World War III: A picture

Member and observer countries of Non-Aligned Movement plus Russia are in blue.

Exactly two years ago, I started this blog with a post about A Stateless War in which I discussed an upcoming conflict of “The military industrial complex against the anonymous cloud, with an ignorant populace as the prize.” That conflict is largely behind us: few in the world are as ignorant as they were two years ago, and we are beyond the point where information alone can correct the social and political disasters we see around us.

Based on our current still entirely alterable trajectory, by the end of 2012 it will be very apparent to all that we are in a new war, this time involving states. World War III will do as a name, or we can call it the Military States against the Resource States. Of course that sounds like something we’ve been in for decades; the difference is it is starting to look a lot more two sided.

Since the Cold War, the world has been socially controlled by methods which may have been lifted from Hollywood high school movies. The US state cables showed us a world in which the United States largely controls all international forums and debates with a mixture of threats and bribes and a circle of allies who do not dare risk expulsion from the inner circle by disagreement. The inner circle has largely echoed the previous imperial world, with IMF loans replacing direct occupation, but potential membership is held out as an incentive to others as well. Countries such as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) are invited to the bigger parties, and given trade deals, military sales and social protection in exchange for their support of the inner circle. The BRICS countries then wield their own social power in similar fashion in their own regions.

As in all Hollywood movies, stability for the inner circle ends when the bullying gets out of hand. When social ostracization becomes so extreme it threatens actual survival, as it does for Cuba, Palestine, Iran, Somalia, North Korea and others, when no negotiation short of complete obliteration of self is acceptable, the entire social structure is threatened, more so as more members are outcast. The world has watched as Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and many others have been inhumanely tormented with no possibility of reprieve or negotiation and no defence from any stronger nation. If extreme bullying such as that detailed in the Palestine Papers is combined with any sudden unexpected weakness in the bully or strength in the bullied, the result is predictable and instant.

And so it has been.

The weaknesses in the US and other NATO countries have been very well researched and documented in recent years, but except for the obvious economic collapse they have not received widespread discussion. Here are some other points that will become key very soon.

1. The US does not actually control their own military or intelligence and the private corporations that do, do not operate from patriotic loyalty and are available to the highest bidder. They do not work if they are not paid. Many are not even citizens of the US. Not just the people, at the highest ranks, but even the military hard assets are frequently privately owned.

2. US trade relies heavily on intellectual property and increasingly draconian laws to protect and increase the value of that property. Intellectual property is a concept, not a good, and it does not exist if trade partners do not acknowledge it. Even loan interest typically comes with a contract and some trust which will be lost if the contract is broken; there is nothing to be lost by people who refuse to pay for intellectual property. For years the industry has tried to make the case that if intellectual property were not copyrighted and patented, creative activity would halt, but the open source and pirate movements have proven the opposite to be true. Since it is very rarely the creators who control the intellectual property rights to their own work, or have the resources to fight infringement, the moral argument that creativity ought to be compensated by IP laws is also very weak. This leaves the G20 countries, US particularly, with no protection other than force and increasingly controversial extraditions to claim income from intellectual property. In a time of war, this would be a very precarious basis for trade, particularly since the US is the sole beneficiary of the extreme laws today and the rest of the G20 would benefit from a relaxation of IP law.

All of the statistics on this site are very interesting. Here are a few:

74% of exports– or $1 trillion– are driven by American IP-intensive industries. (Global Intellectual Property Center: “IP Creates Jobs for America,” NDP Consulting, May 2012.)

Among the 27 tradable industries, only six industries reported trade surpluses—five of which were IP-intensive industries, generating an average $14.6 billion in trade surplus each year. (“The Impact of Innovation and the Role of Intellectual Property Rights on U.S. Productivity, Competitiveness, Jobs, Wages and Exports,” NDP Consulting, 2010)

G20 economies have lost 2.5 million jobs to counterfeiting and piracy. (Frontier Economics, Estimating the Global Economic and Social Impacts of Counterfeiting and Piracy, February 2011.)

India and Pakistan both made the “Top Ten Source Countries” this year due to seizures of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical seizures accounted for 86% of the value of IPR seizures from India and 85% of the value of IPR seizures from Pakistan. (Customs and Border Protection, Intellectual Property Rights – Seizure Statistics: Fiscal Year 2011)

3. As the world’s most capitalist economy, the US has arguably the least societal support in the event of a collapse. Years of competitive and unhealthy consumerism, in which consumers are divorced from production, in the world’s most addicted and most incarcerated population create a societal helplessness not seen in most places. All of the G20 countries have favoured corporations over people to the extent that surviving in a collapsed economy is difficult to impossible without rewriting many property ownership and usage laws.

NATO countries are in green.

The Acronyms and Isolation

As in the prelude to the past world wars, many economic and defence treaties have been negotiated over the years to protect US dominance in each region. A favoured bullying tactic has been to exclude countries from these international clubs to cripple their economies and ability to defend themselves. There has been increasing activity to combat this practise.

The United Nations and all of its arms have served to protect the inner circle on a global level. In 1961 the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was formed to represent countries not aligned with either the US or the USSR. In the Havana Declaration of 1979, Fidel Castro identified the purpose of the organization to ensure “the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries” in their “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics”.

The 120 member countries of the Non-Aligned Movement represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations’s members and contain 55% of the world population before adding the 21 other observer countries. The Summit last week in Tehran included representatives from 130-150 countries, shown in the map at the top of this article. (There are only approximately 192 countries in the world.) Attendance at the highest level included 27 presidents, 2 kings and emirs, 7 prime ministers, 9 vice presidents, 2 parliament spokesmen and 5 special envoys as well as the Secretary-General of the UN. Resolutions included condemnation of the blockade of Cuba and the Paraguay coup, support to Argentina regarding the Malvinas, known in the UK as the Falklands, support to Ecuador over the UK’s threats to its embassy, calls for transformation of the United Nations, calls for the US to stop its illegal drone attacks in Pakistan, calls for disarmament and much more. The reaction in the NATO countries was to ignore the Summit except when deriding its relevance, but it is hardly possible to seriously deny the relevance of a gathering of over 7000 people from the top levels of approximately 150 countries creating a final resolution which included over 700 clauses on world policy. If these countries were all to leave the UN, or begin to vote as a bloc at the UN, there would be a split between NAM countries and NATO countries.

There are many lesser alliances that have worked to enable US and NATO domination in past decades. One of the oldest alliances, created in 1948 out of previous pan-American alliances formed since 1826, is the Organization of American States. This is the organization the US used to create an embargo on Cuba in 1962, an embargo refused only by Canada (who was not a member till 1990) and Mexico. In 2013 there will be 41 member states in the OAS. In 2004 the Cuba-Venezuela Agreement was signed and it proposed an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The alternative coming out of the Cuba-Venezuela Agreement is known as ALBA and now includes eight (soon to be eleven) countries. In 2008, the 12 member Unasur agreement, which includes a defence treaty, was signed, and in 2011 CELAC was created. CELAC members include all members of the OAS except the US and Canada.

In 1947 the Rio Treaty (TIAR) was signed for ‘hemispheric defense’ and was later invoked by the US against Cuba. During the Malvinas (Falklands) war, the US sided with the UK, and during the Iraq war only four countries joined the US. Mexico and Canada are not members, all members of ALBA withdrew in June of 2012, and the treaty is now largely ignored in favour of the Unasur defence agreement.

These new organizations come amid objections to the US and Canada preventing any resolutions from going through at the OAS. These two countries have repeatedly blocked resolutions agreed to by all of the rest of the 35, such as inclusion of Cuba, new solutions to the drug war and solidarity with Argentina over the Malvinas/Falklands. The OAS is a consensus based organization, so it can and has been run, in the words of Venezuela’s Chavez, as a ‘dictatorship’ by those who refuse to negotiate, the two NATO countries.

In August of 2012, an emergency meeting of the OAS was called to decide whether to hold a second meeting to discuss a resolution on the embassy dispute between Ecuador and the UK. The US and Canada (and Trinidad & Tobago) argued against a subsequent meeting and were overruled this time by a vote. After a weekend of hurried meetings of ALBA, Unasur, and others, the OAS meeting in Washington DC was held and also put to a vote. The US delivered a sullen agreement and Canada a more petulant refusal, but in a population of 33 the one consensus breaking vote was irrelevant. While media in NATO countries concentrated on the resolution itself, calling it largely ineffective, the resolution was not the point. The two countries which had ruled the 35 country bloc with their vetos were this time made irrelevant. The message in both the vote and the rhetoric was clear; if the OAS is to survive in any form and not be replaced by CELAC, the NATO countries will no longer be permitted to simply block resolutions.

The two countries which excluded Cuba from the OAS have become, as a direct result of an organization started by Fidel Castro, the two that are now themselves excluded. The countries that have lobbied for sanctions against Iran have been ignored by the 120 members and 21 observers of the NAM which have selected Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the current chairperson. In 2015 the chair will be handed over to Venezuela, another arch-enemy of the US as the organization continues to define itself along lines set out by Fidel Castro in 1979. Ecuador, a member of ALBA, Unasur, CELAC and NAM as well as many other alliances, has already threatened sanctions against the UK over the Malvinas/Falklands.

The NATO countries are suddenly in very real peril of having sanctions imposed against themselves. How real is the threat of solidarity among NAM members? Within days of the summit, Canada had closed the Iranian embassy in Canada and Netanyahu was berating Obama over not delivering stronger ultimatums to Iran. Iran does not think that is a coincidence.

NATO Partnerships

Does the 1% need the 99%?

It is very evident that in terms of population and resources the side I will call the NAM countries are in a superior position. It is equally evident that in terms of military, the NATO countries are vastly superior; NATO countries control over 70% of the world’s military spending. So while resource trade embargos could quickly plummet NATO countries into what they would probably consider dystopia, or a state resembling that of the global south, NATO countries could also use their military to wipe out populations in the NAM countries, using unmanned and even autonomous drones, and they could create embargos by blocking trade between NAM countries.

What is the loyalty between the NATO countries? How many will stand together in the face of embargos? In the case of the intelligence, defense science and technology sharing countries, particularly the countries known as the five eyes, their governments’ loyalty to each other has been shown to be similar to that of a gang or a cult. What they know of each other is probably enough to ensure allegiance unless their governments are completely taken over by new people and trials started for crimes against humanity and war crimes. More importantly, their corporate ties are far too strong to break. At the moment they are too invested in protecting each other for a split.

Japan’s spat with China coming at this time may put them firmly on the five eyes’ side. Or not. Japan rejected bilateral or regional agreements for many years and has far less explicit ties than most countries. As the third or fourth largest economy, they may also be able to afford independence. And their biggest trading partner is still China. Trade relationships are handy to help us make predictions, although they are by no means the whole story, potential trade relationships may be an even bigger influencer at this point as many countries try to back away from troubled economies.

The key then becomes whether individual NATO countries feel it is easier to back a new BRICS led empire, or back the existing US empire, since none of the core NATO countries is strong enough to build a new empire on its own and their corporate powers will not back a real democracy. At this moment, none have shown any inclination to prefer a BRICS led NAM alliance, but the EU members may be far too preoccupied with matters at home to involve themselves in global issues, on either side. Many NATO partners will choose individually as they have conflicting agreements, while some like Israel are easy to predict.

The corporations control the money and therefore the military and the NATO countries. The people provide labour for the corporations, including the military. There are far more people than the corporations and the few who control them actually need for labour, but the world in general is facing an imminent shortage of young people to care for their aging populations. Whether care for aging populations will be a priority remains to be seen. Automated warfare has made it much harder for people to regain control of their own military. The general populaton would have to track the few people who control the corporations, the governments and the military and regain control by removing control from those who hold it currently.

What is the power of the people over the corporations? On the NATO side, very little to none. On the NAM side, that is possibly the most interesting place to watch, which countries, if any, will attempt co-operative governance which benefits people ahead of corporations, and whether that will break the NAM alliance in two or even completely disintegrate it into many civil wars. Or even possibly work in some countries, and if some countries do implement governance by the people, will it look again like communism, with a corrupt central core and a corrupt military required to stop the capitalist imperialists from invading, or will there be a new model? If there is a new model, how will it stop the corporate invasion?

The NAM countries are hardly a unified bloc either. While they are largely all against NATO dominance, most of them (particularly BRICS countries) want a ‘multi-polar’ world, or a world with multiple tyrants including themselves. Outside of BRICS, the smaller countries want a place for the elite of every country. There is no real political representation of control by the people which has any power at this moment. How can governance by the people gain control in this conflict?

Who will win? At this point, it hardly matters. If NATO wins it is status quo, if some form of NAM wins it will quickly become the new NATO, using the threat of the old NATO to justify its own imperialism. This is the pattern we have seen in every revolution since the beginning of society, sometimes appearing instantly, sometimes edging forward in a few decades.

How can we create real governance by the people out of this conflict?

The word crisis is derived from a word meaning ‘turning point’. For all the crises we think the world has been through, there is very rarely a turn. Indeed, history can appear more like an inexorably straight path with predictable periodic bumps. The tools to effect a real change are available now, but real change would require a real direction and goals. Without these, this revolution will end as all the others eventually have, with new tyrants.

The latest crisis will disrupt every corner of the world. By the end of 2015 we will have either a new system or new tyrants. For us to create real change from this, there needs to be a working venue, an uncensorable place to communicate both locally in person and globally online. There needs to be a new system of collaboration that will be stronger than the systems of governance we have had so far. We need a system that can react quickly and powerfully enough, with enough knowledge and expertise, to allow collaboration on a massive scale and still provide enough autonomy for local governance.

I will be writing a lot about both the communication and the collaboration soon, starting here.

2011-01-03 US Dep’t of State Internet Freedom Programs

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) are looking for organizations interested in submitting proposals for projects that support what the document terms ‘internet freedom’. Specifically, they have US$30 million for

projects that will foster freedom of expression and the free flow of information on the Internet and other connection technologies in East Asia, including China and Burma; the Near East, including Iran; Southeast Asia; the South Caucasus; Eurasia, including Russia; Central Asia; Latin America, including Cuba and Venezuela; and Africa. Programming may support activities in Farsi, Chinese, Russian, Burmese, Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic, French, and other languages spoken in acutely hostile Internet environments.

 

The State Department’s previous attempts at promoting ‘internet freedom’ met with a lack of success, according to Foreign Policy because “By aligning themselves with Internet companies and organizations, Clinton’s digital diplomats have convinced their enemies abroad that Internet freedom is another Trojan horse for American imperialism.” The statement from the link above: “DRL and NEA support programs … in countries and regions of the world that are geo-strategically important to the United States.” may have helped convince their enemies. They will have the opportunity to disprove that idea when all of the following technology is turned in all other directions, as history shows it will be. Always assuming any of the new projects work better than, for instance, Haystack.

Counter-censorship Technology: … to get around firewalls and filters in acutely hostile Internet environments.

Building the Technology Capacity of Digital Activists and Civil Society in Hostile Internet Environments in the Near East: Training on and access to communication platforms to share electronic information securely; training for activists, bloggers, citizen journalists, and civil society organizations to allow them to safely and anonymously participate in online forums; and promotion of peer-to-peer data sharing between mobile devices.

Virtual Open Internet Centers: … identify and archive censored content and creatively reintroduce content and counter-censorship tools into those online environments. … Competitive proposals will include centers focused on two or more of the following languages: Farsi, Chinese, Arabic, Vietnamese, Russian, Spanish, and Burmese, in addition to languages of other countries with hostile Internet environments.

Emergency funding: Establishment of an emergency fund for netizens under threat because of their web-based activism. …

Internet Public Policy: Support for projects focused on media law reform in countries where changing legal and regulatory frameworks for the Internet have the potential to create acutely hostile Internet environments. …

From Foreign Policy:

“The Internet is far too valuable to become an agent of Washington’s digital diplomats. The idea that the U.S. government can advance the cause of Internet freedom by loudly affirming its commitment to it — especially when it hypocritically attempts to shut down projects like WikiLeaks — is delusional. The best way to promote the goals behind the Internet Freedom Agenda may be not to have an agenda at all.

Get Healthy Get Strong, Get Educated and Informed

And start contributing to your own governance. If you want a democratic society, that is. I try not to get too preachy here, but the western population has been programmed towards a certain end, and if we are going to change the world, we need to at least be aware of this. The things we have been taught and fed for decades were part of a system meant to create an uneducated, ignorant, distracted populace. The military industrial complex has been with us for a long time and they have thought about these things. In order to fight them, we have to stop playing their games.

Get healthy: There is a very real reason why people are being fed food, pharmaceuticals, and environmental hazards that destroy their health. It is impossible to concentrate on the world’s problems when you are suffering from any of the myriad autoimmune and other diseases everyone seems afflicted with. And it is impossible to think clearly through the brain fog and personality disorders being triggered by all the pollutants we are fed. The subsequent foggy thinking and miserable angry feeling are then fed by substandard education systems and violence in all media until we have a population that greets the Collateral Murder video with open youtube arms and sets it to music. When people start bouncing and singing to a video of civilians and children being slaughtered, we have a problem. When the reaction to an organization that tries to give people information and make them think, is that someone should send a drone after the organization, we have a problem. Anyone that tries to correct the unhealthiness of the population is greeted by a media storm of ‘promoting eating disorders’, ‘always rely on trusted medical personnel, not the internet, etc.’. Some people have a big interest in keeping you from taking charge of your own health.

Get strong: When you have no home and nothing to eat, when you are terrified of medical bills and surrounded by violent crime, it is hard to care about the greater good for humanity. Civilized societies have well defined morals. Attributes such as bravery, kindness, generosity and concern for others are valued. In these days when everyone can see the abyss in front of them, it seems more prudent to scramble over each other for our own security. Elite schools stress the three A’s, arts, academics and athletics, and concentrate on building a superior human for the upper ranks. Character is almost never taught any more, even though it seems obvious to wonder what benefit to society is a superior human who has never been taught to use their advantages for the overall good. When society has enough, and the people feel secure that they will continue to have enough, maybe we will stop seeing preschool mothers shoving their children to the front of the line and college fathers bribing officials. We can hope. The problem is not usually the amount we possess, but rather the widespread fear that we may lose it or that others have more. This disease is fed every day in the media

Get educated: It is hard to judge the world without context. Any education is better than no education, and it should continue all of our lives. The clogging of western brains with poor health choices has been accompanied for decades with an anti-intellectual movement that has grown to such proportions that the US could seriously elect Sarah Palin for president simply because she doesn’t sound “elite”. Education is not bad any more than physical fitness is bad. Being programmed by video games and state/industrial propaganda is easy, but it’s not fun, it tends to make us restless, angry and discontent, while feeding the self-perception that the population is not as competent to govern themselves as the educated. Education brings excitement, pride and a kind of peace.

Get informed: I truly believe that nobody is seriously interested in the ‘news’ plastered over the media now. I believe this not just from wishful thinking and projecting my own opinions onto others, but from the comments (facebook groups, etc.) that constantly say they are sick of hearing about these people. There has been a growing revulsion for the topics of today’s media which gets worse every year. It is unfortunately usually displaced into hatred for the subject instead of the media. A new media would allow us to walk away, to step into a new world where we do not have to hear about haircuts and what people we don’t care about look like with no makeup on. We could look for real information that is relevant to what we need to know and have a right to know. And we would wake up every day interested in the news again.

Then of course, we are ready for the last one: start contributing to our own governance.

The Intelligence Mafia

What is the difference between a terrorist and a soldier? The actions are now identical, both act to produce terror, so probably the only standing difference is that terrorists are non-government agencies. Remember that.

The US intelligence infrastructure is not just huge, it is colossal, a parallel society living among us (yes, us, wherever you live). That has been amply illustrated by the investigative journalism project Top Secret America. According to their research, there are 1200 government agencies, more than 3,666 private companies, 17,000 locations, and 854,000 people in the US that have Top Secret security clearance. Top Secret. None of the cables released by Wikileaks this week are Top Secret. Can you even imagine the amount of data here? This is what the US calls “information dominance” and a “global surveillance system”.  Almost all IT and communication companies in the US are a part of the network, and they reach across the globe.

In 2007, 70% of all intelligence budgets were spent on private contractors. That was 3 years ago, and we don’t know how that has changed because all intelligence budgets are classified, but the trend since then has been a definite shift towards more private contractors. Obama likes to use the terms “american intelligence” and “american military” to play games with the truth (see “american troops pull out of Iraq”). If they are private contractors, they aren’t american intelligence, right? And there are other much more important reasons for private contractors, they are allowed to make huge donations to political parties from their billion tax dollar contracts.

Like the military contractors, the private companies also are not bound by government procedure, their contracts are classified so most of the government has no idea what they are doing, and they are private companies who do not have to disclose information to the public. They also have a classified bid system that makes corruption between private companies and politicians particularly easy. Again, like military contractors, they are not being used in secondary roles, they are used in training and in developing and operating all the high tech industries. They are paid with huge amounts of tax money, and in turn, are in a position to drastically influence governmental policies.

“Not only were private contractors involved in the extreme interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, they have taken over the training of military interrogators at the U.S. Army’s Intelligence Center in Fort Huachuca, Arizona. And in hotspots around the world, private contractors are taking the place of government operatives. In Pakistan, for example, three-quarters of the officers posted at the Islamabad CIA station since 9/11 have been private contractors. In the Baghdad CIA station, contractors have sometimes outnumbered government employees and have taken supervisory positions overseeing what CIA agents do every day.”

Not frightened yet? Well, leave it to Xe (Ze evil Blackwater dudes).  By yet another name, they are Total Intelligence Solutions, which is a private intelligence contractor headed by the former head of CIA counterterrorism who ran the extraordinary rendition program for Bush. This private company, staffed by ex members of all branches of US government intelligence, has been aggressively marketing to Fortune 1000 companies. They state that they can bring CIA type services to the corporate boardroom. Former CIA agent contacts and classified knowledge is being put on the open market internationally. This is from a company that runs a completely parallel intelligence and military to the US government and is headed by a man who said “Blackwater is a private company. There is a key word there. Private.” For those who only care about the US, yes they can contract to other countries.

There are only two possible explanations for a sovereign nation to bankrupt its own citizens and its government in order to set up a huge international surveillance and military system, “the finest fighting force the world has ever seen” that they do not actually own or control. One, everyone is completely insane, or two, it has not been a sovereign nation for a long time. Now is the time to remember the definition of a terrorist.

They Act With Impunity Now

The US president orders the assassination of a US citizen without a trial. The Canadian prime minister signs Canada up for another three plus years of war, after explicit promises not to, and says he does not have to ask parliament. The Swedish justice system, in full view of the eyes of the world, railroads a private foreign citizen through a kangaroo court with no due process. What on earth is going on, you may ask, if you haven’t been paying attention.

Why are the world’s leading democracies looking so indistinguishable from fascist states? Because we didn’t listen all those years ago when US president Eisenhower told us about the military industrial complex. In 1961 he said, “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists … We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Apparently, we weren’t up to the task. Benito Mussolini said, “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power”. Yes. When the state is forcing it’s citizenry like cattle through radiation and violations of their personal and human rights and dignity and fining them if they refuse, all to award billions to a military industry, we are there. When the armies we once loved and respected have turned into an international gang of marauding mercenaries and professional killers, we are there. When trade has nothing to do with what people need or want and all to do with what industry can force on a populace for a profit, we are there. Unpredictable and ever changing legal systems, police that fight the people and guard the criminals, media that advertise the lies instead of the truth, food, shelter, safety, communication, and even sex controlled by industry, military and government, we are there. Look around and say hello to the worldwide corporate fascist government.

The next time you look at a trial and think, oh, that isn’t right, I’ll sign a postcard, the next time you watch a country fight each other about which of two identical dictators will be terrorizing them for the next four years or so, as if the choice was a choice at all, the next time you wonder why everything in the entertainment industry is mindless porn and violence and where did all the intelligent, beautiful  art go, remember. The world is being run by the mafia. In the immortal words of George Carlin, they don’t care about you.

But they don’t have to. Get healthy, get strong, get educated and informed, and start contributing to your own governance. The point of fascism is the few are controlling the many. That only works until the many wake up. I wish George could have been here to see it.

New Orwellian Dictionary (NOD)

This is not a regular blog post. This is a dictionary to be used to understand the new Doubletalk. I will update it whenever I have time. Suggestions welcomed. Read the comments!

active theatres: Places being bombed.

aggressive interrogation methods: Torture.

airport security: Gate rape.

alien unprivileged enemy belligerent: A person who is not a US citizen.

al Qaeda: Adjective used to turn any career into a war crime, ie. taxi-driver = al Qaeda courier, journalist = al Qaeda propagandist, child = al Qaeda royalty. Former term: communist.

American defense: American Empire.

American interests: World assets, comprising natural resources and industries.

assets: Informants and traitors.

axis of evil: Countries that are going to be hard to conquer, but are first on the list.

axis of hate and terror: Countries the US hates and is terrified of.

backscatter or body imaging x-ray machines: Pornoscope.

behavior detection officers: Stalkers.

biased: Critical of the US.

beyond the axis of evil: Countries that are really annoying and will be bombed when the US has a minute.

cannot store, export, print or transmit images: Able to store, export, print or transmit images.

causing terrorism, pandemic diseases and nuclear proliferation: Releasing state department cables.

checkpoint: Black hole where no human rights exist.

child porn: An excuse to invade / occupy / control the internet.

choose not to have the right of choice: Negotiate with Israel.

CIA: Great job, travel the world, meet interesting people, kill them …

coalition of the willing: Coalition of the billing.

collateral damage: Dead people not from the US.

communist: Obsolete. See al Qaeda.

counterterrorism: Terrorism.

detained in his absence: Media smeared without talking to him.

diplomacy in action: Secret government deals, once they are no longer secret.

diplomatic: Military.

diplomatic brief: Must contain credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers, frequent-flyer account numbers, iris scans, fingerprints and DNA, current technical specifications, physical layout and planned upgrades to telecommunications infrastructure and information systems, networks and technologies used by top officials and their support staff, as well as details on private networks used for official comunication, to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys and virtual private network versions used. Necessary to discuss policy.

direct action: Killing people.

drugs: An excuse to invade / occupy / control American countries.

engagement

endanger the peace process: (1) Publish the truth. (2) Prosecute war crimes.

endanger the troops: Publish the truth.

enhanced coercive interrogation technique: Torture.

enhanced patdown: Pre-flight fondling and groping, drinks not included.

escalation of force: Immediate death with no warning.

exigent circumstances: Excuse to seize private property without a warrant or reason – used in harass and detain.

expeditionary warfare: Empire expansion.

extrajudicial: Illegal.

extrajudicial assassination: Murder.

extraordinary rendition: Abduction, usually followed by torture.

extreme psychological stress: Torture.

find, fix and finish: Murder.

foreign nationals: Bad guys.

freedom: Free dumb. Also ‘just another word for nothing left to lose’.

harass and detain: Appropriate response to people the government does not like but has no legal case against.

highly trained security agent: High school dropout.

homeland security: Reason for starting wars in Africa and the middle east.

honour the troops: Keep fighting.

hostiles: People not from the US.

housing bubble: A system designed by banks and governments where people would borrow ever increasing amounts for their homes until they could afford no more, at which point the people would be evicted from their homes and the government would pay the banks money from the people’s taxes instead. A very good joke since the banks did not actually have the money they loaned anyway.

inflection point: Points at which wars are announced as ending/having ended after it becomes apparent that they did not.

information terrorism: Free speech.

instability: What would happen if people stopped having bombs dropped on their heads.

intermediate milestones: Points at which wars are announced as ending/having ended after it becomes apparent that they did not.

innocent civilians: Informants and traitors.

innocent lives: Lives of people from the US. Also informants and traitors.

insurgents: People not from the US. Also, boy over 9 years old.

internet provocateur: ‘Whistleblower website’ after pentagon renaming initiative.

iris scans, fingerprints and DNA: Necessary for diplomatic communication.

joint priority effects list: Hit List.

justice: Just is.

land of the free: Country with the highest documented incarceration rate in the world.

lasting peace and security: Occupation.

laws of war: The US, which does not obey any of the laws of war created by international organizations and international law, has created their ownlaws of war. The US laws are to be obeyed only by people who are not from the US.

leader of the free world: Head of an international network of prisons and torture camps.

lexicologist/lexicographer: Us!

looking forward: Refusing to prosecute illegal behaviour because it was in the past (Obama). Explains a lot about preventive detainment.

maybe: No. (Swedish)

medic: US commando if they are killed in battle.

mercs: Sometimes used to describe people from the US, sometimes a short form of mercenary army. Interchangeable for most of the world.

message force multipliers: Generals delivering the propaganda news.

military analyst: Generals delivering the propaganda news.

mission: War.

molestation: Not returning phone calls. (Swedish)

murder in violation of the law of war: Killing a professional killer from the US.

national human intelligence collection directive: Spying directives for diplomats.

national security: An excuse to invade / occupy / control the US. (US)

no: No. (Swedish)

not a journalist: We can kill them.

not a US citizen: We can kill them.

one of the very core powers of the president as commander in chief: Murdering US citizens without a trial.

our on-going diplomatic activity: Wars.

our troops: Blackwater.

our way of life: World domination.

outposts of tyranny: Countries being tyrannized by the US.

piracy: An excuse to invade / occupy / control personal communication.

played a crucial role in global counter-terrorism efforts: fought on the same side as the US.

post-combat: Combat.

power vacuum: What is created when the US is not in power. Leads to instability.

preventive detainment: Kidnapping and holding someone without trial, for something they may do in the future. See looking forward.

prosecution to include discovery practice: Torture.

rape: have one night stands with two people in the same week.

reasonable expectation of privacy: In the US, if you do not expect privacy, you are not entitled to it, ie. no reasonable person expects privacy in a US airport, so it is no longer a right.

reassess our posture towards them next year: Response to use of child soldiers by allies.

rogue nations: Sovereign countries that disobey the president of the US.

saving lives: Killing people.

search and seizure: random theft of goods by authorities, protected against by the US constitution unless you fly.

security contractors: Professional criminals.

serious organized crime: One man with a broken condom.

sexual fraud: This may need to be criminalized if people persist in having sex. (Swedish)

sick, un-American espionage efforts: Journalism.

special difficulties safeguarding their sexual integrity: We have no flipping idea. (Swedish)

special methods of questioning: Torture.

silence: No. (Swedish)

single most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks: Torture.

stabilizing: Occupying.

Stipulation of Fact: Fictional work prepared by US military and signed by torture victims.

stress position: Torture.

student loans: Indentured servitude.

support the troops: Increase military spending.

sustained diplomacy: Occupation.

Sweden: A complex and interesting society.

targeted counter-terrorism missions: Wars.

terrorism: An excuse to invade / occupy / control Middle Eastern countries.

That’s rape in Sweden: That’s what she said.

themes and messages: Propaganda

thing that has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war: Death.

threats to our way of life: Countries fighting back.

time for reflection, not retribution: Time when CIA ought to be prosecuted for torture, etc.

tools necessary to protect the American people: Torture.

tools needed to continue to fight the war on terror and bring these evil people to justice: Torture.

training mission: War.

treason: The act of helping an enemy of the US, by anyone, including foreign enemies of the US.

truth: Terrorism.

un-American: Rogue Swedish Australians.

unknown unknowns: Excuse for war.

unlawful coercion: Leaving your backpack at someone’s house for days, with their permission. (Swedish)

unreliable: countries which let the law stop them from killing / torturing / abducting people.

war crime: It is ok for US soldiers to kill children, but it is a war crime for children to kill US soldiers.

Xe: Ze Evil Blackwater Dudes

yes (verbal): No. (Swedish)

yes (written): Possible unlawful coercion. (Swedish)

Special Addendum

We feel for government officials who have to keep making this stuff up. And we appreciate that we are just making their lives harder. So here is a new section where we can assist them in coming up with an endless supply of doublespeak. If you find any here that have actually been used already, let me know and I will move it.

Torture:

rigorous physical auditing processes
protracted interrogatory nervous impulse management
full-body-active information mining.
contact diplomacy
full contact volition bypass measures
high yield human resource utilization practices.
total proximity intensive information retrieval mechanism
thorough personal force escalation policy
lively tactile unilateral cooperation exercise
dynamic invasive cognitive control strategies

Orwellian Circus: Khadr’s Trial

Omar Khadr was taken as a child from his home in Canada to fight the NATO invaders in Afghanistan. When he was 15, he was caught in a battle with US forces. He lost his vision in one eye, was shot in the back twice, and was confined in US torture camps from the time he was 15 until he was 24, without a trial, and without access to a lawyer for years. Despite years of UN protests that he should be rehabilitated as a child soldier, not tried, he was brought before seven US officers in a military trial for committing “murder in violation of the law of war.” Yes, that’s right, seven officers in the US military. Who haven’t obeyed any of the rules of war since we have been watching.

The “murder”, a 15 year old boy throwing a grenade in a battle at a professional killer and invader, is one he has denied for the duration of his imprisonment despite constant “interrogation” since he was 15 years old. There is no evidence that he threw the grenade, and there is a great deal of evidence that he didn’t, including initial US military reports. There is a video of him at Guantánamo crying in “interviews”. A US medic has described Khadr weeping and shackled in Bagram. The “confession” the US military has finally obtained after nearly a decade of torturing a child, is referred to in court as a “stipulation of fact“. It is presented to the jury without allowing them to know that Khadr was offered a plea bargain in exchange.

The rumoured plea bargain will not include any recognition of the years he has already served, he will be sent to the maximum security level at Guantánamo despite not giving any security concerns during all of his years of imprisonment, and the “interrogation” is to continue. It is likely that he will be recommended for transfer back to Canada after the first year, but there has been no interest from the Canadian government in enabling that.

Here are some of the more bizarre items coming out in the tweets and reports from attendees at the trial. *

Children killed by professional killers do not matter. Professional killer’s children matter. The court listened for one hour (or 45 minutes, according to some tweets) to testimony from the US professional killer’s widow about how his death has impacted her family. Has any US soldier listened to any family of any of the civilians they have killed/tortured/raped/kidnapped? According to the professional killer’s widow, her “children are good, loving, wonderful people. They didn’t deserve to have their father taken by someone like you.” Asked by a jury member if she would see Khadr in a different light if he had been dressed in the uniform of an “enemy soldier” during the firefight, she said “yes.” The former fifteen year old apologized to the widow of the professional killer, but she shook her head and told him he would  “forever be a murderer.” It  is ok for US soldiers to murder children, but it is a war crime for children to murder US soldiers.

There is lengthy testimony from a US psychiatrist who explains the hate and resentment he feels certain is burning below the surface (where no one has been able to find any evidence of it) in Khadr. He cites Khadr’s family as being a big influence on him. (Khadr has been in a US torture camp since he was 15. He is now 24.) He also says Muslim militants look up to Khadr’s dead father. And Khadr is surrounded by Muslim militants. Therefore he is a risk of causing further violence. Immediately after the psychiatrist, the professional killer’s widow took the stand. She described how her son told everyone on Remembrance Day that everyone in the US military looked up to his dead father. They all came to his funeral. They named a clinic after him. His father’s US militant friends explain how they spend as much time as possible with him. “Army rocks, bad guys stink,” says the son of the professional killer. The courtroom weeps.

After hearing the psychiatrist’s views that Khadr being a “devout” Muslim made it impossible for him to ever be “deradicalized”, the professional killer’s friends take the stand to describe him. Captain E says Speer made “peace with the war around him.” Asked to give one word to sum up his friend, Captain E said “Super stud”.  Super studs who are comfortable with war are better people than devout Muslims. (In recognition of this, the defense lawyer provided evidence that Khadr wasn’t that devout.)

The same psychiatrist says of Khadr, he is very dangerous because “he’s physically resilient”, “socially agile”,  ”street smart”, “the other detainees give him regard”, athletic and taller than most detainees, “charming”, speaks various languages and that he “has attracted more attention to Cuba than Fidel”. Also, he is a prayer leader and speaks fluent English so can communicate with guards and has become a leader. He has the “stardust of royalty”, is “devout”, “identifies with his family,” and has become his family’s “white sheep”. He is “charming” and carries himself with “grace.” On a “superficial” level he seems very “Westernized.” And he is a “rock star” of Guantánamo. All of this makes him very dangerous.

Worst of all, the psychiatrist repeatedly states that Khadr has been  “marinated in jihad” at the US torture camps. Because he has been imprisoned without a trial since he was 15, he has met all the wrong sort. Plus, since he was tortured by US soldiers, he might hate them.

As if being a tall, athletic, ambitious, charismatic, graceful, resilient, street smart, charming, multi-lingual, prayer leader was not enough, he has read Harry Potter. Which is escapism. For someone to want to escape Guantánamo or Bagram seems strange to this psychiatrist. He has also read CS Lewis, Barack Obama, Nelson Mandela, Ismael Beah, Danielle Steele and John Grisham, along with many educational texts etc., but Harry Potter seemed much more worthy of note. He is obviously not a Christian.

He must serve his sentence in the maximum security level at Guantánamo, despite his guards being almost universal in their opinions that he is a nice kid, because he called one a “bitch”. Also a “whore”. And once he said “fuck”.

Going to Canada would be bad, because Canada doesn’t have real  “de-radicalization therapy”. The prosecution asked a professor at small Christian college if her college has a “deradicalization program on campus.” No. And anyway, “How will a devout Muslim integrate into Canada?”

The jury of seven impartial US officers will make their deliberation after an impartial and fair trial in which they will be told that Khadr pled guilty. They won’t know about his negotiated plea sentence or the threats of death, rape or torture that were used and admitted to by “interrogators”. They will see an FBI simulated 10-second clip of a Humvee explosion as an example of something that Khadr might have done, if it had happened, but it didn’t.

*For first hand reporting, and accurate quoting, follow the hashtag #Khadr. Most of the people tweeting are reporters who are at the trial. Most have links to their own articles on their twitter accounts. The tweeting by them has been excellent.

Update: The closing arguments were not less bizarre.

“The accused is not a soldier” and any reference to him as one does a “disservice” to men and women in uniform. Because professional killers are better people than civilians defending their country.

“They fight for no country. They fight for a religon.” Because fighting for your country is morally superior to fighting for your religon.

The US decided to put the Canadian in Guantanamo and offered him no “de-radicalization” program, but to release him to Canada would be wrong because Canada’s “deradicalization programs” are not good enough.

The prosecution points out that Khadr was a very mature 15 year old. He spoke four languages. Intelligence is bad. Possibly criminal.

The defense summed up the position of the prosecutor. “Omar Khadr was a lawful target but he didn’t have the right to fight back.”

The tweeters have added great links to letters between Khadr and the english professor from Alberta, a painting by Khadr, and letters from Speer’s children, the oldest four years younger than Khadr was at the time of his imprisonment and torture. Also two minutes from a documentary You Don’t Like the Truth, and a video of a speech from his defense lawyer. Coverage that includes exhibits.

The End: After the prosecution requested a sentence of 25 years, after the jury were told they could consider the 8 he had already served, after they were told they could consider the fact that he was a child, they came back with a sentence of 40 years more. That’s 48 in total. Not in a prison, in solitary confinement in a torture camp where he is still allowed to be “interrogated”. For a crime the US military themselves said he did not commit until they had to invent a reason for keeping him in prison. For a sentence of 10 years or more, 6 of the 7 jurors had to agree.

At the sentencing of a tortured child to solitary confinement, the widow of the professional killer gave a fist pumping cheer. U!S!A! Fuck Yeah!

But the most perverse thing in this whole trial? This will make the people of the US feel safer. They honestly will.

Beyond the End: Now we have the release of the plea deal and the diplomatic exchange between Canada and the US. Beyond the general sleaze of such a deal, there is some very specific sleaze.

Khadr must:

d. Knowingly and voluntarily waive and relinquish any request for any forensic or scientific testing of any physical evidence in the United States Government’s possession, including, but not limited to, DNA testing. I fully understand that as a result of this waiver I will not have another opportunity to have any physical evidence in this case submitted for any testing or to employ the results of any testing to support any claim of innocence regarding the offenses to which I am pleading guilty. In addition. I understand the United States Government may dispose of such physical evidence upon sentencing by a Military Commission in this case. He is not allowed to test the prosecution forensic evidence or bring his own.

g. Not initiate or support any litigation or challenge, in any forum in any Nation, against the United States or any official in their personal or official capacity with regard to my capture, detention, prosecution to include discovery practice, post conviction confinement and/or detainee combatant status. I further agree to move to dismiss with prejudice any presently pending direct or collateral attack challenging my capture. detention, prosecution and/or detainee combatant status; to implement this aspect of this agreement, following announcement of the sentence in this case, I direct my counsel to submit a motion to dismiss the petition for habeas corpus in my case currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as well as all claims currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. New Orwellian term for torture: “prosecution to include discovery practice”.

i. While in the continued custody of the United States, submit to interviews whenever and wherever requested by United States law enforcement officials, intelligence authorities, and prosecutors. I understand the requesting parties will notify my legal counsel of the interviews. However, I waive any right I may have to my attorneys being present for the interviews. I understand I must be completely truthful during these interviews. I also agree, while in U.S. custody, to appear, cooperate, and testify truly, before any grand jury. any court, military court or hearing, military commission or any other proceeding requested by the United States Government. He has to appear as a defense witness for the US, and if he tells the truth then, he will be convicted for his perjury now. He has to do this without legal advice, which he is also denied during “interviews”.

j. I agree and understand that if I am not truthful in any testimony I may provide, I may be prosecuted for perjury, false statement or other similar offense before any court or Military Commission having jurisdiction over me. See above.

His own defense was determined by the prosecution:

a. I will not seek to offer any testimony, in any form, from any detainee presently held at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay:
b. I will not seek to obtain any depositions to be offered at the presentencing hearing, nor will I offer any depositions at the presentencing hearing;
3 c. I will not seek to offer the testimony, either in court or via VTC of any witness, other than: (I) Dr. Katherine Porterfield: (2) Dr. Steven Xenakis. (3) Captain McCarthy; and (4) Dr. Arlette Zinck, all of whom the Government has agreed to produce at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for sentencing. (understand that sentencing proceedings will not be delayed to if these witnesses are unavailable.)

h. … my transfer to Canada is contingent upon the consent of the Government of Canada … which is to say, it is dependent on what the US tells Canada to do.

Note: This article was a quick response to what was happening at the trial as it was being conducted. Since the trial, there have been many thoughtful articles written about the case which are well worth reading. A start:

The National Post – Tony Keller

The Star – Michelle Shephard

Andrea Prasow – senior counter-terrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch

The Miami Herald – Carol Rosenberg

The Iraq War Logs – The Medium is the Message

The Afghanistan documents released by Wikileaks were criticized for not having enough material redacted. The Iraq documents are criticized for having too much redacted. The US government says there is nothing interesting or newsworthy in any of the information. The US military says the information contains important secrets that the public should not know. Some members of the public say they contain important secrets that we all desperately need to know. Have we all completely forgotten?

The medium is the message. At a huge, historical, society changing level, it does not matter at all what any of the documents Wikileaks has released actually said. All that really matters is, these were secrets, kept by very powerful organizations, and now we all have these secrets. The conclusion to be drawn from all of this data is not just how many Iraqi children were killed by US soldiers at checkpoints, and the desired result is not just trials for war crimes. The conclusion is that we can have access to the secrets of any powerful organization, and the result is that the powerful, by virtue of this one new fact, have lost a very significant portion of their power.

Control of information is such an integral and essential part of power today that we can, given the proper motivation, use our new access to information to strip the world’s most powerful organizations of all the rest of their power. Yes, that may happen to some through trials for war crimes, but if it happens to them, it can happen to anyone.

For a very long time, power and wealth have been held by thinner and weaker threads, until bank accounts begin to look like vapourware. A century ago, the very wealthy owned tangible assets and produced tangible goods. The McCain family sold potatoes, the Seagrams made whiskey, the Eatons bought and sold goods in their stores. The 70’s saw leveraged buyouts and playing the stock market, real estate speculation and hostile corporate takeovers. Money in the 80’s became completely separated from real life. Dot coms in the 90’s accustomed people to obscenely huge numbers as personal wealth. The new international trade relationships have removed business deals to a small group of the internationally powerful that deal with each other and block access to everyone else.

Even tangible possessions are only ours by the conventions of the society we live in. We all agree to the rules, or it does not work. If someone steals my iPod, and I cannot find out who did it and prove to the police that I own it, then I lose possession of it. If I load my iPod with stolen music, and I cannot be prevented, that rule no longer works in our game. The rules, and with them the ownership of the iPod or the music, just changed.

Today, most people have no idea who the rich and powerful are or how they got to be that way. For those who do know, it is terrifyingly apparent that all it would take is for an informed populace to stand up and say “The emperor has no clothes!” and all the money and power would be gone along with the translucent gauze left holding it.

The people who are currently in possession of both power and money in the world are not in possession of either because we as a society have agreed to it. They rarely have equivalent physical possessions, and they almost never have unique abilities which give them rights to power. They are theoretically there because we have agreed to the rules that put them there. But in actuality, we almost never have. Who in a ‘democracy’ really wants any of the two or three ‘choices’ we are given to be our leader and make all of our decisions for us? Who really agrees with the power for all choices impacting our health and environment lying within the hands of a few members of the military industrial complex? Only the very lazy and disinterested.

The powerful of the last few decades have been powerful for one reason only; we did not know how to stop them. Now we do.

Activate Reston 5.

Extradition and Sovereignty

Extradition has been a touchy subject between Canada and the US at various times in history. During the Vietnam War, the US was infuriated by Canada’s refusal to return draft dodgers, but those were the days when Canada had a very liberal government that annoyed the US and stood up for widely held Canadian values whenever they thought they could get away with it. Times have changed.

Gary Botting wrote a paper http://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/zcalt04/bottling.doc that is well worth reading about the new (1999) Extradition Act and cases leading up to it, as well as the subsequent results. Botting quotes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, who said of the need for a new Act, “Even with countries with a similar legal tradition such as the United States, we have heard on numerous occasions how difficult it is to obtain extradition from Canada.” The implication would be that extradition ought to be easy, so easy in fact, that formal sworn affidavits and charges ought to be waived, and only a request from a US prosecutor obtained. No Canadian court would accept such a request as ‘evidence’ from a Canadian prosecutor. And in fact, no Canadian prosecutor is permitted to submit the same to the US; these changes to the evidence required are not reciprocal! Botting states, “The new Act effectively reduces extradition in Canada from a traditionally judicial process (as it remains in the United States) to an essentially administrative process.”

In contrast to the extradition treaty between Canada and the US, where Canada behaves as a lesser US territory instead of a sovereign state, Canada has no extradition treaty with China. The reasons for this are China’s poor human rights record and death penalty. But despite all of the high profile cases where the US has kidnapped, tortured, fixed evidence, jailed with no trial, and violated all human rights with their prisoners, despite the huge and unknown number of jails the US operates internationally and their continued use of torture and other human rights violations in those jails, despite a US judge threatening sentences extended to the maximum and US prosecutors threatening prison rape for those who challenge their extradition order (see paper by Botting), and despite the fact that the US has one of the highest rates of incarceration of all wealthy nations, Canada hands its citizens over to US courts after nothing more than a request from a prosecutor. There have also been frequent cases where Canada will deport a person after an extradition request has been made, as an alternative and quicker method of extradition. And, despite having full legal power and a UN human rights obligation to request that the US death penalty not be imposed, Canada has frequently refused to make such a request.

The US – Canada Extradition Treaty (1976 plus amendments) states that extradition applies in cases where the “offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.” The Canadian Extradition Act (1999) specifies two years as the sentencing requirement. For some reason, the treaty with a country that has far harsher sentencing and far worse prison conditions than Canada, has half the sentencing requirement of any of our other extradition partners. In either case, the first point of law is that the offense must be of a specified serious level in both countries. According to the Department of Justice, the role of the extradition judge is to determine if there is enough evidence presented that, if the “conduct had been carried out in Canada, the judge would order the person to stand trial in Canada.” This control has been thrown out in many recent cases involving such things as selling marijuana seeds, online spamming, and Renee Boje’s sloppily handled and ridiculous case. Canada had no intention of prosecuting any of these ‘offenses’. In the cases involving Canadians, the US prosecutors stated, if Canada was not going to enforce laws the US felt were appropriate, then they would. In each case, the US prosecutors stated that these people were not to think they could disobey US law. Referring to Canadians. In Canada.

The US attitude towards Vancouver is well summed up by the Washington Post headline Canada’s Extradition Laws Help Make Vancouver a Grifter’s Haven. It is no coincidence that the lawyer most known for fighting extradition is based in Vancouver. While cities like Toronto or Ottawa, with their close economic ties to the US, may seem comfortable to the DEA and friends, Vancouver, with its nude beaches and shooting clinics, apprently looks like ‘the Wild West’. It is also very much an Asian city where the commercial, family, economic, and criminal ties are also largely connected to Asia, not the US. On the books, Toronto is the economic capital of Canada, the place where all the legal money is made and controlled. Off the books, a look at the lifestyle or real estate prices tell a completely different story, a reflection of the volume of illegal or offshore family money in Vancouver.

The US attitude towards Vancouver is rather that of a disciplinarian uncle towards a rebellious nephew, and the encroaching DEA, FBI, etc., have a “If you won’t discipline him, I will,” stance, completely inappropriate to one sovereign state negotiating with another. Towards Ontario or the prairies, where the same multinational corporations are influencing the policies of both governments, any questioning of US law is just considered gross impertinence. Canadian sovereignty is not properly recognized in either case, and that is entirely the fault of the Canadian federal government.

According to Botting, the Canada US Extradition Treaty has never been ratified and is not, in his opinion, even legal. Whether it is, or is not, there is still far more room for due diligence to be demanded in the extradition requests from the US. Requests which do not meet the dual criminality requirement, which would not be prosecuted in Canada, need to be refused (this would obviously include all Canadians operating in Canada). The Canadian government needs to demand at all times that the death penalty not be imposed, in accordance with the UN’s resolution. When Canadians are tried and sentenced in the US, the Canadian government needs to start meeting their responsibilities to bring prisoners home to serve their sentences.

The Prince of Pot in a US Prison

Ok, he is not Omar Khadr. He is not Maher Arar either. But to some, this story in its very unimportance sends a very cold chill through Canada.

Marc Emery is a Vancouver icon. The Prince of Pot, a well loved character who founded the BC Marijauna Party and ran for office 12 times, in a province that would have legalized marijuana decades ago, assuming they had ever bothered making it illegal in the first place. Located in the city fondly known as Vansterdam, where the 4/20 celebrations  are legend, Marc is not a criminal so much as an integral part of the culture. Since no one bothers pretending that marijuana would be illegal here unless the US commanded it so, seed selling operations such as Marc Emery’s are almost never harassed. Seed shops are common, and the last conviction was against Emery in 1998 when he was fined $2,000.

This did not stop him from being a well known media and political figure for the last 20 years and paying more than $600,000 in Canadian income taxes on his business. He sent a copy of his magazine and seed catalogue to each member of the Canadian parliament for many years. Besides being the founder of the Marijuana Party, Emery was a major supporter of political parties, lobby groups, demonstrations and rallies, medical marijuana initiatives and detox centres. Along with other political parties around the world, he has been a major contributor to the US Marijuana Party.

The US government presented Canada with an extradition order for Marc Emery for the crime of selling seeds by mail (conspiracy to grow a plant). This is a crime that is almost never fined in Canada, that a person can spend life in prison without parole for in the US (because of the fascinating US view that one marijuana seed = one plant = 100 kilos of pot).

The US DEA’s office described his arrest: “Today’s arrest of Mark Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture Magazine and founder of a marijuana legalization group, is a significant blow, not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the United States and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery’s illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists have one less pot of money to rely on.” The entire document described Marc’s political activity, not his seed selling. It is illegal in Canada to extradite a person for political activity.

It also described Emery as being one of 46 most wanted drug traffickers in the world, and the only one from Canada. As someone who lives in one of the world’s largest and most important drug shipping ports, and also as someone who has walked with a smile past the shop where Marc and his two clerks chat with their regulars, this is the most evidence I have ever seen that the United States’ war on drugs has absolutely nothing to do with fighting drugs.

Nevertheless, our repulsive conservative government, not the school yard bullies themselves, but the guys standing behind the bully cheering “Hit him again! Harder!” extradited Marc to the US for the crime of selling seeds.

On his way to the US Marc said “I do not feel bad about anything. I won’t be repentant. I won’t be apologizing to any judge. My only regret is that I couldn’t do more.”

But that was before he spent 3 weeks in solitary confinement. At his sentencing he concluded his statement with “I won’t ever advocate or counsel or behave in a manner civilly disobedient again.” In his letter to the court he said, “In my zeal I believed that my actions were wholesome, but my behavior was in fact illegal and set a bad example for others. I have now abandoned this method and ideology of disobedience as a necessary part of my rehabilitation. I will not recommend that others disobey the laws of the United States.”

 Call me dramatic, but I felt like I was reading the last page of 1984.

Update: The link above is an entertaining, easy to watch overview of Marc Emery’s current court case. For those who want more detailed background into who exactly Marc Emery is, what his importance is and was in Canadian society, and a more in depth look at his legal case and the significance of it, here is a longer documentary. This one is also very interesting to anyone looking at alternative politics.

The lighter documentary focuses on Emery’s marijauna activism, but as you can see in the more detailed documentary, he has been a loudly and passionately active participant in many aspects of our political life for decades. Love him or hate him, we need him and many more like him.