favreau, in fact, minced no words in his ardent praise for the way working with the Air Force gave him access to the "best stuff" and how filming on the base brought "a certain prestige to the film." Perhaps in exchange for the U.S. Air Force's collaboration, there was an additional small return favor: Iron Man's confidant, sidekick, and military liaison, Lt. Col. James "Rhodey" Rhodes -- another hero of the film -- is now an Air Force man, not the Marine he was in the comic.

With the box office numbers still pouring in and the announcement of sequels to come, the arrangement has obviously worked out well for Favreau, Marvel, Paramount -- and the U.S. Air Force. Before the movie was released, Master Sergeant Larry Belen, the superintendent of technical support for the Air Force Test Pilot School and one of many airmen who auditioned for a spot in the movie, outlined his motivation to aid the film: "I want people to walk away from this movie with a really good impression of the Air Force, like they got about the Navy seeing Top Gun."

Air Force captain Christian Hodge, the Defense Department's project officer for Iron Man, may have put it best, however, when he predicted that, once the film appeared, the "Air Force is going to come off looking like rock stars." Maybe the Air Force hasn't hit the Top Gun-style jackpot with Iron Man, but there can be no question that, in an American world in which war-fighting doesn't exactly have the glitz of yesteryear, Iron Man is certainly a military triumph. As Chuck Vinch noted in a review published in the Air Force Times, "The script… will surely have the flyboy brass back at the Pentagon trading high fives -- especially the scene in which Iron Man dogfights in the high clouds with two F-22 Raptors."

Coming on the heels of last year's military-aided mega-spectacular Transformers, the Pentagon is managing to keep a steady stream of pro-military blockbusters in front of young eyes during two dismally unsuccessful foreign occupations that grind on without end. In his Iron Man review, Roger Ebert called the pre-transformation Tony Stark, "the embodiment of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against in 1961 -- a financial superhero for whom war is good business, and whose business interests guarantee there will always be a market for war."

Here's the irony that Ebert missed: What the film Iron Man actually catches is the spirit of the successor "complex," which has leapt not only into the cinematic world of superheroes, but also into the civilian sphere of our world in a huge way. Today, almost everywhere you look, whether at the latest blockbuster on the big screen or what's on much smaller screens in your own home -- likely made by a defense contractor like Sony, Samsung, Panasonic or Toshiba -- you'll find the Pentagon or its corporate partners. In fact, from the companies that make your computer to those that produce your favorite soft drink, many of the products in your home are made by Defense Department contractors -- and, if you look carefully, you don't even need the glowing eyes of an advanced "cybernetic helmet," like Iron Man's, to see them.

Nick Turse is the associate editor and research director of Tomdispatch.com. He has written for the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Adbusters, the Nation, and regularly for Tomdispatch.com. His first book, The Complex, an exploration of the new military-corporate complex in America was recently published in the American Empire Project series by Metropolitan Books.

Copyright 2008 Nick Turse

Keating Five, McCain, and the Failure of Banking Regulation

Amid McCain's new status, old scandals stir
Critics wonder what he learned from Keating 5

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | February 28, 2008

WASHINGTON - As William K. Black watches John McCain move toward the Republican presidential nomination, he thinks of a day 21 years ago that he considers one of the most troubling of his life.

Black, a senior federal savings and loan regulator at the time, attended a meeting at which he felt McCain and four other senators pressured federal regulators to back off from investigating the troubled Lincoln Savings and Loan.

"I remain very upset that what they did caused such damage," said Black, now a professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, recalling how Lincoln's bankruptcy cost the government $3 billion. Moreover, he said he believes McCain intervened partly because his wife had invested money with Lincoln chairman Charles Keating, a campaign contributor who let the McCains use his home in the Bahamas.

The story of how the "Keating Five" senators allegedly pressured regulators to lay off a failing Arizona S&L became a major scandal, and marked a turning point in McCain's life - the near-death of his political career followed by his eventual rebirth as a crusader for campaign finance reform.

The events of 1987, when McCain met with regulators, and 1991, when the Senate Ethics Committee concluded that he used "poor judgment" in the matter, are only dimly remembered by many.

But McCain's emergence as the likely GOP nominee, combined with the rising volume of anti- lobbying rhetoric in the presidential campaign, has brought renewed attention to the Keating Five case, prompting questions about what McCain learned from it, what he's accepted was wrong, and whether he now is stepping back from some of his own scrutiny of his past errors.

McCain also has faced fresh criticism for pushing the Federal Communications Commission to make a decision in a 1999 case affecting another major campaign donor, Paxson Communications. Responding to recent coverage of that case, his campaign issued a statement last week saying the Arizona senator has "never done favors for special interests."

That declaration appeared at odds with McCain's previous acknowledgment that he made errors in the Keating Five case, which he called in his 2002 autobiography the "worst mistake of my life." The McCain campaign was asked repeatedly over a weeklong period to reconcile the two statements, but declined to respond to that or other questions related to the Keating episode.

McCain has also seemed to soften his earlier statements about being influenced by political donors and lobbyists. In 2000, McCain told the Globe: "People give money to buy access. We're all tainted by this system. . . . They have access, and therefore they have influence. It corrupts the system. And I'm a victim of it, too." But at a press conference on Feb. 21, McCain said: "The question is . . . do they have excess or unwarranted influence? And certainly no one ever has, in my conduct of my public life and conduct of my legislative agenda."

Black, however, maintains that the Keating case was a textbook example of politicians, McCain among them, serving a major donor. And Dennis DeConcini, a former Democratic senator from Arizona and another of the Keating Five who hosted the key meeting in his office, said in an interview that McCain has gotten a relatively "free ride" even though DeConcini insists that McCain was the "most culpable" of the senators because he had the closest relationship with Keating.

McCain met Keating in 1982, during McCain's successful run for Congress, and soon began accepting offers from Keating to fly McCain's family on a corporate plane to Keating's house in the Bahamas. McCain did not pay for most of the trips until years later, when the matter became public.

Keating, meanwhile, complained regularly to McCain that a proposed regulation would hurt his business. Known as the "direct investment" rule, it limited the amount that savings-and-loan institutions could invest from their assets. In 1985, after having "heard frequently from Charlie on the matter," McCain decided that Keating's complaints "were sound enough to warrant our assistance." He cosponsored a resolution sought by Keating, but it failed to postpone the regulation, McCain wrote in his autobiography.

By then, Keating was one of McCain's most important benefactors; McCain received $112,000 in campaign donations from Keating and his Lincoln associates, mostly between 1982 and 1986.

In the summer of 1986, while McCain was running for the Senate, the banking executive wrote him letters castigating the regulators. "The [bank board] is a mad dog turned loose in a police state," Keating wrote in one of them. Weeks later, McCain accepted another trip aboard Keating's jet to the Bahamas.

"I genuinely liked him and enjoyed being around him, especially on those occasions when Cindy and I and our oldest child, Meghan, were invited to his family's vacation home in the Bahamas," McCain wrote in his book. "I was never concerned that the time I spent enjoying Charlie's company would raise public doubts about my judgment."

With McCain having failed to postpone the regulation limiting investments by a savings and loan, Keating wanted him and other senators to get the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to grant Lincoln an exemption from the rule. McCain subsequently attended two meetings with regulators.

McCain said he felt he had a responsibility to a constituent whose company had 2,000 employees. Yet McCain had reason to be wary. His closeness to Keating had been an issue in his 1986 campaign, and aides urged him not to go to the meetings.

Four senators, including McCain, met with Edwin Gray, the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board in Washington that April in 1987. When Gray returned from the meeting, he told Black he was "very upset" that the senators were trying to pressure him, according to Black's Senate testimony. Gray told Black to attend a follow-up meeting and take notes. Gray could not be reached for comment.

A week later, five senators, including McCain, met with Black and three other regulators at DeConcini's office.

"I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper," McCain said, according to Black's notes. Then he launched into a complaint about how regulators were conducting an examination of Lincoln's finances. "It seems to me, from talking to many folks in Arizona, that there's a problem," McCain said, according to Black's notes.

Black later told the Senate Ethics Committee that the actions of the five senators were clearly "improper."

"This was an institution that is probably the worst institution in America," Black said, referring to Lincoln. Instead of trying to help "bring it under control, five US Senators were pushing us in the opposite direction."

McCain, in his autobiography, said he regrets staying at the meeting. He wrote that he should have left when one of the regulators said the meeting was "very unusual" and that he "really shouldn't have come back" after learning that the regulators were sending the matter to the Justice Department.

Months later, questions emerged about why McCain did not reimburse Keating for all the Bahamas vacations. McCain said he thought that his wife, Cindy, had written checks for a number of trips, but documentation could not be found for any except the 1986 trip. McCain agreed to pay $13,433.

In addition, the Arizona Republic reported that Cindy McCain and her father had invested $359,100 in a shopping mall for which Keating was the principal backer. When reporters questioned the investment, John McCain wrote in his autobiography, he "shouted at them, cursed them, and eventually slammed the phone down on them. It was ridiculously immature behavior."

The Senate Ethics Committee determined that McCain, along with then-Senator John Glenn of Ohio, "exercised poor judgment." The committee found that others had gone further, ruling that DeConcini and Senator Donald Riegle of Michigan "gave the appearance of being improper" and recommending Senator Alan Cranston of California for censure.

Robert Bennett, the committee counsel, has said the pronouncement against McCain was harsh and the result of "pure politics" by Democrats on the panel. Bennett now is working for McCain to help respond to questions about the senator's efforts in 1999 on behalf of Paxson Communications. Bennett did not respond to requests for comment.

In 2000, the Globe reported that McCain, in 1999, had pushed the FCC to act on Paxson's request for permission to buy a television station; in that case, McCain had received $20,000 in Paxson donations and flew aboard a Paxson jet. McCain's actions raised questions at the time about whether he had learned from his Keating experience. McCain stressed that he never suggested how the FCC should rule on the matter.

McCain has said he has learned the importance of avoiding the appearance of impropriety. He said in his autobiography he would not intervene with regulators or advocate "anything for any purpose that doesn't serve an obvious public interest." He eventually renounced the practice of flying on corporate jets, but has stood by his general support of deregulation of financial institutions.

During both his 2000 and 2008 campaigns, McCain has said on many occasions aboard his "Straight Talk Express" campaign bus that he learned from the Keating experience and that it turned him into a proponent of campaign finance reform. Nonetheless, on a recent campaign swing, he acknowledged he would be forever linked to the scandal. The Keating Five, he said, "will be on my tombstone."

source

Monday, May 19, 2008

Regarding the Aforesaid: Stephen Harper's Aid to Israel's Defense

Harper’s Extreme Posture No Way to Support Israel

By Haroon Siddiqui

12/05/08 "Toronto Star" -- 11/05/08 -- Stephen Harper equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

“Unfortunately, Israel at 60 remains a country under threat - threatened by those groups and regimes who deny to this day its right to exist,” he told a Toronto celebration marking the anniversary.

“And why? Look beyond the thinly veiled rationalizations: Because they hate Israel, just as they hate the Jewish people.”

Many groups and regimes, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, do deny Israel’s right to exist. But not all others do so solely for the reasons cited by Harper. Some hold back recognition as a negotiating tool in the Palestinian dispute.

The Prime Minister also told radio station CFRB: “My fear is what I see happening in some circles is anti-Israeli sentiment, really just as a thinly disguised veil for good old-fashioned anti-Semitism.” He added that he saw anti-Semitic sentiments during the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon among “some elements in our political system, even some Members of Parliament.”

On Friday, Bob Rae, Liberal foreign affairs critic, asked in the Commons as to which MPs the Prime Minister was referring.

Rae did not get an answer.

One wonders what Harper would make of those Israelis, as well as Jewish Canadians and others, who do strongly support Israel but also question some Israeli policies.

What would he say about the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians? This newly formed umbrella organization of 23 groups, critical of some Israeli policies, obviously does not “hate Israel,” or “hate the Jewish people.”

Harper’s position is designed to silence and delegitimize even the mildest criticism of Israeli policies.

It’s an undemocratic formulation that the Israelis themselves would reject. There’s a sturdy debate in Israel on all aspects of its policies in the Occupied Territories.

In Rae’s words, Harper is saying, “there’s a very close association between being anti-Israel and being anti-Semitic … I don’t think it’s fair to say that everybody who has or expresses concerns about Israeli foreign policy is anti-Semitic.

“If that were true, three-quarters of the population of Israel would be anti-Semitic.”

Harper’s comments came the same day as the Israeli ambassador to Canada, Alan Baker, told the Globe and Mail and later CTV News that growing Muslim communities in France, Britain and Scandinavia have had an impact on the foreign policies of those nations and that he “fears” the same in Canada.

The 2001 census put the number of Muslims at 580,000 and of Jewish Canadians at 330,000.

Baker: “Do you expect from these greater numbers that they will absorb themselves into Canadian society as Canadians or that they’ll try to push Canadians to adopt their own values and principles?”

What values? That they may exercise their democratic right to lobby their own government?

Baker also complained that he or other Israelis speaking on university campuses may face demonstrations or be prevented from speaking, as happened to Ehud Barak in 2004 at Concordia University.

First, that Montreal cancellation was much criticized. Second, Baker did not say when and where he was prevented from speaking.

There’s an ongoing debate in Canada over when freedom of speech crosses the line into hate. The argument gets played out in universities over Israel Apartheid Week. Despite pressure to cancel it, the universities of Toronto, York and Ryerson have opted for academic freedom but McMaster axed the event.

Baker singled out “a Muslim Member of Parliament,” Omar Alghabra, as having been “outspoken in his hostility toward Israel.” Later, he called Alghabra’s views “less than friendly,” without citing any statement by the MP.

“I’ve got nothing against the fact that Muslims are members of the Canadian Parliament. But it worries me that the type of political influence that we’re seeing in Britain, in France, might ultimately reach the Canadian political system.”

Baker seems to want what Harper wants: Pro-Israeli voices should be heard loud and clear, but those who might question this or that policy of Israel should be silenced.

This is not how Canada works.

All groups, regardless of their religion, race or ethnicity, are free to speak, and the government of Canada makes foreign policy decisions in the interest of all Canadians.

Canada is not Israel where Israeli Arabs are second-class citizens.

For all of Baker’s nervousness, our foreign policy has been pro-Israeli dating back to Paul Martin in 2004. Harper has just made it more so.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day have done well to call Baker’s comments inappropriate.

Carl Rosenberg of Vancouver, a regular reader of this column, was so angry with Baker that he emailed me the following:

“Canada’s policy on the Middle East should be debated on its own merits, without resorting to obnoxious statements about the demographics of one or another religious or ethnic community … I wonder what the response would be if an ambassador to Canada from any one of several Arab states were to express concern about the impact of Jewish Canadians on Canada’s Middle East policy?”

We’d tell them to mind their own business and not interfere in Canadian affairs.

Haroon Siddiqui writes for the Toronto Star.

© 2008 Toronto Star

Israel's Contemptible "Friends"

The contemptible foreign nincompoops and “businessmen” backing Israel

By Uri Avnery

18 May 2008

Uri Avnery looks at the contemptible foreign nincompoops – Angela Merkel, George Bush, John McCain's mentor John Hagee, among others – who grovel at Israel’s feet, and the disreputable “businessmen” who finance its politicians.

Lately, we [Israelis] are flooded with friends. The Great of the Earth, past and present, come here to flatter us, to fawn on us, to grovel at our feet.

"God, save me from my friends, my enemies I can deal with myself!" says an old prayer.

They disgust me.

Let’s take, for example, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Her pandering was free of any criticism and she reached new heights of obsequiousness in her speech to the Knesset. I was invited to attend. I relinquished the privilege.

I shall also pass the pleasure when I am invited to the session with the hyper-active Nicholas Sarkozy, who will try to break the flattery record of his German rival.

Before that we were visited by John McCain's mentor, the evangelical pastor John Hagee, the one who described the Catholic Church as a monster. Oozing sanctimonious flattery from every pore, he forbade us, in the name of (his) God, to give up even one inch of the Holy Land and commanded us to fight to the last drop of (our) blood.

However, not one of them has come close to George Bush. Approaching the end of the most disastrous presidency in the annals of the republic, he really forced a lighted match into the hand of our government, encouraging it to ignite the barrel of gunpowder between our feet.

But the list of present-day leaders who participate in the pandering competition pales in comparison with the long parade of has-beens who lay siege to our gates.

A world-wide swarm of has-beens is flying from place to place like bees, all for one and one for all. This week they alighted in Jerusalem, on the invitation of has-been No.1, Shimon Peres, a politician who in all the 84 years of his life has never won an election, and who was finally handed, out of sheer compassion, the largely meaningless title of President of Israel.

The common denominator of this group is that their prestige at home is close to nil, while their standing abroad is sky-high. Their mutual adoration compensates them for the lack of respect in their own countries.

One of the senior members of this club is Tony Blair, who has been pushed from power in his own country but is not content to enjoy his pension and raise roses. As a consolation prize he has been granted the pleasure of playing around with our conflict. Every few weeks he convenes a press conference to present the good tidings of his phenomenal success in ameliorating the lot of the Palestinians, while the actual situation in the occupied territories goes from bad to worse. Our security establishment treats him like a bore who has to be thrown a crumb from time to time to keep him happy.

In the conference that took place this week there were also some good people, but the scene was stolen by the has-beens, from the retired war criminal Henry Kissinger to the dethroned peace hero Mikhail Gorbachev (whom I still consider a hero for preventing bloodshed during the collapse of the Soviet empire.) Pity to see him in this company.

All the participants in this orgy heaped mountains of fawning adulation on Israel. Not one of them had a word of criticism. No occupation. No settlements. No Gaza blockade. No daily killings. Just a wonderful, peace-loving state that the bad, bad terrorists want to throw into the sea.

Not one of the guests stood up to warn us against going on with the present policy. Not one of them stood up to proclaim the truth: that the continuation of this policy may lead our state to disaster.

He who has friends like these has no need for enemies. A person who sees his friend playing Russian roulette and offers him bullets – is he a real friend? One who sees his friend standing on the brink of an abyss and tells him "go ahead" – is he a friend?

Among the fraternity of flatterers, the ones that attracted the most attention were the Jewish billionaires from America (who also paid for the extravaganza).

Several of them were summoned to police headquarters immediately on arrival to give evidence on the affair that is rocking Israel now – the corruption investigation of Ehud Olmert.

A smell of corruption has accompanied Olmert right from his beginnings in politics, 45 years ago. But this time, the smell is overpowering. The police has made it known that the American-Jewish billionaire Moshe Morris Talansky has been supplying him with cash-filled envelopes for years.

Where have we seen this before? Of course, in American movies and TV-series. Somebody opens a suitcase stuffed with bundles of banknotes. The donor invariably belongs to the Mafia, and the recipient is generally a corrupt politician. Can it be that Olmert has never seen these films – he of all people, who started his career with demagogic speeches denouncing "organized crime"?

But it is not Olmert who interests me in this affair so much as Talansky.

He belongs to a species of "Israel-loving" billionaires, most of them resident in the US, but also in Canada and Switzerland, Austria and Australia and other places.

They are all Israeli patriots. They are all philanthropists. All contribute millions to Israeli politicians. And almost all of them support our extreme right.

What makes them run? What induces these billionaires to do what they are doing?

A research in depth discovers that a great many of them made their money in dark corners. Some are gambling barons, casino-owners with all the inevitable connections with violence, crime and exploitation. One at least made his fortunes from brothels. Another was involved in a scandal involving old people's homes. Yet another is a scion of a family who made their money bootlegging during prohibition days. Some are arms merchants of the most despicable kind, selling weapons to the political gangs which sow death and destruction in Africa.

But money, as is well known, does not smell.

Most of the multi-millionaires of this kind feel that they are not receiving the honour due to them. Their co-billionaires, high society people, treat them with disdain. A person reaching this position is not satisfied with money alone. He craves honour. Such honour can be bought in Israel, on the cheap.

Israel is selling honour of all kinds, no questions asked. For a suitable donation, even a gambling-hell owner will be received by the prime minister, dine with the president, put his name on a university building.

(Once I wrote a light-hearted piece about the Third Temple, may God build it soon, Amen: the Rosenstein Holy of Holiest, the Rosenzweig altar, the Rosenberg cherubim, etc.)

Just after the 1967 war, during the great days of our generals, a new fashion spread among the best Jewish billionaires: to keep an Israeli general, in order to present him to friends as a pet. Some generals found no fault in this. It was owed to them, after all.

One billionaire kept Ezer Weizman, the air force hero (who had to resign from the presidency when it came out). Two billionaires adopted Ariel Sharon and set him up in the largest farm in the country. Shimon Peres was no general (and not even a soldier), but at least three billionaires took him under their golden wings.

No billionaire ever lost money by keeping an Israeli general, supporting an Israeli politician or making a generous donation to an Israeli cause. Ego is ego, patriotism is patriotism, but business is business.

That's where the corruption set in. A person who donates millions to a politician in Israel (or, for that matter, the US, or Italy or any other place on the globe) knows full well that he will get it back with interest. When the politician becomes a minister, or prime minister, or president, the supporter has hit the jackpot.

In politics there is no innocent donation. One way or another, the donor will reap his reward – many times over. That's true in the US, that's true in Italy, that's true in Israel, too. If the donor declares to the police that he has no business interests in Israel, all it means is that they must dig deeper.

The Olmert affair confirms anew what we have known for a long time: the fuel Israeli politics runs on is not just money, but money from abroad. To win primaries and campaign in elections, a candidate needs millions, and these almost always come from foreign donors.

Foreign billionaires financed Olmert in the party primaries, and they financed him in the general elections, in which he was assured of becoming prime minister. After being elected, he started Lebanon War II, with all its death and destruction. It can be said that American Jewish billionaires killed the soldiers and civilians, Israeli and Lebanese, who lost their lives in the war.

In his speech to the Jerusalem conference, Shimon Peres lauded Israeli chutzpa. What we need is more chutzpa, he said. That sounded fetching and naughty, but was pure poppycock.

I want to speak about another chutzpa. Not metaphorical, but real. Simple chutzpa. The chutzpa of billionaires in New York and Geneva and all the other places who interfere in our elections and determine the fate of our nation. The chutzpa of donating for a war in which not their sons, but ours, are killed. The chutzpa of sending billions for the establishment of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, and especially in Jerusalem, which are put there for the express purpose of preventing peace and imposing on us a permanent war, a war that threatens our future – not theirs.

Let's be clear: I am not criticizing well-meaning donors, who feel a moral need to contribute to a hospital wing or a university building in Israel. I appreciate people who send a few hundred dollars to a political cause close to their heart. I object to foreign billionaires who aspire to dictate the direction of our state.

Perhaps in other countries, too, politicians receive donations from foreign sources. But it is generally a marginal phenomenon. Here it is a major factor.

That is one of the ill effects of the definition of Israel as a "Jewish State". Because of this, these donors do not look like what they are – impertinent foreigners who interfere in our lives and corrupt our state – but like "warmhearted Jews" who support a state that belongs to them as well.

Gideon Levy has recently written an article in which he begged them to "leave us alone". Being a less refined person than he, I shall say this in a ruder way: Go home and take your money with you. We are not for sale. Stop trying to manage our life (and death)!




Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.

Towering Riches

You and your puny salary
You think a $100K salary is a lot? $500K? Please. The truly wealthy scoff at your paltry breadcrumbs
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, May 9, 2008

Then it came to pass that I stumbled across this story from Forbes magazine, which is officially called "Forbes" but is actually called "Forbes oh my God we worship ruthless CEOs like shiny meth in the summertime," and among the glittering ads for luxury intergalactic travel and sleek private jets and $50K Rolexes and big phallic yachts and surreal 20-page ad inserts for Abu Dhabi megadevelopments, there was an article about the new home being built in Mumbai right now for Mukesh Ambani, the fifth wealthiest man in the world.

Behold, you and your puny little life and your minuscule little salary and tiny little human skeleton are mere scraps, crumbs, dust mites on a dog when compared to this giant petrochemical stud. Forbes estimates Ambani's net worth at about $43 billion, below Bill Gates and Warren Buffett but above God and Shiva and most of the major planetary constellations, and his wealth is almost enough to power the entire Iraq war for a month. So you know it's a lot.

Of course it's all from petrochemicals. Of course it's all in Mumbai. Of course you've never heard of him or his company, Reliance Industries, because it's one of those nefarious megapower supercorporations that block out all life and own entire governments and hold presidents in their pockets and yank the levers that make the world spin and tilt and groan. Therefore plebes like us know as much about its true weight and influence as an army ant knows about a whirlpool galaxy.

Here's what you need to know about Ambani's new home: It is no home at all. It is actually a tower, 27 stories high, ultramodern gleaming glass and steel and completely unprecedented weirdness.

Oh yes, and here's the other thing: It is the world's first billion-dollar personal residence. Actually, $2 billion. Imagine the fanciest, most ridiculously overpampered, seriously egomaniacal hotel you can possibly think of, and dip it in solid gold. Then sprinkle it with diamonds and Bugatti Veyrons and the fine, tender pelts of a million baby seals. That's the parking garage.

Bill Gates' cute little 66,000 square-foot spread in Seattle? Oprah's lavishly bloviated $43 million palace in Montecito? Larry Ellison's $300 million orgy of land in Woodside and Malibu? Pshaw! Child's play. Barely enough to pay for the unicorn-skin hand towels stacked in the bathrooms of Ambani's shiny little stick in the ground.

Two billion dollars. This is not "money is no object." This is "money is the only object," so ostentatious and obscene it quickly flies past arrogance and absurdity and becomes this fascinating case study, a bizarre artifact of extreme capitalism, otherworldly and strange, like some sort of giant bioluminescent octopus that dominates the ocean floor and swallows sperm whales whole and tries to scare all the other little fishies but is still just, you know, a big ugly cephalopod.

So you stare at these photos and read the article's details and you start getting dizzy from the sheer scale of it all, from the lack of perspective and coherence and reality, as you realize just one of the sofas on just one of the floors of Ambani's tower costs what you make in an entire year, and your head begins to spin and the nausea begins to swell until you close the damnable magazine and slam yourself back to the reality, shaking and mumbling, yes, well, but is there anything at all resembling happiness there?

It's the thing you have to ask, lest you go just a little insane: Really, isn't a life like Ambani's just a bit silly, a glittery charade, full of backslapping and sly business deals and giant inheritances, and do you really want that? Really? Here is your billion dollars to spend on your new home. Fun! For about a week. Then it's all, OK, so I can line my nine pools in solid Venetian marble and own 40,000 plasma TVs and have one entire floor dedicated to my taxidermied giraffe collection. Yawn.

It all makes delightful contrast to the recent, awkwardly titillating article in this very newspaper that revealed the annual salaries of various Bay Area workers, from the head of the University of California school system ($591K) to the San Francisco police chief ($250K) to all those surprisingly well-paid firefighters (well over $200K), on down to the guy who runs the city's pothole-filling crew (over $100K and absolutely worth every penny because oh my God, potholes), and on back up to one of the pitchers for the Giants, Barry Zito, who rakes in a cool $14 million per season because, well, he's a pro athlete. They're supposed to be caricatures of real humans.

So, you get to compare and contrast. You get to look up and down and sidelong, from Ambani to the local police lieutenant to your local barista and then down at your own paycheck, or trust fund, or stock portfolio, or complete lack thereof, and wonder how you fit in and what it all means, and with any luck you quickly realize the futility and the danger of measuring yourself in this way because, well, what then? Do you measure your success, your life against Ambani? Against the guy who administers the San Francisco Health Department? The average American? Or how about the average citizen of India, Ambani's homeland?

Because here is the bottom line, same as it ever was: No matter what you do in life and no matter where you go and how much you make and how many harems of strippers you can afford to have standing by, there's always someone who makes and does and lives far more exotically and expensively and ridiculously than you. I mean, obviously.

And at the same time, if you're reading this column right now with your $5 latte and your clean running water and functioning limbs and intact teeth, you can rest assured that there are roughly 3 billion people on the planet who subsist on about a dollar a month who see you just about exactly as you see Ambani. Which is to say: pampered and wealthy in the extreme.

And then you realize, of course, that money is no measure of anything that truly matters, really. It's merely another form of energy, a nice expression of ego, either all-consuming and destructive or capable of tremendous joy and good. Often, it's both.

And while dumping $2 billion on a single home is certainly a curious and perhaps slightly sad ethical choice — despite how it is, of course, the ultimate expression of capitalist ego — to me, tattooing a dollar sign anywhere on your life pretty much guarantees you a life lived on Macbethian terms: a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and diamond-crusted toilet seats, signifying nothing.




Mark Morford's
Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SFGate and in the Datebook section of the San Francisco Chronicle. To get on the e-mail list for this column, please click here and remove one article of clothing.

Mark's column also has an RSS feed and an archive of past columns, which includes another small photo of Mark potentially sufficient for you to recognize him in the street and give him gifts. He also has a raw Facebook page, but has little idea why.

http://sfgate.com/
cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/05/09/notes050908.DTL



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/
article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/05/09/notes050908.DTL&type=printable

Gorilla Radio with Chris Cook - Hal Sisson, Aida Mashari, J9 May 19, 2008


GR 04-54 CFUV 101.9 104.3 Cable 'cfuv.uvic.ca'
Monday May 19, 2008

5:00:00 3:00 Welcome to GR, etc. Happy Victoria Day Victoria! Yes, today is that one day set aside each year to honour our fair city's namesake, the late Queen Victoria, Empress of India, Protector of the Faith, etc. As befitting an imperial fete, the hoi polloi lined the streets of the city to pay homage to convoys of Chamber of Commerce-approved floats, while being berated by representatives of the newer empire, phalanxes of American high school marching bands, their blaring, brassy marshal tunes a reminder of just why I hate a parade. Just why these American kids come up here yearly to pay homage to a dead monarch, the epitome of all their young republic fought to overthrow, however remains a bit of a mystery, like so much about our cousins south. Those paragons of truth, justice, and the American way have it seems, in these last years, lost their way. Nearly seven years after the fateful 9/11 attacks, the charade first floated by the Bush administration to explain the infamy of that day persists, few yet daring to question the absurdity of the Emperor's squirrely tale. Hal Sisson is a Victoria-based author and member of the city's 9/11 Truth Movement. He's a former newspaper reporter, lawyer, and author of numerous books, including: 'The Big Bamboozle,' 'Caverns of the Cross,' and 'Modus Operandi 9/11,' a fictional accounting of some of the strange facts on the ground surrounding the crime of the century ignored by investigators and the media. Hal Sisson's latest book is, 'Potshots,' an examination of that other great charade, the so-called 'War on Drugs.' Hal Sisson in the first half.

And; tagging along with the brass bands parading with military precision along the city's thoroughfare were too representatives of Canada Out of Afghanistan, a grassroots movement of Canadians opposing the nation's involvement in the war against, and occupation of, that benighted land. Aida Mashari is one of those opposed, and she joins us in the second half.

And; Janine Bandcroft will be here at the bottom of the hour to bring us up to speed with all that's good to do in and around Victoira in the coming week. But first, Hal Sisson and taking Potshots at official fictions and perfidious public policy.

5:03:00 22:00 Discussion w/ Hal Sisson

"Welcome back to the show, Hal. Prime Minister Stephen Harper boiled down to a single line the reason, for those citizens too dense to support it, for Canada's continued military entanglement in Afghanistan to this: 9/11. From this, all else he admits follows. Hal, you and Victoria's 9/11 Truth have drafted another challenge to the official narrative on this; what's it about?"

5:25:00 1:00 Cart(s)
5:26:00 8:00 Janine Bandcroft
5:34:00 3:00 Music
5:37:00 22:00 Discussion w/ Aida Mashari

Welcome back to GR, etc. Tagging along with the brass bands parading with military precision along the city's thoroughfare were too representatives of Canada Out of Afghanistan, a grassroots movement of Canadians opposing the nation's involvement in the war against and occupation of that benighted land. Aida Mashari is one of those opposed and she joins us now.

"Welcome to the program, Aida. How was the parade?"

5:59:00 1:00 Thanks to Hal Sisson, Aida Mashari, J9; upcoming.
6:00:00 --:-- -0-


Hal Sisson, the author of The Big Bamboozle; Caverns of the Cross; Coots, Codgers and Curmudgeons; A Fat Lot of Good; Garage Sale of the Mind, Maquiladora Mayhem; You Should Live So Long, Sorry 'Bout That, A Fowler View of Life, and Modus Operandi 9/11 lives with his wife Doreen in Victoria, BC, Canada.

9/11 Truth is the single most important issue in all our lives right now - as Canadians, as North Americans, and as a citizens of this planet. Used as a pretext for the genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, this event is also a turning point and a catalyst for the bigger plan to implement an elitist one world government - including the destruction of civil rights and liberties through anti-terrorism laws, no-fly lists, and the ever increasing militarization of the police force. The coming introduction of RFID based biometric driver's licenses and passports will in effect create a papers please society where you are tracked at all times. These actions and others represent an incremental slide into a police state. All of these changes are based on the lies of 9/11. As long as we do not deal directly with this lie, we will continually be forced to play a part in all its subsequent crimes, and pay the ultimate price of our freedom because of willful ignorance or moral cowardice. Those rights and freedoms we enjoy were paid for in sacrifice by courageous individuals in our past - if we truly value those blessings we will honour their memory and make it our duty to see they are not lost to our own descendants. As part of a growing network of Canadian movements seeking the truth about the events surrounding 9/11, you are welcome to join us in our quest for truth and justice.
VICTORIA , BC, May 21, 2007 - An anti-war group performing street theatre was an unofficial addition to the Victoria Day Parade in downtown Victoria today. Three “prisoners”, dressed in orange jumpsuits and black hoods, were handcuffed and chained together. The “prisoners”, who were accompanied by a “soldier” wearing army fatigues, marched in the parade until they were detained by police. The street theatre was organized by Victoria’s Canada Out of Afghanistan Campaign.
As thousands in Victoria gathered to celebrate a statutory Canadian holiday marking Queen Victoria’s birthday, the street theatre was a stark reminder of Canada’s controversial Afghanistan mission. Canada’s military is presently accused of having violated Geneva Convention protocols in Afghanistan by giving local security forces captured Taliban suspects, several of whom have declared they were tortured. NATO forces arbitrarily detain suspected “terrorists” in compounds that include Bagram (Afghanistan), Abu Ghraib (Iraq), Millhaven Penitentiary (Ontario) and the infamous Guantanamo. Many people gathered to watch the parade clapped in support of the anti-war group as it was forced to exit by the Victoria police, yelling "Let them speak. Leave them in the parade. Leave them alone." . The street theatre was took place in front of Victoria's mayor, Chief of Police and other municipal officials sitting in front of Centennial Square. A flyer distributed to hundreds of bystanders explained the growing opposition across the nation to Canada’s military operations in Afghanistan.
“The human rights abuses inflicted on so-called ‘terrorists’ in afghan prisons is just the tip of the iceberg of this shameful mission”, stated Tamara Herman, an organizer with the Canada Out of Afghanistan Campaign's and a 'prisoner' in the street theatre performance. “A skyrocketing civilian death toll, rape and sexual harassment at the hands of foreign troops, a corrupt regime, and the health hazards associated with depleted uranium munitions are other reasons to oppose the Afghanistan mission. This is a war for oil and power. We are not there to liberate anyone. And as usual, the world’s poorest people are the casualties”. For information, interviews or to view additional photos go to: www.canadaoutofafghanistan.ca or email outofafghanistan@yahoo.ca.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Uranium Alert: Crow Butte Expansion Plans Slowed

NRC says mine opponents’ contentions merit attention

http://www.thechadronnews.com/
articles/2008/05/14/chadron/headlines/news969.txt



By GEORGE LEDBETTER, Record Editor Wednesday, May 14, 2008


Plans for expansion of the Crow Butte uranium mine to a 2,100 acre near the cemetery north of Crawford will face additional scrutiny by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the result of a ruling released April 29.


After considering issues raised at a January hearing in Chadron, a three member panel of NRC administrative law judges concluded that concerns about potential contamination of groundwater supplies and threats to human health raised by opponents of the mine expansion deserved further consideration and oral arguments.


The panel also agreed to hear additional arguments on the opponent’s objection to issuing a permit for uranium mining to a foreign owned corporation. Mine owner and operator Cameco Corp., is a Canadian company and the world’s largest uranium producer.


As part of the ruling, the judges said that the Western Nebraska Resources Coalition and Owe Aku/Bring Back the Way, a non-profit Lakota cultural group from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, have legal ‘standing’ to challenge the issuing of permits for the mine. The other participants in the January hearing, Tom Cook of Chadron, Debra White Plume of Pine Ridge, and the Slim Butte Agricultural Cooperative, were dropped from the administrative hearing process, but the board agreed to consider participation by the Oglala Sioux Tribe.


The Crow Butte mine, which has been in operation since 1991, uses an ‘in situ’ process of pumping a solution of bicarbonate into the underground sandstone layer of ore, then recovering the dissolved uranium. It produces about 800,000 pounds of uranium ‘yellowcake.’ each year. The material is sent to Canada and used for power generation.


The expansion is expected to produce 500,000 to 600,000 pounds of yellowcake annually, with active mining continuing for 11 years. The ore body to be mined is 400 to 800 feet below the surface and water for the mining process would come from the shallow Chadron aquifer.


One of the opponents main objections to the plan is the possibility that underground faults and fractures could allow mine process water to coontaminate the deeper High Plains or Brule aquifers, which are extensively used for irrigation and human consumption.


A letter from the Department of Environmental Quality to Cameco, submitted in evidence at the January hearing, backs up that concern, and, although submitted late, should be allowed in the hearing because it was not made readily available to the opponents, the NRC judges ruled. That document faulted some of the geological information used by Cameco in its application to the state for an aquifer exemption for the expansion project. In portions of its NRC license application “a lack of relevant knowledge about faults and fractures that might allow for the mixing of the water is different aquifers is essentially acknowledged,” the board wrote.


The issue of foreign ownership may be significant because of a provision of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act which provides that the processing of nuclear material must be regulated in the national interest and to provide for the common defense and security, the NRC panel said. While some other regulations appear to prohibit licensing of foreign corporations for source material processing, the matter is unclear, it said.


In total only three of the six arguments advanced against the mine expansion were judged admissible by the NRC panel. Additional hearings and conferences to rule on those issues have yet to be scheduled, and a final decision on the project could take several months.


According to a report in the Omaha World Herald, Cameco has recently announced its intention to seek two more mine expansions near Crawford. One would be south of Fort Robinson State Park and the other northeast of Marsland, the paper reported.