Sandra Finley

Jul 182017
 

The Mulroney Government approved the sale of Ogilvie Mills, the last independent milling company in Canada to ADM after they passed NAFTA:

“The sheer fact that Brian Mulroney went from being a Canadian prime minister to the most prominent director of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) should never be lost o­n the investigation. . . .

 

http://plawiuk.blogspot.ca/2005/07/ethanol-scam-adm-and-brian-mulroney.html

Monday, July 18, 2005

The Ethanol Scam: ADM and Brian Mulroney

Ethanol burns more than it saves: study
Researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 per cent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern United States, it takes 45 per cent more energy and for wood, 57 per cent. It takes 27 per cent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel, the study found. “Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation’s energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment,” according to the study by Cornell’s David Pimentel and Berkeley’s Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, Mr. Pimentel said.The study also omitted $3-billion (U.S.) in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, Mr. Pimentel said Gee would those subsidies be the ones that went to Agribusiness giants like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), who monopolize the ethanol market with their domination of corn and soyabean markets. As the “Supermarket to the World” brags on their web page:“ADM is working with the abundant and renewable products of agriculture to develop nature-based fuels & industrials alternatives to the world’s finite stores of fossil fuels. Today, we are recognized as a leader in the production of cleaner-burning fuel ethanol. Additionally, ADM is a leading producer of consistently reliable, high-performing and naturally derived products for a diverse group of industries.”

ADM, who have been charged with criminal conspiracy in the past, claim that they are helping create a clean energy for the future with their corn/soyabean ethanol projects. Hmm but the study says: “Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation’s energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment” But it sure does benefit ADM.



“Little attention is given to ADM’s controlling position within ethanol, the industry’s shaky dependence on a complex, multi-tiered subsidy regime, or the basic volatility of commodity prices.” Ethanol Subsidies for ADM & Other Corporate Kleptomaniacs Will Not Solve Energy Crisis

ADM’s Canadian connection: during the ADM price fixing scandal they hired former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, to act as a director in charge of corporate transparency. He remains on the board today.

The Mulroney Government approved the sale of Ogilvie Mills, the last independent milling company in Canada to ADM after they passed NAFTA.

“1993-1994 – ADM purchased Ogilvie Mills, the largest miller in Canada and a world leader in production of starch, gluten, and other wheat ingredients, with annual sales of $275 million. The flour-milling business arm of the new conglomerate then signed long-term supply contracts with the Toronto-based food and retailing giant George Weston Ltd, United Oilseeds Products Inc., a canola crushing plant in Lloydminster, Alta., (which was jointly owned by United Grain Growers Ltd. of Winnipeg and Mitsubishi Corp. of Japan), and the agriculture operations of International Multifoods Corp. of Minneapolis, a business that included 11 feed mills and a chicken hatchery in Canada.”
Ogilvie Flour Mills :Univeristy of Manitoba Special Collections

“The sheer fact that Brian Mulroney went from being a Canadian prime minister to the most prominent director of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) should never be lost o­n the investigation. The statement of ADM chairman to some grumbling shareholders in praising Brian Mulroney and showing them the highest value to the company is a glaring testimony.”The Death of the Canadian Farmer

The Andreas family that owns ADM have been large contributors to U.S. Presidential Campaigns. Especially Republican ones. The recent Bush subsidies for Agriculture benefit ADM more than the family farmer.

“The Andreas clan began supplanting the founding Archer and Daniels families in the 60s and still own a few percent of the century-old company. While chief competitors Cargill and Bunge Ltd. established a broad global network of suppliers as well as customers during the last half of the 20th century, the charismatic Dwayne Andreas built ADM as “supermarket to the world” almost entirely on the crops of American farmers. The elder Andreas was an advisor to several U.S. presidents and could count on his Washington connections to prop up prices for key ADM products domestically, including high-fructose corn syrup and ethanol, a gasoline alternative made from corn.” Heartland transformation: ADM CEO Allen Andreas has led the giant out of scandal and put it on a winning path

Jul 182017
 

Executive Profile*

M. Brian Mulroney P.C., C.C., LL.D

Founding Partner and Special Advisor,Teilhard Technologies Inc.
Age Total Calculated Compensation This person is connected to 79 board members in 8 different organizations across 17 different industries.

See Board Relationships

78

Background*

Hon. M. Brian Mulroney, P.C., C.C., LL.D serves as Senior Partner and International Business Consultant at Ogilvy Renault, LLP/ S.E.N.C.R.C., s.r.l. since August 1993. Hon. Mulroney is a Founding Partner and Special Advisor at Teilhard Technologies Inc. He served as the President at the Iron Ore Company of Canada since 1977 and Executive Vice President and was a Senior Counselor at HM Capital Partners LLC. He serves as the Chairman of Quebecor World Inc. Hon. Mulroney is the Chairman of International Advisory Board of Barrick Gold Corporation and was previously a Non-Independent Director from 1993 to April 30, 2014. He is a Director of Wind International, Inc. Hon. Mulroney is a Member of Advisory Board of the Chase Manhattan Corporation. He served as the Chairman of the Board of Quebecor Media Inc. since June 19, 2014 until February 21, 2017 and has been its Non-independent Director since January 31, 2001 and also served as its Vice Chairman since March 12, 2014. Hon. Mulroney is the Chairman of Quebecor Inc. since June 19, 2014 a Non-Independent Director of Quebecor Inc. since 1999. He is an Independent Director of Wyndham Worldwide Corporation since July 2006. Hon. Mulroney is a Director of Wyndham International Inc. He serves as an Independent Director of Blackstone Group Management LLC of The Blackstone Group L.P since June 21, 2007. Hon. Mulroney serves as a Director of Archer Daniels Midland Company, Quebecor World Inc., and The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation. He is a Member of numerous International Advisory Boards including the Power Corporation of Canada, the China International Trust and the Hicks Muse Tate and Furst Incorporated Latin American Strategy Board. Hon. Mulroney was a Director of Viasystems Group Inc. since March 2001, Trizec Properties Inc. since May 2002 and America Online Latin America Inc. from August 7, 2000 to August 19, 2005. He was a Director of Tuckamore Capital Management Inc. since November 8, 2011. Hon. Mulroney was a Member of International Advisory Board of Council on Foreign Relations Inc. He was a Director of Avis Budget Group Inc. since December 1997. Hon. Mulroney served as the Chairman of Forbes, Inc. He was the Chairman of World Color Press Inc. since April 2002 and Director since 1997. Hon. Mulroney was a Director of Resolute Energy Corporation, Trizechahn Corporation, Move.com, Inc., Cognicase Inc. and Incisive Media Ltd. He was a Director of HFS from April 1997 to December 1997 and Independent News & Media plc from July 2004 to November 2011. Hon. Mulroney was a Member of Advisory Board of Veronis Suhler Stevenson. He was the Prime Minister of Canada from September 1984 to June 1993. Hon. Mulroney was the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada from 1983 and 1993 and Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons, to which he was first elected in 1983 and re-elected in 1984 and 1988. He served on the Clich’e Commission of Inquiry in 1974. Hon. Mulroney has been awarded Companion of the Order of Canada. He holds an LL.B. from Université Laval and a B.A. from St. Francis Xavier University.

Corporate Headquarters

217, 11625 Elbow Drive SW
Calgary, Alberta T2W1G8

Canada

Phone: 403-251-3007
Fax: 403-251-3077

Board Members Memberships

Director
Director
Trustee
1999-Present
Chairman and Chairman of Quebecor World Inc
2001-Present
Director
2006-Present
Independent Director
2007-Present
Independent Director of Blackstone Group Management L.L.C

Education

LLB
Université Laval
BA
St. Francis Xavier University
Jul 182017
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/relationship.asp?personId=106861
July 18, 2017 5:15 PM ET

Software

Company Overview of Teilhard Technologies Inc.

BOARD MEMBERS AFFILIATED WITH M. Brian Mulroney P.C., C.C., LL.D*

Founding Partner and Special Advisor

79
79
Age Total Annual Compensation
77
*Data is at least as current as the most recent Definitive Proxy.

The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global. Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content. For inquiries, please contact S&P Global Market Intelligence directly by clicking here.

Stock Quotes

Market data is delayed at least 15 minutes.

Company Lookup

MOST CONNECTED PEOPLE TO M. Brian Mulroney P.C., C.C., LL.D

Name Relationships
Rochelle B. Lazarus 505 Relationships
Stephen Allen Schwarzman 505 Relationships
John Lawson Thornton 264 Relationships
Charles David Powell 245 Relationships
James Tomilson Hill 208 Relationships

Sponsored Financial Commentaries

Sponsored Links

Jul 182017
 

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=65024&privcapId=671980

blackstone group lp/the (BX:New York)

Executive Profile*

Stephen Allen Schwarzman

Co-Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,The Blackstone Group L.P.
Age Total Calculated Compensation This person is connected to 505 board members in 10 different organizations across 6 different industries.

See Board Relationships

70 $46,968,924
As of Fiscal Year 2016

Background*

Mr. Stephen Allen Schwarzman, also known as Steve, is a Co-Founder of The Blackstone Group L.P and has been Chief Executive Officer and Chairman since March 20, 2007. Mr. Schwarzman has been involved in all phases of the firm’s development since 1985 and approves all its capital commitments. He serves as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Blackstone Distressed Securities Advisors L.P. Mr. Schwarzman serves as the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Founding

Corporate Headquarters*

345 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10154

United States

Phone: 212-583-5000
Fax: 212-583-5749

Board Members Memberships*

Honorary Board Member
Co-Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Chairman Emeritus
Trustee
Co-Chairman
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and Founding Member

Education*

MBA
Harvard Business School
BA
Yale University
Honors Degree 2012
Quinnipiac University

Other Affiliations*

Annual Compensation*

Salary $350,000
Total Annual Compensation $350,000

Stock Options*

All Other Compensation $46,618,924

Total Compensation*

Total Annual Cash Compensation $46,968,924
Total Short Term Compensation $350,000
Other Long Term Compensation $46,618,924
Total Calculated Compensation $46,968,924
*Data is at least as current as the most recent Definitive Proxy.

The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global. Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content. For inquiries, please contact S&P Global Market Intelligence directly by clicking here.

Stock Quotes

Market data is delayed at least 15 minutes.

Company Lookup

COMPETITOR COMPENSATION

Name Position/
Company
Compensation
William J. Stromberg CFA Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
$350.0K
Gregory Eugene Johnson CPA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Franklin Resources, Inc.
$786.1K
Steven Roth Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Vornado Realty Trust
$2.0M
Martin L. Flanagan CFA, CPA President, CEO & Director
Invesco Ltd.
$790.0K
Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2016.

Sponsored Financial Commentaries

Sponsored Links

Jul 172017
 

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN187235-OCATP

 

by David Ljunggren

 

OTTAWA (Reuters) – Canada’s senior negotiator at talks to renew NAFTA will be the official who worked for years to push through a major free trade deal with Europe, two sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

 

Steve Verheul faces another challenge as he deals with the United States, which is threatening to walk away from the three-nation North American Free Trade Agreement unless major changes are made. The talks, which will also include Mexico, are due to start later this year.

 

“He will play a significant and instrumental role in handling and managing any future negotiations,” said one of the sources, who requested anonymity because the news had not been announced yet.

 

The development was previously reported by the iPolitics website.

 

Verheul is a career bureaucrat. At certain points during the talks, Canada will most likely be represented by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, said the sources.

 

Verheul enjoyed a close working relationship last year with Freeland – who was then trade minister – as they strained to seal the pact with the European Union, which at one stage looked close to collapse.

 

Freeland is now in overall charge of ties with the United States. She has praised Verheul several times in public.

 

The talks on the EU trade deal were started by Canada’s Conservative government in 2009. Former trade minister Ed Fast, who worked with Verheul for years, described him as a brilliant tactician.

 

“He has the ability to remain calm under trying circumstances … he is incredibly patient,” Fast said in a phone interview.

 

The negotiations are crucial for Canada, which sends

 

75 percent of its goods exports to the United States.

 

The Canadian government also intends to send a top trade bureaucrat to Washington to serve as the deputy head of the embassy, starting in September, the sources said.

 

Kirsten Hillman, currently in charge of trade policy at the foreign ministry, was Canada’s chief negotiator at talks on the proposed 12-nation Trans Pacific Partnership pact.

 

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of the treaty in late January. The remaining 11 nations met last week to discuss ways of reviving the agreement.

 

Reporting by David Ljunggren; Editing by Alistair Bell

Jul 092017
 

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty

July 7th 2017

Omar Khadr (right) speaks with his lawyer Dennis Edney in Edmonton on May 7, 2015. File photo by The Canadian Press

Editor’s Note: This story contains images some readers may find disturbing.

 

The controversy surrounding Omar Khadr’s reported $10.5-million settlement for Ottawa’s complicity in his oppressive detention at Guantanamo Bay obscures a key issue we’ve never truly explored in Canada.
What if Khadr was innocent of the murder of Sgt. Christopher Speer this whole time, and we didn’t lift a finger while he sat in a hell-hole for a decade?
For almost 15 years, Canadian treatment of the Khadr case has been dominated by the presumption of guilt. Yet the evidence tells a different story.
For all the fury boiling up over news of his settlement, there’s precious little insight or knowledge about the facts. As a former prosecutor, something has always troubled me about this case, and my deep unease hasn’t abated with time.
Any experienced trial lawyer would be troubled to open this file. With the exception of Khadr’s “confession,” wrung from a traumatized and severely wounded teenager under an abusive interrogation, the evidence against him was remarkably thin.  Examined closely, it appears more consistent with his innocence than guilt.
Khadr’s case a ‘Canadian tragedy’

What evidence exists appears confused, inconsistent or contradicted elsewhere. Photographs of the attack scene released in 2009 appear to directly conflict with the prosecution’s summary of its own case.

Had the events happened under Canadian jurisdiction, they would not have been enough to lay a charge, let alone secure a conviction.
This case represents a Canadian tragedy and failure of moral courage on the part of our government. When Canada should have championed transparency, due process and the rule of law in the Khadr proceedings, we stood mute or actively participated in his abusive interrogation in custody.

Had the Canadian government done so, any criminal trial in open court would most likely have ended in a humiliating defeat for the U.S. government, and public perception would be very different from what it is today.

To any trial lawyer, it’s plain that Khadr pled guilty for a very simple reason: his plea deal offered a return to Canada and eventual freedom — clearly a better alternative than a lifetime of suffering in Guantanamo.
That bargain was a successful legal maneuver, but a personal tragedy. It was successful because it returned him to Canada, where his prospects for justice were a vast improvement on Guantanamo Bay and U.S. military tribunals. It was tragic because he will forever wear the stain of pleading guilty to murder.
Today Canadians are paying a hefty price because successive Liberal and Conservative governments sacrificed principle to political expedience, traded away due process, and turned on their own child citizen, a trapped and helpless teenager.
Evaluating the evidence from the prosecution’s perspective
Here’s how a prosecutor would look at the evidence against Khadr in a civilian criminal trial. Remember, this was a criminal prosecution subject to evidentiary rules supposedly designed not only to protect the innocent, but the integrity of the justice system itself.
The first step is to ensure the prosecution can prove each element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt; and that the evidence is probative, consistent, credible, and reliable.
Any obvious defences, such as mistake of identity, self-defence, temporary loss of control or accident, should be anticipated and closed off by cogent evidence before charges are laid.

One more thing: in a circumstantial case, (which this was, because nobody saw Khadr throw the grenade that killed Speer), the evidentiary bar is even higher. In such a case the test is not merely proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the evidence pointing to guilt is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.

First the context. This firefight was no small village confrontation, but an all-out military assault on a small compound.
The suspected Al Qaeda compound was identified by U.S. and Afghan forces in the early morning of July 27, 2002. Two Afghan militia members approached the small compound, estimated at “100 to 120 feet square.” They were immediately shot and killed by occupants inside.
Compound bombed and strafed by U.S. air assault for hours
That shooting drew an overwhelming response. More than 100 U.S. troops assembled on the site, and for the next four hours the compound was pounded with cannon, missile, and rocket fire from a coordinated air assault involving Apache helicopters, A-10 warplanes and F-18 fighter jets. Multiple 500-lb. bombs were dropped on the site.
When American forces believed everyone inside had been killed, a U.S. Special Forces team entered the compound.
Whatever happened next took less than a minute, according to reports. At the end of it, Sgt. Christopher Speer, who was not wearing a helmet, was mortally wounded in the head from a grenade, and Khadr was captured alive.
So what was the prosecution’s case against Omar Khadr?
Inconsistent and inaccurate statements from the prosecution
There was lots to choose from. The U.S. military reports and filed statements describe a hodge-podge of confusing and inconsistent positions, including the following range of scenarios:

(1) The assault team entered, encountered and returned enemy fire and killed the shooter. Omar Khadr, positioned behind a crumbling wall, then threw a grenade at a group of soldiers who were talking. He did not consider them a threat to his safety, but just planned to kill as many Americans as he could (U.S. government stipulation of facts, 2010, paragraphs 41-43, agreed to by Khadr in his guilty plea);

(2) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire, including a thrown grenade. They shot and captured Khadr, who was the only survivor in the compound during the exchange. Being the only survivor, Khadr must have killed Speer (false public position of U.S. military until 2008, as per CBC report);

(3) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire, including a thrown grenade. They killed the shooter who also threw the grenade. They then captured Khadr, who did not throw the grenade (Report by Maj. Randy Watt, senior U.S. officer at battle, July 28, 2002);

(4) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire and a witness identified as OC-1 saw a grenade thrown over a wall. Because of the timing of the shooting and grenade, he did not believe one person could have done both. OC-1 killed the shooter. He then found Khadr seated and facing away from the assault team and shot him in the back. According to OC-1, Khadr was the only person who could have killed Speer (Statement by witness OC-1, dated March 17, 2004, almost two years after the event);
(5) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire and saw a grenade thrown over a wall. They killed the shooter and two Delta Force members confronted Khadr, who was armed and stood facing them. They shot him in the chest (per summary of statements, originally reported by Michelle Shephard in the Toronto Star);
(6) The assault team entered, encountered enemy fire and saw a grenade thrown over a wall. Soldiers outside the compound were also throwing grenades in response to the firefight. U.S. forces first killed the shooter, then shot and captured Khadr (per Los Angeles Times report of statement evidence). This opens the possibility that friendly fire accidentally killed Speer.

OR

(7) The photos:
The photo on the left, taken in Ayub Kheyl in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002, shows the scene found by the assault team approaching the area where the shooter was killed. Khadr lies beneath the rubble, apparently beneath a collapsed roof. The photo on the right shows Khadr (figure highlighted) after debris has been pulled back. Classified photos obtained by the Toronto Star from an 18-page submission presented in 2009 by Khadr’s former military defence team to an Obama administration task force investigating Guantanamo.
Clearly, the multiple positions and reports advanced by the prosecution can’t all be true. In all, either the shooter, or Khadr, or possibly American forces threw the grenade that killed Speer. Some of the reports make no sense at all, and some are clearly false.
Consistency, credibility and reliability are essential to a strong prosecution, and this case was on thin ice.
Photo evidence disastrous for the prosecution
Then came the photographs of the combat scene obtained by the Toronto Star in 2009, which can only be seen as disastrous for the prosecution.

The two photos above apparently depict the scene as found by the assault team in the area where the shooter was killed. The first photo on the left shows the body of the shooter killed in the firefight next to what appears to be a pile of rubble and brush. Omar Khadr was found alive beneath that rubble.

According to the Star, military documents indicate that “a soldier stood on top of Khadr’s body before realizing someone was buried.”

The second photo on the right—enhanced by the Star for clarity—shows the brush and rubble pulled back to expose Khadr, with bullet entry wounds clearly visible on his back.

In the third photo below, which shows Khadr receiving battlefield first aid (the graphic damage of his exit wounds are obscured), clearly visible is the dried blood from the shrapnel wound to his left eye. Khadr’s face is coated in dirt, consistent with being buried in rubble.
Khadr receives battlefield first aid after being injured during a fight in Ayub Kheyl, Afghanistan on July 27, 2002. Graphic exit wounds have been obscured. Photo from Wikimedia Commons, originally obtained by Toronto Star
Khadr could not have thrown the grenade and then completely buried himself under rocks and debris in just a few seconds before the special forces team arrived.
Of all the positions taken by the prosecution above, only (3) and (6) are consistent with the photographs taken in the immediate aftermath of the firefight. Neither version implicates Khadr. Version (3) is the incident report submitted by the senior officer on site the day after the battle, which completely exonerates him.

The only evidence that ties Khadr to the grenade is the statement of OC-1 in version (4), given to investigators almost two years after the event. But OC-1’s statement that he found Khadr sitting up and leaning against brush is sharply at variance with photograph 1, in which Khadr lies completely buried under rocks and brush.

That’s not a small problem for the prosecution. It’s a big one.
If the photograph is an accurate depiction of the scene as the special forces team found it, OC-1’s statement can’t be true. It’s more likely that OC-1 discovered Khadr under the rubble after he shot the other combatant, then shot him in the back as he lay there.
It gets worse. The prosecution’s bigger problem is that its official version (1) makes no sense at all when read with the photographs. Below is the relevant text of the U.S. government’s stipulation of facts:
A screenshot of the U.S. government’s stipulation of facts in October 2010 regarding the events that led to Sgt. Christopher Speer’s death in Afghanistan in 2002, as accepted by Omar Khadr
Clearly, paragraphs 42 and 43 are drafted to defeat any argument that Khadr threw the grenade in self-defence. It’s drafted to cast him as the aggressor who, unprovoked, attacked a peaceful group of soldiers clearing up a battle site after a firefight with the other combatant. But that is wholly inconsistent with a photo of Khadr buried in rocks and rubble, lying within inches of his dead compatriot.
Unless the shooter’s body had been moved, Khadr was lying under the debris immediately next to him during the firefight. According to OC-1, he shot both the shooter and Khadr within a few seconds of each other.
This doesn’t make sense either. Khadr didn’t watch his compatriot get killed, throw a grenade, then cover himself in rocks and sticks and wait to be discovered. And what about the Star’s account of military documents reporting that a soldier didn’t even realize Khadr was there until he stood on him?
Military evidence makes a better case for innocence than guilt
So far, this is all the prosecution’s own evidence, and it’s a mess before the defence calls a single witness. Without Khadr’s confession, obtained essentially by force, there is no compelling evidence that he threw any grenade at all. No one saw him do it, and from all appearances he’d been under that rubble the entire time.
From what’s publicly available at this point, the evidence pointing to guilt is weak and speculative. Taken as a whole, it doesn’t really make sense. Multiple statements contradict each other and run all over the map.
These are not small inconsistencies. Something is seriously wrong with the prosecution’s account.
Without Khadr’s confession, the evidence fails its first and most basic test: that of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt through credible, reliable and consistent evidence that Khadr threw the grenade that struck and killed Sgt. Speer.
So what about that confession?
As is well known today, false confessions are common, especially with malleable young people under duress. The intensity and abusiveness of Khadr’s interrogation is unprecedented in law-abiding countries. It’s probably fair to say that in 2002 the U.S. military was far more concerned with learning whatever it could about Al Qaeda from Khadr than with getting an admissible voluntary statement for a criminal trial.
The priority was to find and kill Osama bin Laden, and to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
That interrogators went too far is now common knowledge. But the problem with torturous or abusive questioning isn’t just that it violates the prisoner’s rights, but that subjects will give false information to escape the agony.
Today, Khadr says that he confessed to false things just to please his interrogators and stop the pain, and there’s evidence to back that up. For instance, we know that under pressure Khadr falsely identified Maher Arar as having stayed at terrorist safe houses in Afghanistan, when Arar had never been to the country.
It’s far more believable that Khadr confessed to stop the pain than that his confession is true. The photographs and the known chronology make it extremely unlikely that he could have thrown the grenade.
Yet without that confession, the prosecution had no case.
First, freshest and best military report points to innocence
The U.S. military’s first, freshest and probably best report of the incident, based on contemporaneous eye-witness accounts by the soldiers involved, was submitted by Maj. Randy Watt the day after the firefight. That report described scenario (2), in which it was believed that the grenade was thrown by the shooter.

It’s also consistent with and corroborated by the photographs taken at the scene, where only the shooter would have been in a position to throw the grenade.

However, according to the CBC (at 15:30 in the video), that report was itself subsequently altered without documentation or explanation.

That first report, which contains the best evidence exonerating Khadr, remains today the most coherent account of the events of that day.

Even if it could be established that Khadr did throw the grenade in the middle of a firefight, given his proximity to the shooter it’s impossible to rule out self-defence. The stipulation of facts cannot be true.

After all these years and coverage, it’s plain that any competent defence lawyer could run a Mack truck through this case in a conventional criminal court.

It was Canada’s job to raise hell about the railroading of a Canadian teen
Know who else should have run a Mack truck through it? The Canadian government.
It was Canada’s job to raise hell about the railroading of a Canadian teen based on a lousy case. It was Canada’s job to raise hell about the torture of a Canadian kid in U.S. custody. Instead, we presumed he was guilty.
Successive Liberal and Conservative governments washed their hands of Khadr, only to aid and abet his Kafka-esque ordeal and trial by torture. Precious few stood up to take his side as he was convicted in the court of public opinion without a trial.
We were happy—eager, in fact—to strip him of his rights, judge him without even looking at the facts, and allow the American military and politicians to malign him mercilessly as they took every step to suppress the truth.
And though many reporters distinguished themselves, there was no shortage of media commentators piling on, sneering at the doubters and skeptics as do-gooding sissies.
The American torture program was a disaster. Extraordinary rendition to torture sites was a disaster. Guantanamo is a continuing disaster.

Instead of playing along as America’s trusty lapdog, the Canadian government should have stood squarely on the side of due process, demanding an accounting of the staggering cruelty and appalling ineptitude (or worse) behind this whole affair.

At every turn we should have called for a full, fair, open and transparent proceeding. We should have challenged the bad faith, the secrecy, the doctored reports, the contradictory witnesses, the changing stories, and the procedural bullying.

We should have demanded Khadr’s immediate return to Canada from Guantanamo, pending a full investigation.
If you still think the U.S. wouldn’t fudge its reports to get the result it wants, google ‘Pat Tillman.’ Then consider whether the biggest clue to this whole mystery is the long suppression of reports that American soldiers in the special forces assault team also threw grenades during the firefight.

We had plenty of notice how this would all end, because we’ve been here before with Maher Arar. The day after Khadr, compelled by fear and abuse, falsely pegged Arar as an Al Qaeda associate, U.S. authorities spirited him to Syria by extraordinary rendition, where he too was tortured and imprisoned for a year.

That lesson cost us a cool $10.5 million in foreshadowing, but didn’t teach us a thing. We turned around and did it again. To a kid.
Khadr was left virtually alone and helpless to fight the awesome force of American power from a cell in Guantanamo. He should have had the full weight of the Canadian government behind him pushing for the truth.
Plea deal bought freedom at a high price
Khadr’s guilty plea bought his freedom, but at a heavy price. For that freedom Khadr traded, perhaps forever, the chance to clear his name and turn public scrutiny on those who abused him, who doctored records, who changed their stories.

As part of his plea deal, Khadr agreed to a statement of facts admitting to killing Sgt. Speer, and promised never to seek forensic review of the evidence which might one day prove his innocence. He also agreed to permit the U.S. government to destroy all evidence following sentencing.

As a teenager Omar Khadr was betrayed and exploited by every adult who owed him a duty of care, including his father who conscripted him into a terrorist group, and his mother who let it happen. Then he was abandoned by the one government that should have protected his right to a fair trial.

Khadr’s ticket out of Guantanamo should never have been a guilty plea extracted by torture, fear and despair. Every other western country was getting its citizens out, while Canada let a teenager rot there.

Khadr’s passport out should have been the birthright he was born with—his Canadian citizenship.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
PLEASE GO TO THE URL AT THE TOP OF THIS POSTING, IF YOU WISH TO DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

Get more great work from Sandy Garossino and support excellent journalism.  Subscribe.

Investigative journalism has never been more important.
Will you help?
Subscribe
Share this article.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Jun 282017
 
 This is the CBAN email, with links.   Their URL for the action item is https://cban.ca/take-action/ge-fish/

PEI approves world’s first GM fish factory

(PEI is Prince Edward Island, a small Maritime province in Canada.)

The government of PEI has given the company Aquabounty permission to build the world’s first factory to grow genetically modified (GM, also called genetically engineered) fish.

In 2016, Aquabounty told Islanders that it would not be producing GM salmon in PEI. One year later, in April 2017, it asked the provincial government to approve construction of the world’s first GM fish factory at its new facility in Rollo Bay, PEI. Aquabounty now says it plans to grow 250 metric tons of GM Atlantic salmon in PEI every year.

Experts originally conducted a risk assessment for Aquabounty’s proposal to manufacture GM salmon eggs in Canada, not GM fish. The risk of GM salmon escaping into the wild is serious, and could threaten wild Atlantic salmon, which are already in danger of disappearing.

Read the press release.

Take Action

Visit www.cban.ca/fish for more information, updates and action.

Farmers take action on GM alfalfa

Farm organizations have once again written to the Minister of Agriculture to repeat their joint call for the federal government to cancel variety registration for all GM alfalfa until a full economic impact assessment is conducted. “Because we grow, process and sell alfalfa, we understand the risks and the unacceptable consequences of GM contamination. If this issue remains unaddressed by the Minister, we will all pay the price,” said Peter Eggers, an alfalfa producer in Alberta.

The letter asks the Minister to:

  • Deregister all GM alfalfa varieties in Canada.
  • Make the location of all GM alfalfa plantings public.
  • Set up testing of all imports of GM alfalfa seed from the US.

Click here to read the press release. Click here to read the letter.

Take Action

Visit cban.ca/alfalfa for more information.

Donate to CBAN today!

We rely on your support.

Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator

Phone: 613 241 2267 ext. 25

coordinator@cban.ca

www.cban.ca

Check out the six reports in the GMO Inquiry!

The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) brings together 15 organizations to research, monitor and raise awareness about issues relating to genetic engineering in food and farming. CBAN members include farmer associations, environmental and social justice organizations, and regional coalitions of grassroots groups. CBAN is a project on Tides Canada’s shared platform.

Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) 

Suite 206, 180 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2P 1P5

Phone: 613 241 2267 ext 25 www.cban.ca

Donate >

Having trouble reading this mail? View it in your browser.

 

 

Jun 262017
 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulroneys-advice-to-trudeau-on-nafta-head-down-and-mouth-shut/article35332763/

 

Americans should fear Canada’s economic clout but until formal free-trade negotiations begin, “we keep our heads down and our mouths shut,” says former prime minister Brian Mulroney.

 

Mr. Mulroney, whose Progressive Conservative government signed the original Canada-U.S. free-trade deal in 1988, said the Trudeau government is well-placed to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Mexico but officials should refrain from responding to incremental developments in public.

 

“What we should do is what we’ve been doing: We keep our heads down and our mouths shut,” said Mr. Mulroney, speaking at a conference on Friday hosted by left-leaning think tank Canada 2020.

“Don’t take the bait. We deal with this at the negotiating table.”

 

Mr. Mulroney, who is friends with U.S. President Donald Trump and owns a home nearby the President’s in Palm Beach, Fla., has been offering advice to the Trudeau government on renegotiating the trilateral trade deal, with talks expected to start as early as August.

 

When the process begins, Mr. Mulroney said one of the most important words for Canada’s negotiators is “no.”

 

“We’re not some pushover little country,” Mr. Mulroney said.

 

He said Canada has an economy worth almost $2-trillion with 36 million people, which is comparable to the Soviet Union, which has 138 million people.

 

“Hell, the Americans should be more fearful of us than Russia.”

 

He praised Mr. Trudeau for putting together a “highly talented and capable team” to handle the trade file, including Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland.

 

“I’ve known Justin since he was two years old,” Mr. Mulroney said. “I warned the Conservatives: Be careful, don’t underestimate this guy. There’s a hell of a lot more there than you fellas give him credit for.”

 

He also paid tribute to former interim leader Rona Ambrose, who frequently travelled to Washington to meet with lawmakers and advance Canada’s interests on the trade front. She has since joined D.C.’s Wilson Centre as a global fellow.

 

“There’s no Conservative way to negotiate a comprehensive free-trade agreement with the United States, and there’s no Liberal way to do it. There’s only a Canadian way,” Mr. Mulroney said.

 

“I think there are times when political parties should lay down their arms and support a national initiative. This is one of them.”

 

Mr. Mulroney said he spoke with Mr. Trump’s adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who said the United States was impressed Ms. Ambrose’s Conservatives offered to help the Liberals advocate for Canada’s interests on the trade file.

 

“We’re going to need all the help we can get,” he said.

 

During the American election campaign, Mr. Mulroney said both Mr. Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders portrayed trade as hurting the U.S. economy, which created “serious problems.”

 

“The enemy is not trade. The enemy is technology,” he said, noting when he was in office, there were no cellphones or Internet.

 

“Now technology and automation are displacing jobs all over the place, and the challenge is to reconstruct the economy.”

 

While Mr. Trump has pledged to bring back the coal industry to the American Midwest, Mr. Mulroney said that would be a “Band-Aid solution.”

 

“The answer is not that. It is in a greener economy, and it is in training and retraining of employees to handle new jobs that are being created,” he said.

 

Speaking to reporters after his speech, Mr. Mulroney said he’s spoken to Mr. Trump’s senior team this week but not the president himself, who is reportedly facing an investigation from special prosecutor Robert Mueller for obstruction of justice relating to questions about Russian interference in the American election.

 

When asked if the political turmoil south of the border could impact the negotiations, he said “anything’s possible.”

 

“But this is so important to the United States and to Canada and to Mexico, that my guess is that the governments – when they start at the table – they’re going to want to make certain they conclude an important new agreement,” he said.

 

Jun 262017
 

Banksters: Index

 

NOTE:   Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 23, 2017,  taking the U.S. out of the TPP trade deal.  Canada was a signatory to the TPP.   It was celebrated – – the TPP is dead!   HOWEVER,

See  2017-05-21  RE: NAFTA re-negotiation. Where does the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) stand?

 

IMPORT CLAUSES FROM ONE TRADE DEAL TO ANOTHER,  SOME EXAMPLES,  REMEMBERING THAT I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON THE TRADE DEALS!

Because the same corporates and bureaucrats are behind the “trade deals” – –  be prepared, the re-negotiation of NAFTA may involve a huge push by them to get into NAFTA the same things, and more, as they are trying to get in the other trade deals.

  1. Delores, publisher of Beyond Banksters, points out, in addition to the bankster clauses, the LIFE SPAN clauses:

CETA: 35 year life (outrageous)

NAFTA, 1994, Jan. 1:  6 month notice to withdraw.   (anticipate attempt to get 35 years?)

2.              Newspapers mention the currency manipulation rules.  Even though Canada and Mexico aren’t currency manipulators, the corporates feel  it may be possible to “springboard” the measures  (from a new NAFTA)  into agreements elsewhere in the world.

3.               INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (IP) CLAUSES FROM TPP INTO NAFTA:

From a business source:  https://www.osler.com/en/resources/cross-border/2017/nafta-once-again-becomes-battleground-for-trade-re

It is against the backdrop of the withdrawal of the U.S. from TPP that NAFTA’s three member nations will negotiate an updated NAFTA IP chapter. The TPP IP chapter will almost certainly be the starting point for negotiations. Canada was instrumental in striking balances between U.S. and developing country positions on key IP issues including pharmaceutical data protection and internet service provider liability for third-party copyright infringement. Expect the U.S. to continue to push Canada to ratchet up its IP protection or, at minimum, to use IP concerns as negotiating leverage for more contentious issues.

Canada is unlikely to capitulate on IP issues this time around. It has already made IP concessions in the course of Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) negotiations, expanding IP protection for pharmaceuticals and signing on to all major IP treaties. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office now indicated it will begin consultations to implement CETA-related changes this summer. Additionally, the Government of Canada has stated it is developing a 21st-century intellectual property strategy, which will be applied not only to NAFTA, but also to ongoing trade negotiations with China, MERCOSUR, the remaining TPP members and others. Canada is far better prepared for a trade-related IP negotiation than it has ever been and may even see fit to push back on TPP concessions.