Buried in a trench, blinded, his legs severely injured, Khadr threw a grenade?

Keeping in mind that lawyers manipulate evidence all the time, this latest news from Omar Khadr's ongoing non-trial is nevertheless fascinating.

For those who do not know the details, Khadr has been held in Guantanamo since 2002, charged with the murder of a US medic killed during a firefight in Afghanistan. The medic was killed by a grenade, the killer not seen.

Khadr was fifteen at the time. He was injured, and nearly killed by gunshot wounds. The story has been that he was shot while in a kneeling position. Another story is that different soldiers shot him while he was standing with a gun in his hand.

The actual conflict had gone on for hours. The compound had been subjected to sustained attack from the ground and air prior to the final sweep which lead to the medic's death.

The story with photographs, until now suppressed by a military judge, is that Khadr was found (and photographed) buried under a collapsed a roof. (See the photos.)

(Photos from The Toronto Star)

Khadr was so covered in debris, that a soldier didn't realize he was standing on him. Just previous, another soldier had entered the compound and shot an adult insurgent in the head who was moving and near an AK-47. That insurgent was beside Khadr. As you can see in photo 1, that insurgent is not covered by debris.

Given the type of debris covering Khadr, which includes rocks and earth, and his serious wounds, it does not appear that Khadr could have buried himself. When uncovered, as shown in the second photo, Khadr clearly has the gunshot wounds to his chest.

With Omar still buried in debris from the bombing, there seems to be no way for his to have thrown the grenade. It also remains unclear to me how he could be buried in debris, but still get shot in the chest or back, unless fired upon from above while in a prone position.

Child soldiers should not be prosecuted, let alone tortured, as is alleged here. Indeed, one of his first interrogators was Joshua Claus, who later pleaded guilty to charges of prisoner abuse and lying to the subsequent investigation.

I hate running trials before they have started, so I won't pronounce this one over; but as the Khadr case drags on, it is clear that things are not so simple as we have been led to believe.

Tired of investment uncertainty? Buy CSBs, and lose right away!

At 0.4 per cent return, Canada Savings Bonds are offering Canadians a secure opportunity to immediately lose money without any risk!

With core inflation at 1.6 per cent, this is a money-losing opportunity you can't miss!

Invest now!

Where Mike Harris tries to take credit for America's 1990s economic boom

I woke up in an alternate reality where Mike Harris got an op-ed in The Toronto Star. Typical of Harris, he tries to claim his actions while in office saved Ontario, while ignoring wider trends at the time.

Facing an economic wall, we moved quickly in 1995 to reduce the size and cost of government. It needed to be done. At the same time, we reduced taxes to stimulate private sector job creation and investment. It worked.

We balanced the budget on schedule and created more than 750,000 new private sector jobs in four years. That growth and prosperity lifted thousands of Ontarians from the despair of welfare into meaningful work and created the tax revenue for investments in both health and education.

Actually, Ontario rode the economic boom in America that coincided with Harris assuming power. It was as simple as that.

Despite that, most of our wages have gone nowhere, while the upper echelons have enjoyed increased income.

There's no mention in his piece of selling a highway to balance the budget, or of the eventual structural deficit that developed under his government, or of the lack of preparedness and resources for crisis like Walkerton and SARS. Sure, the debt came under Eves even as they lied about it, but it was Harris' model of government that did it.

"To benefit from history, we first have to understand it" says Harris. Indeed.

And Harris is no historian.

The Harper Government Counter Hits 9550

Martha Hall Findlay's ethics complaint is a cornucopia of examples of Harper's merging of his party's brand with the government.

Perhaps I'll write more on that later. But what caught my eye was a clever use of Google's ability to search within a domain, in this case, the GC.CA domain. That's our (non-partisan) government.

The phrase of choice? "The Harper Government"

The counts in the complaint:

Oct 6: 8990
Oct 16: 9350

So, I did one for today (Oct 27): 9550

That's an average increase of over 26 incidences per day.

I think I'll keep an eye on this.

Look at Harper's new homosexual-hating speech writer

Nigel Hannaford is the new hire, formerly of The Calgary Herald. His words, on homosexual rights:

"Fine, said lots of people. Leave gays alone? Fair enough. But, let 'em be Boy Scout leaders? Have each other's benefits? Adopt kids? Marry each other? Ridiculous. Anybody seeking political office who suggested it would have been laughed off the hustings. Yet, the Liberals are ready to legalize gay marriage. How did we get to this point?"

Not that this makes him a poor speech writer. Still, look at who Harper surrounds himself with.

xtra has more.

Please fire Margaret Wente

I suppose autumn is the season for straw men. The Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente certainly provides enough of them.

Not making progress on the global warming policy front? Well, says Wente, it's the fault of unnamed 'apocalyptic scientists' driving the public away. And global warming isn't happening anymore, anyway, apparently.

Apparently, it's not the fault of the lack of political leadership in Canada.

It's not the fault of astroturf organizations pumping out 'experts' and false analysis to discredit the fine and ongoing global warming research.

Apparently, it's not the fault of misleading newspaper columnists.

False information like the "global temperatures are falling since 1998" skeptic BS or Wente's mathematically-impaired variant "...average global temperatures plateaued in 1998, and haven't gone up since" haven't helped.

Are global temperatures supposed to go up more every year? Nope. Straw man. 1998 was a very hot year, maybe not quite yet repeated. But, NASA says that 2005 was slightly hotter than 1998. Not all agree it was -- which is fine. Actually, the five hottest days on record since 1890 have all been in the past 11 years. Regardless, Global warming causing climate change is about change over decades, not a few years.

So, late as I almost am, for Blog Action Day for Climate Change I suggest the following: Fire Margaret Wente.

And, read this: Ice cores show CO2 is by far at the highest concentration in our atmosphere over the past 400,000 years. And climbing.

And, Margaret, it is scary to see. How can it not be when so much is at stake?

WholeGovScam: Different MPs using same BigFatCheques

If Conservative MPs have been operating independently issuing big fat cheques with partisan messaging, as Harper's office pleaded yesterday, why are so many for different MPs using the same design with the same messaging?

From ChequesandBalances' photostream, here are some samples of the same cheque design, all from different Conservative MPs, including some ministers. The cheques feature a common slogan, Conservative colour, and the MPs name.

Who pays for the printing of the big fat cheques? The Conservative Party or taxpayers? No matter what the answer is, there is an ethical issue. If the party pays, then they're lifting credit off of our dime. If taxpayers pay, it's free partisan messaging. Again.

Curiously, this issue may be getting more mileage than the other overtly partisan, and far more expensive, abuses we've learned of recently. I think that's because there are visuals here, and they speak explicitly of money. Hearing about millions spent on partisan ads is not the same as an MP handing over a big fat cheque of our money as if it were his own.

Myself, I wouldn't care much about the cheques. After all, whenever you have an MP in public, you will have partisanship. But bundle this with tens of millions in partisan advertising spent with our dime, public funds being dolled out disproportionately to Conservative ridings, coerced PCO bureaucrats screaming partisanship, and you have a systemic problem which needs addressing.

Throw the bums out.

And if the next government doesn't get it, throw them out too.

And so on. Until someone gets it right.

Oh, and look, Harper signed a cheque too:

Yes, that's Stephen Harper's signature.

(h/t Impolitical)

WholeGovScam: Big Fat Cheques

Well, our Conservative MPs certainly are milking the handouts. We've got big fat cheques with Conservative logos, cheques which appear to be personally from the MP, and ones with Conservative slogans.

Oh, I know... "But... the Liberals..."

Well, I don't know if they ever did this,and I don't care. They aren't the government. I, for one, don't put up with shenanigans from anyone. Keeping throwing the bums out until someone does it right, I say.

Keep in mind, we the taxpayers may very well be paying for these promotional items Not much money, but the principle is there...

The photographic evidence.

First, David Miller, MP, who seems to have a huge wallet.

Peter Van Loan, MP, likes his slogans:

Then there's Colin Mayes, MP:

Oh, there's more.

Impolitical has more context, and reports on the PMO's official response.


You know, if this is what we can so easily see, what's under the hood?

The ultimate SLAPP: Stalin sues for libel

I kid you not.

The Russian newspaper Navayagazeta published an article criticizing the Soviet tyrant Joseph Stalin. 

GASP!

It was then sued for libel by Stalin's grandson.

Fortunately, after a trial the judge ruled that the article was truthful.

After. A. Trial.

In Canada, you cannot libel someone who is dead. After all, they no longer are in need of their reputation, are they?

Apparantly, Russia... not so up to date.


This libel lawsuit in just part of an attempt to rehabilitate Stalin's position in Russian history. I've vaguely heard of this. National pride seems to be driving it, mixed in with years of Soviet propaganda blaming foreign powers for Stalin's purges.

Ridiculous as it seems, this is just an exaggerated example of how libel law can be abused to harass truth-tellers, and how it can be used to political ends. Canada is not immune to this. Not long ago, Harper sued the Liberal party of Canada for republishing on its website the contents of Hansard wrt the Cadman affair. The lawsuit was settled after the last election. The rumoured deal: The Liberal Party would no longer raise the issue.

That's right: Canadian Libel law was used to silence the Official Opposition.

The whole matter is decently described over at Wikipedia.

I have some theories concerning Harper's role in the Cadman affair, and an analysis of his conduct when he filed his failed libel suit against the Liberals.

Finally, I have some ideas comparing aspects of Stalin's tactics to Harper's iron grip.

However, despite being fair comment, I think I'll have to wait until Harper passes away.

My pockets just aren't that deep.

Often what they don't want is what we need

So the outspoken Garth Turner has resigned his quest for candidancy will not be running for the Liberals.

He cites the country's fiscal mess, and the reluctance of both Harper and Iggy to have a real discussion about it. Both leaders claim they won't raise taxes, and both won't name any program cuts.

This doesn't seem credible. as Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page pointed out last February (pdf):

The current economic slowdown is global. As such, there are many external influences
beyond the control of Canadian policymakers that will impact Canadian economic growth
and fiscal finances. Further, PBO analysis suggests that for the Government to return to a
surplus position over the next five years is predicated in part on the Government
undertaking contractionary measures (i.e., additional spending restraint and/or increased
taxes) which would dampen the effectiveness of automatic fiscal stabilizers while the
economy remains well below its potential capacity.

We are shortly going to hear officially just how huge our deficit is. A portion of it may very well be structural.

And the big plan from our leaders? Steady as she goes, there's nothing to look at here...

Turner wants a frank discussion about this. He doubts -- correctly I say -- that economic growth will cure our deficit.

Look, the Liberals can't have someone like Turner around insisting we have a real discussion. Every word Turner would speak concerning our real choices here will have Harper's people demanding Iggy decide upon more taxes or spending cuts. Meanwhile, Harper would continue running around claiming neither are necessary. The liar.


So, outspoken Mr. Turner is not welcome.

Our last election featured Harper claiming everything was rosy, even as his government was madly borrowing and trading T-Bills to banks in exchange for mortgages. He gave interviews claiming all was well, and that there would be no deficits.

Our next election will feature more of the same. "Don't worry, everything is getting better. Now, please, dear electorate, go back to sleep."

We need MPs telling it like it is, Sadly, these days, MPs are more and more under the whip to be quiet and tow the line.

We need more MPs like Turner. Oh, Yes, I know of his weaknesses, but he's no sycophant.

Let me be clear

Repetitive rhetorical phrases work.

And it's better that you own your phrases rather than letting someone else define them for you.

"Do you think it's easy setting priorities?" -- LOL.

Muslim Canadian Congress wants government to legislate religious practice?

The Muslim Canadian Congress is calling on government to ban the burka and the niqab.

This really can be parsed as a group insisting that the government make other Muslims follow an aspect of their interpretation of Islam. Though the Congress insists Islam does not call for the practice, obviously others think differently.

The state has no place is doing this. Also, the Charter doesn't allow it from several angles (s2, s15).What a minefield if it did. Are we to decide what is and what isn't a legitimate part of a religion? If government starts telling people what they can't wear in private belief, will they not also start telling us what we must?


Unfortunately, the Congress asking for this this is going to be used by racists in a number of ways: They will charge that Muslim support the state repressing natural rights, such as the right to belief and act according to that belief. Muslims who speak out in favour of covering women's faces will be derided as un-Canadian, subject to the negative framing argument "Do we really want these extremists here?"

Finally, the Congress using public safety and security as a justification for banning them only fuels the racist fires that people following those customs are extremists who are a threat to this country. The Congress' intent here does not matter.

It is not illegal to wear a disguise, it is illegal to wear one while committing or planning a criminal offense. This distinction is most fortunate, given that Halloween is approaching.


As an atheist and as a supporter of equality rights, I have always found offense with the intent behind the burka and the niqab; however the state has no place legislating them out of existence.

I support the Muslim Canadian Congress' want to end this practice.

I would hope that the Congress instead would expend these efforts on getting government to better support social services designed to help women living in repressive circumstances to extricate themselves.

The Congress supported and extensively campaigned against Sharia law not being applied in family law tribunals in Ontario. They were right to do so. Racists made much of those tribunals, negatively framing them as "Muslims taking over." They will make much of this request as well.

I am interested in hearing from supporters of this demand.

Legal insurance to come to Ontario?

Oh, please. Yes, do it: link.

There's nothing worse in court than being right and not having the money to prove it.

Looks like $500 a year could get you $100,000 of coverage, including playing your opponent's legal costs if you lose.

Hope it gets approved.

One hitch: Doesn't cover family law issues.

Liberals collaborate with separatists to try to take the government down!

LOL. Just saying. With times being what they are, why not make the spurious accusation before someone else does?

So Harper survived the confidence vote. No surprise. I'm sure the Liberals are relieved.

The NDP saved the day by abstaining. Well, there's a page out of Dion's handbook.

What's the real spin out of this? "The NDP did not stand opposed to Harper's climate change policies"?

Oh, Liberal Denis Coderre skipped the vote. The sour grapes continue? Ironically, I'm sure the fading Liberal fortunes in Quebec helped the Bloc vote with the Liberals.

I hope we have an election soon and I hope there's a majority, even if its Harper. This minority goverment crap is making mincemeat out of our institutions (yes, I know Harper will), and a four year hiatus from this ongoing partisan insanity would give some parties time to reflect and rebuild.