(Green text is a link)
(As submitted to the Court, R v Karen (Eve) Stegenga, July 17, 2014, Powell RIver, BC)
See also: The evidence that Lockheed Martin Produces Cluster Munitions
(Return to Huge victory. Lockheed Martin (U.S. weapons, surveillance, war) is OUT of the Canadian Census! )
Related to the Trial of (Karen) Eve Stegenga over the involvement of Lockheed Martin at Statistics Canada. Eve refused to fill in her census form.
(To return to that posting, click on: Huge victory. Lockheed Martin (U.S. weapons, surveillance, war) is OUT of the Canadian Census!)
You cannot defend yourself against something you don’t understand.
Understand the modus operandi of Lockheed Martin.They will have brought their ways and means with them to Canada.
The details in POGO’s The Politics of Contracting: Lockheed Martin tell the story.
The Reports establish a clear pattern by Lockheed Martin. They reinforce the article, Wages of Sin.
The details in POGO’s The Politics of Contracting: Lockheed Martin tell the story.
As submitted to the Court, Lockhead Expenditures. The headings are:
Source: http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/2004/politics-of-contracting-companies/gc-rd-20040629-1.html
The names and figures are as of 2004. POGO’s Reports 2007, 2009 show that nothing has changed:
April 2009, POGO’s Updated Federal Contractor Misconduct Database: Lockheed Martin Leads In Contracts and Penalties,
http://www.pogo.org/about/press-room/releases/2009/co-fcm-20090421.html
Excerpt:
Lockheed also has the most misconduct instances with 50 instances of civil, criminal, or administrative misconduct since 1995.
2007 The Project on Government Oversight Report, . . (information overload)
2003 The Project on Government Oversight Report, .
The detail is very good. See scanned copy submitted to the Court: Lockheed – Project on Government Oversight (The URL is no longer valid. )
I love the way people are using their special interest to help us get to a better place.
Problems are massaged by so many different hands.
This is a well-designed talk, down to the last line – a little gem there.
Happy day!
Having Edward Snowden as a customer brought Ladar Levison into a battle with his own government.
Recommend: go to the URL to listen to the podcast of the interview
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2014/06/27/ladar-levison-the-american-who-shut-down-his-business-when-he-felt-his-government-wanted-too-much-1/
(Note: the interview originally aired Oct 11, 2013.)
While you may not be familiar with Ladar Levison or his email service, Lavabit, you’ve certainly heard about one of its users. His e-mail address was edsnowden@lavabit.com. We hear from the man who got caught up in a legal battle with his own government for running an e-mail service, and his fight for privacy.
“They were able to map out the patterns of communications…with whom Brazilian officials were speaking, who was calling them, how long they were speaking for, and what their network of association was…”
Glenn Greenwald
Last October, journalist Glenn Greenwald dropped a bombshell when he told our colleagues at As It Happens that Canadian officials spy on members of Brazil’s government. Mr. Greenwald says it was information he received from Edward Snowden, the former contractor with the U.S. National Security Agency.
Last summer, Mr. Snowden went public with the details of a sprawling, NSA campaign to monitor phone calls, e-mails and web searches.
Snowden was a customer of a small secure e-mail provider called Lavabit, owned by entrepreneur Ladar Levison. Having Snowden as a customer brought Levison into a battle with the U.S. government, one that would test his resolve, as well as his principles.
“I feel there’s a sacred trust between a user and a service provider. “
Ladar Levison
Ladar Levison was summoned to a grand jury, held in contempt of court, fined thousands of dollars and threatened with arrest. In the end, he decided the best course of action was just to shut-down his business.
“Overnight, I went from being a small business owner to a political activist.”
Ladar Levison
Ladar Levinson was able to speak publicly about this because a U.S. court lifted the gag order on his case last October.
This interview originally aired on October 11th, 2013
Recommend: go to the URL and listen to the interview with Levison. I captured the text of the news story below, for backup purposes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/lavabit-founder-fought-9-month-legal-battle-with-fbi-1.2658374
CBC News Posted: May 29, 2014
Last year Ladar Levison shut down Lavabit, the email company he’d built over 10 years, rather than obey a government order to compromise the privacy of his users.
Levison has been caught in a legal nightmare for the past nine months, since he refused to hand over the encryption codes used on his system, a small business built with a promise of a secure system for end users.
“Lavabit was established 10 years ago as an alternative to gmail with a focus on privacy,” Levison said in an interview with CBC’s The Lang & O’Leary Exchange.
“We set out with that goal and in the course of building the system that would go on to power the servers, there were a number of headlines discussing the Patriot Act and national security levels and that prompted me to build into the platform an encryption system that would prevent me from accessing the messages of some secure accounts that had enabled the secure storage feature,” he added.
The ordeal began with a knock on the door by federal agents who had a court order requiring the installation of surveillance equipment on Lavabit’s network .
“I had no choice but to consent to the installation of their device, which would hand the U.S. government access to all of the messages—to and from all of my customers—as they travelled between their email accounts other providers on the internet,” Levison wrote in The Guardian.
“But that wasn’t enough. The federal agents then claimed that their court order required me to surrender my company’s private encryption keys, and I balked. What they said they needed were customer passwords.”
‘I simply feel that the freedom to communicate privately, the freedom to associate without suspicion or being accused of criminal behaviour in secret reports is so important to a free and functioning democracy that I’m willing to invent new technology’- Ladar Levison, founder of Lavabit
Long legal battle
Levison told CBC he did not believe it was right to expose all his 410,000 users because the FBI wanted to investigate a handful of his customers.
“I thought if the government came knocking, I could give up the identity of the account holder and they could go directly to that person and collect the data, which is how I believe in a democracy the process should work. You should not be accused of a crime without ever finding out that you were accused,” he said.
Levison was held in contempt of a federal order and faced a court case in which neither he nor his attorneys were given access to background information and in which most of the information was under seal.
He shut down his company, rather than hand over the encryption code. Even today, he is not permitted to say who the FBI was investigating.
“I can’t confirm or deny they were targeting Snowden. The only thing I’m not allowed to speak about to this day is who and how many targets they were going after in my system,” he said.
Last week, a federal judge unsealed key parts of the record detailing the government’s requests from Lavabit, freeing Levison to talk more openly about what happened.
“With the decision last week, I feel empowered to speak out about the lack of justice that I received as a business and as an individual American,” Levison said.
Levison claimed he is worried his service could be used to hide criminal behaviour, but he believes the government should target its investigation against the individuals it is investigating, rather than all of his customers.
He intends to begin again in a new service with other developers in the coalition called the “Dark Mail Alliance.” Levison said he hopes to have a new encrypted email system in testing within a few months and widely available later this year.
Privacy issues paramount
Lavabit encryption was done on the server, using an SSO system to create a secure bridge to the client, but that won’t work if federal agents can demand the code for everyone at once.
“Moving the cryptography down to the client is a new technical challenge and one I’m in the process of solving,” he said.
Levison believes Snowden’s revelations have made people more conscious of the need for privacy and there will be a growing market for really secure email systems.
“I simply feel that the freedom to communicate privately, the freedom to associate without suspicion or being accused of criminal behaviour in secret reports is so important to a free and functioning democracy that I’m willing to invest (invent – I think this should be) new technology to ensure that future generations don’t succumb to biting from the forbidden apple like this one,” he said.
From: Larry Waldinger [mailto:lwaldinger@gmail.com] Sent: June 23, 2014 2:53 PM To: Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net> Subject: Re: Revised Permanent Peace Agreement Ashu Solo
Sandra:
I was not going to respond, but your words: “REQUIRED: an undertaking by Ashu to conduct himself appropriately vis-a-vis other people.” seem to suggest that you are still open to a possible understanding if Ashu can “conduct himself appropriately”. I have to go to work soon so I will forward an undertaking from Ashu before I go. I apologize if I misunderstood.
Larry
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Sandra Finley wrote:
It is not a peace agreement between me and Ashu.
I do not need any kind of agreement with him. I simply do not engage with people who are disrespectful, who lie, who attempt to intimidate and coerce other people.
The point seems to have been missed: what I do, I do not do on my own behalf. I have the wherewithal to neutralize the effects of Ashu Solo in my life. SOME OTHER PEOPLE DO NOT.
REQUIRED: an undertaking by Ashu to conduct himself appropriately vis-a-vis other people.
Perhaps this will make clear the PRINCIPLE at play here:
In democracy, there is no fear in speaking or publishing truthful and respectful thoughts.
I, nor anyone else, should be intimidated by how Ashu might react. He robs me of the freedom accorded citizens in a democracy if I succumb out of fear of what he might do.
It is the responsibility of citizens in a democracy to understand and to defend the principles of democracy in action. Many people before us have fought hard and died, to establish the principles.
I am reminded of the (secular Muslim – – like Ashu – – and author) Salman Rushdie’s nine years under Islamist fatwa (a call to murder Rushdie by the Ayatollah, because of a novel he wrote). Rushdie (and a very small, international group of authors, journalists and book publishers) refused to have their freedom taken by religious and political leaders.
Atheism (Ashu) is one among many religious beliefs (religion is no more than man’s interpretation of the life energy). In Ashu’s case, as in the case of the particular Ayotollahs, the religious belief is not a justification for behaviour that is outside the law, or that attempts to limit the freedom of others.
The actions of Rushdie and his supporters arose out of one small principle, that of defending freedom of the individual. The freedom to say, write and publish, even that which might be critical of the religion and its leaders. (Of course, there are responsibilities and limits to the freedom.) The threat to Rushdie’s life (and family) from Islamist zealots was real, and only because the Islamists did not like legitimate criticism.
It seems so obvious and fundamental that the principle must be defended if we wish to preserve it. In the practical world it is often easier and more comfortable to try and ignore those who would bully others into submission.
The difficulties with Ashu began over his bullying and intimidation of a young woman who disagreed with some of his statements. He used Green Party social media in his attacks. When I forwarded the complaint about him, he turned and directed his tactics against me. It is the Rushdie story carried out, but in miniature. Ashu will likely appreciate the irony.
Sandra
From: Larry Waldinger Sent: June-23-14 8:23 AM To: Sandra Finley Subject: Fwd: Revised Permanent Peace Agreement
Sandra:
I will suggest to you from ME as a friend that it is probably a good idea to cool off and conclude this revised agreement and get things tucked away for good.
As you can see below Ashu has already revised the agreement to take out whatever he thinks was objectionable to you.
I apologize if I have overstepped, and I am confident that this will be the last you hear of it from me.
Larry
———- Forwarded message ———- From: Ashu M. G. Solo <amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us> Date: Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 8:59 AM Subject: Revised Permanent Peace Agreement To: Larry Waldinger
Larry, you can give Sandra Finley this entire email.
To have a permanent peace in all ways between Sandra Finley and I, Sandra Finley and I should agree to the following permanent peace agreement, which shall remain confidential forever and guarantee peace between us forever:
PERMANENT PEACE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ASHU SOLO AND SANDRA FINLEY
Ashu Solo agrees to the following:
Sandra Finley agrees to the following:
Instead of stipulations #1 and #2 for Sandra Finley above, she could just unpublish all of the blog posts about me so that they aren’t accessible to people by password or without password. This would save her time.
I would be fully committed to keeping this permanent peace agreement and I hope Sandra Finley would be too. We both have INFINITELY more productive and useful things to be doing. We could be moving the world forward instead.
Ashu M. G. Solo
From: Larry Waldinger
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:25 PM
To: Ashu M. G. Solo
Subject: Sandra
From Sandra:
Re Ashu:
– he can email you with what he proposes his undertaking will be
– You can forward his email to me.
– If it satisfies, I will remove from http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=11496 all that refers to the co-authored paper with his father, that includes his father’s contact info.
Please be advised:
– I am not willing to have more of my time taken up by Ashu
– There will be no “Negotiations”.
—–Original Message—–
From: JoAnne Sent: May-22-14
Subject: Re: Mandatory Labour Force Survey
Hello Sandra,
I came across your contact information after doing much research on this Labour Force Survey which I have recently been contacted to do. I was furious to learn of the nature of personal information that I would be required to provide. I am inclined towards not doing it but have a letter from Stats Canada saying it is mandatory by law.
I read the Statistics Act and cannot see anywhere that states that it is mandatory. I have read numerous blogs, posts etc. and some people say it is mandatory , some say it isn’t. I’m certainly not prepared to go to jail over this but I am fired up about the invasion of my privacy from Stats Canada and this Survey.
Can you give me any firm answer on the legal/law that would require mandatory participation in this survey, Or perhaps guide me as to where I can get council on this matter?
Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank You in advance,
JoAnne
= = = = = = = = = = = =
On May 22, 2014, Sandra Finley wrote:
Hi JoAnne,
I believe the situation to be this:
I think your best bet, if StatsCan continues to demand that you fill out the survey is to tell them: I will fill out the survey AFTER you show me in the Statistics Act where it says that surveys are mandatory. Tell them: you are governed by the Stats Act.
Good luck with it JoAnne!
/Sandra
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: JoAnne Sent: May-24-14 To: Sandra Finley
Subject: Re: Mandatory Labour Force Survey
Hello Sandra,
Thank You so much for your response and the good information and advice. I received a visit this morning from the Stats Canada Rep who has been trying to get me to fill out the Labour Force Survey. As per your advice I told her the reason I was declining was because I had read The Statistics Act which I am governed by and see no amendments on Mandatory Surveys.
She said that the letter they sent states that it does and of course I said again that I’m not governed by the letter I’m governed by the Act itself and that it didn’t. She said that the survey was mandatory according to section 8 in the Act and basically responded exactly as it is stated on their website which I posted below
Is this just wording they are playing with or is there validity to this so called “order”?
She has told me that she is sending me a copy of the Statistic Act saying that there are 2 mandatory household surveys and the LFS was one of them. I said, send me a copy of the Act showing this amendment then. She said also the Stats Canada would be contacting me to inform me of the fact that it is the law and the penalties imposed if you decline to participate.
I do not intimidate easily, however I want to be sure I know what I’m talking about. Are you familiar with the “Order” that can mandate people to do the survey.
I thank You for you time and help. I am getting more and more annoyed with this Rep from Stats Can, as she has called my house repeatedly and knocked on my door twice in the span of a week and a half. I would like to put this to rest but feel I will have a fight on my hands. Any continued help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You once again,
JoAnne
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On May 25, 2014, “Sandra Finley” wrote:
Hi again JoAnne,
First your question, I want to be sure I know what I’m talking about. Are you familiar with the “Order” that can mandate people to do the survey.
Statscan is talking about an Order-in-Council. (Section 8 of the Statistics Act, titled “Voluntary Surveys” – The Minister may, by order, authorize the obtaining (of information) …)
Orders-in-council are an abbreviated way of getting things done. The Government doesn’t have to go through Parliament for EVERYthing. In some instances, the Cabinet can issue an “Order-in-Council” (in council with the Queen or the Queen’s Representative, the Gov-Gen, who has to sign the Order before it comes into effect).
From the internet:
Many orders in council are notices of appointments. Other “orders” are regulations or legislative orders in relation to and authorized by an existing act of parliament (like Section 8 of the Stats Act).
Federal Orders in council have to be announced in the Canada Gazette.
The Privy Council Office, which provides bureaucratic support to the Prime Minister and cabinet, maintains an online database of federal orders in council which can be used to search for orders in council issued since 1990.
From your notes, StatsCan says
StatsCan has announced this. It is their interpretation.
It is a very contentious interpretation of Section 8. It has not been subject to interpretation by a Court of Law. AND it does not stand up to scrutiny.
THE SHORT OF IT:
StatsCan is saying that these words from the Statistics Act (Sec 8, Voluntary Surveys)
where such information is requested section 31 does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.
Mean
you have to fill in the survey and if you don’t you can be prosecuted, fined and sent to jail
(Section 31 is the sanctions, fine and jail, if you are guilty of non-compliance with a Census.)
That is a ludicrous interpretation of the words. It is simply not what they say.
Section 8 ( “Voluntary Surveys”) says: where “such information” – – i.e. a survey – – is requested THE SANCTIONS DO NOT APPLY.
If the sanctions do not apply, surveys are voluntary. Which is ALSO what the rest of the wording in Section 8 says.
StatsCan is out-to-lunch. Their interpretation is self-serving.
And dangerous when Lockheed Martin Corp (American surveillance) is involved. The data base on Canadians at StatsCan is growing rapidly. We have a Charter Right to Privacy of personal information. Anyone who believes that their personal information is secure in the StatsCan data base is extremely gullible (reference Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald disclosures regarding American surveillance and “back-door” access to data bases, plus the articulated statements that Americans (the NSA, FBI, DofD) want access to ALL the data on Canadians).
= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = =
Some further thoughts, which you probably don’t need:
StatsCan makes the point:
They have the authority. Agreed – – yes, the Act gives them authority. Section 22: the Chief Statistician shall, under the direction of the Minister, collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics in relation to (labour and employment)
No problem there. But note that the granting of authority does not give them the right to override the Laws. They still have to do their work WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAW.
Already discussed:
The title of Section 8 is “Voluntary Surveys”. And the details say quite the opposite of what StatsCan is saying.
Section 8 says two things:
INSERT ADDITIONAL, Feb 2016: From posting http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=16207
RE: former Chief Statistician agrees with the premise of your second reason (Charter Right to Privacy). He states that while the mandatory collection of personal information is in violation of the charter right, however it is a ‘legitimate violation of the right’ (the idea that rights may be rescinded for a social good) because it is a recognized necessity as outlined in the statistics act.
MY REPLY:
Yes, the Government may rescind the rights of an individual. However,
If StatsCan wishes to take away Canadians’ Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information, it would have to make an application to the Court to do so, supplying the Court with the arguments to satisfy the Oakes Test. It has not done that. So the Charter Right stands.
REFERENCE:
= = = = = = = =
Some things that might be helpful to understanding,
I cannot imagine that the Justice Dept would ever agree to proceed with prosecutions under the Statistics Act over non-compliance with surveys. HOWEVER! Stranger things have happened.
If they ever decided to prosecute in relation to surveys, it would be the usual – – the justice system is not meant for ordinary citizens. It is almost impossible to win without legal counsel and that is expensive. It is also very difficult to find a lawyer who has specialized experience in this realm. A run-of-the-day lawyer would have a large amount of extra work in order for them to grasp the lay of the minefield on this issue. So, the Govt gets its way, in spite of what the Laws say.
JUST IN CASE INSANITY PREVAILS IN CANADA:
in my experience you really can jump off the StatsCan railroading at any time. They want you to comply with whatever it is that they want. I was repeatedly offered, first by StatsCan and then again, repeatedly by the Justice Dept – – fill in the form and they will go away. They want to keep dissent muffled. They are accustomed to people caving in to their coercion (it is understandable that people cave in).
I received the census long form which no longer exists. My reasons for not complying began because of the out-sourcing to Lockheed Martin Corp. But I have read enough about the rise to power of the Nazis to know that we are getting into dangerous territory with detailed files on citizens, Not to mention other worrisome things that are happening. We are getting further and further away from democracy.
It is a bit like a game of poker. You are calling their bluff. (Or not, if they decide that they are omnipotent and screw the law.) I repeat that I do not know of anyone who has been charged because of non-compliance with a survey. Many, many have been threatened, the same as you are being threatened. But StatsCan has not followed through. I am sure that people I have shared information with, as I am doing with you now, would have gotten back to me if charges had been laid.
I would recommend that you try to step back regularly to assess where you’re at with them.
And note: if there is any chance that they will follow through on their threats, they will not choose to issue a summons to appear in court to YOU specifically, IF you have not given them hard evidence that they can use in Court.
The person they would use to testify against you would be the StatsCan worker. That worker will be keeping notes on what you say. And would use those notes in a Court hearing. But as I say, if you do not give them the words they would need, they won’t try to make a case against you. It is basically YOU who would have to incriminate yourself (except that you would not be incriminating yourself, because you have not broken the law).
You have told them that you read the Act and don’t see where surveys are mandatory. They have advised you that they will bring the information to you.
Once that is done, – – let’s say this is the Census now, which IS mandatory – – If you never say “I am not going to fill in the form”, they don’t have the “evidence” they would need to present to a judge. If you say “Look I’m busy at the moment, leave it with me – – I need to read it and get my head around it” they don’t have anything useable in Court. If you know who’s at the door and don’t answer it, they have nothing to go on. And so on.
Also, they have not brought charges against anyone who has submitted a form (census), but filled it with minimal or nonsense answers. There are thousands of people who have done that.
Maybe I only make things LESS CLEAR by supplying these further details.
Personally, I think you can stand firm and nothing will happen. StatsCan’s position vis-a-vis Surveys cannot be defended. They would, or should, be thrown out of any Court.
Best wishes JoAnne.
Please feel free to get back if you have further questions I might be able to answer.
Sandra
P.S. As you may know, George Orwell’s small book, “Animal Farm”, is an excellent illustration of how democracy fails. “Memory” of the way things are supposed to function is lost. The people who understood, who knew, were cynics. They had a responsibility to stand up, to speak up, but they did not. They were the only ones who COULD HAVE changed the course, the slide into fascism (government by corporate interests).
Citizens do have to engage in their democracy if it is going to survive. And they have to do it with intelligence. What you are doing is great! Educate the StatsCan worker. (I feel badly for them. They probably need the money, and I strongly suspect that they are on some sort of a quota and reward system – – not a salaried job.) /S
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: JoAnne Sent: May-26-14 To: Sandra Finley Subject: Re: Mandatory Labour Force Survey
Sandra, thank you for ALL of the information you provided. I read it over several times and we actually had an in depth conversation about it over dinner last night with our guests. As I expected, you confirmed what I thought about Stats Can putting their own special twist on the interpretation of the Act. The information you provided me with has given me the confidence to stand my ground. I will take your advice and mind my P’s & Q’s so as not to incriminate myself even though what I really want to do is make a video montage of her visits to my home from our security cameras and post it on YouTube and see how she likes her privacy being invaded. That’s my anger speaking of course, and I will definitely be cautious how I proceed. If there should be anything that arises from her last visit ( which I am anticipating) I will let you know where things are at.
I thank you once again for your response and all of the very valuable information you provided. I so agree with your concerns on where democracy is heading in this country, in fact it’s more than a little scary.
Best,
JoAnne
= = = = = = = = = =
Sandra to JoAnne:
StatsCan keeps repeating the lies.
We have to keep repeating the truth of what the Law says. Keep the memory of our Rights alive.
The conversations with friends are EXTREMELY important.
I find this interesting (as well as tragic), in the context of Change. Change comes about through awareness – – seeing through things.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = ==
Email exchange, My reply:
Yes – angry men. They were betrayed by their leaders.
I wonder how and when this Veteran figured it out?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ben writes:
The language is terrible, but the thoughts are so plain and especially significant
http://aattp.org/absolutely-nothing-a-veterans-savage-indictment-of-the-iraq-war/
Tragically, all we’ve fought for in Iraq, all that 4,500 American lives were shed to gain, is on the cusp, potentially, of vanishing.
– statement by Mitt Romney, “Ideas Summit,” 6/13/2014
All we fought for in Iraq.
All we fought for in Iraq is on the cusp of vanishing.
That’s what Mitt Romney says.
We fought for. We fought for. We.
Oh, so it’s we now, is it, Mitt?
I must have missed you over there, but it was a busy place. We. The guy who helped set up “pro-draft” rallies and yet somehow managed to avoid service in Vietnam is upset about losing what “we” fought for? We.
Yeah, fuck you, Mitt.
And you’re all welcome to quote me on that.
Somebody stepped into my office yesterday and asked how I felt about it. He wanted to know how I felt about “losing” Iraq.
How do I feel about losing all we fought for?
I don’t know.
First, I’m going to need somebody to explain to me exactly what it was that we were fighting for.
What was it? What is it that we gained, according to Mitt Romney? And what is on the cusp of vanishing? What is that? No, really, somebody please explain it to me.
Because I’d love to know.
The Wikipedia says Operation Iraqi Freedom started on the 20th of March, 2003, which is just another reason why you shouldn’t believe anything you read in the Wikipedia (don’t, just don’t). That’s not correct, the war began a day earlier. See, I was there on the night the warreally started, at precisely 2200 hours, on the 19th of March in the Northern Arabian Gulf. I was there when US Navy SEALs and Polish GROM stormed the MABOT and KAAOT oil terminals a full day before Saddam Hussein discovered that his time was finally up. In point of fact, I had arrived there four months before, a few days before Christmas in December of 2002. From the day of my arrival (and before that really) to the day the war started, and for months after, I was a Navy intelligence officer working in support of the invasion force. There’s not much I don’t know about the events leading up to war and the aftermath of the invasion.
Well, not much except for that one little detail.
All these years later, and I still don’t know why.
Oh, I mean, I know what they told us, sure, Saddam Hussein attacked America on 9-11. Right? That’s what they said, that’s what the Commander-in-Chief told us. Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaida, remember? The son of a bitch and his stinking nation of terrorists attacked us. The Iraqis had it coming. And Georgie Boy was going to finish what his daddy started. Hooray! Right? That’s what they said.
Except those of us in the professional intelligence community looked at each other and thought, wait, what? How the hell did we miss that? Saddam and Osama bin Laden are working together? Buwah? But Rumsfeld, he had his own little extra-constitutional intelligence outfit staffed with his simpering cronies who he paid to blow smoke up his pinched grey ass until his colon resembled beef jerky and he sure didn’t have much use for us – after all, we were just the military he had.
Ours, as they say, is not to reason why, ours is to but do and die, right? At least that’s what Rummy told us and you know, you go into war with the Secretary of Defense you have, not the one you’d like to have. And if Rumsfeld says he’s got the real scoop, it must be true? Right? Sure, that justifies his contempt for us, sure it does.
Except, Rumsfeld’s little masturbation fantasy turned out not to be the case.
But hey, never mind that, Saddam Hussein was threatening us anyway, wasn’t he? Sure he was, in fact, that’s the first time you heard the phrase “Weapons of Mass Destruction” isn’t it? The bastard had nukes and germs and war gas and he was just itching to use them on America, wasn’t he? Heck we even had pictures of “mobile weapons labs” to prove it, isn’t that what Colin Powell told the UN and the world? And by damn Saddam had been buying Yellow Cake uranium from Niger, right? Colin Powell wouldn’t lie to us, would he? He was a hero, a general, he wouldn’t send his comrades into war on a lie now would he?
Except all that turned out to be bullshit too, and Colin Powell was either a dupe of staggering proportions or he was the kind of Soldier who would fuck his buddy right in the ass without so much as a reach-around and I’ll leave it up to you to figure which one is worse.
But by the time we figured out we’d been ass-raped by Colin Powell, we were shoulder deep in Iraq, Baghdad was burning, Iraq’s army had thrown down their weapons and taken off their uniforms and had melted into the population, Saddam had vanished and his sons were dead, and the President of the United States had already declared victory from the deck of an American aircraft carrier.
And so, the objective became … what?
Hearts and minds and freedom and democracy and nation building and magic bunnies who fart sunshine and rainbows.
Unfortunately, it turns out we’re real good at the blowing shit up part, not so good at the magic bunnies part.
Which in retrospect, shouldn’t be all that surprising – given that in order to build a civilization it helps if you actually have some vague familiarity with the people involved. Needless to say, we didn’t. And we didn’t care. To America, they were all little brown towelheads, sand niggers, raggedy-assed camel jockeys who ought to be grateful to America for burning down their shitty country. Sunni? Shia? Turkman? Baathists? What’s that? What do you mean they hate each other? They’re all Muslims aren’t they? They’re all Aayrabs, right? What do you mean they hate each other? And it all fell apart, disintegrating into insurgency and murder and bloody civil war – just exactly as anybody who actually knew something about the region and its people and its history could have told you it would. We lost less than a hundred soldiers in the actual war, the “peace” cost us nearly 5000 more. And the Iraqis? Who the hell knows? A hundred thousand? A million? It’s impossible to tell.
And it turns out that freedom and democracy and magic flying bunnies were as elusive as Iraq’s supposed WMDs.
So, what was it again that we were fighting for?
They had no idea what we were fighting for, those saber-rattling Chicken Hawks, the cowardly connected wealthy weasels who’d managed to avoid serving in their own war, who kept theirchildren out of uniform, but just couldn’t wait to send us into one of their own making. They sent us off with parades and marching bands and cheering crowds … and brought the bodies home in secret, hidden away from the TV cameras and the public.
They had no plan and no idea what we were dying for, but they assured us what the war wasn’t about – it wasn’t about religion.
Oh no, sir, we weren’t fighting to eradicate Muslims, it wasn’t about Islam.
The Evangelical Christian religious extremists who started this war told us it wasn’t about religion.
Heh heh, riiiiiight. And Vietnam was really about containing communism. Sure.
Maybe they should have had Colin Powell tell that wopper to the UN, but he’d quit by then and was suddenly as invisible to America as those flag draped metal boxes arriving at Dover Air Force base in the middle of the night.
Americans who a few years before had been proudly waving their little flags as Johnny marched off to war were suddenly all shifty-eyed, they slapped a $5 dollar made in China magnet on the bumper of their giant gas-sucking SUVs, Support Our Troops, and with sardonically raised eyebrows complained to each other over the pumps about the immorality of a war fought for oil.
But that wasn’t true either, was it?
Iraq’s oil fields, the ones we fought and died to preserve on orders from the White House, the off-shore terminals the SEALs and the GROM risked their lives to save on that night back in 2003, the precious Iraqi oil that was going to pay for the war and pay to rebuild the country we’d blown up, well, that oil is nowhere to be found today, is it?
So, tell me again, what exactly is it that’s on the “cusp of vanishing?”
I mean it sure isn’t peace.
It’s not freedom for the Iraqi people, despite the war’s idiotic name.
It sure isn’t regional stability.
It’s not the end of terrorism or the near universal hatred of America in the Middle East.
And now that Halliburton and KBR and Blackwater and Dick Cheney have made their billions and cashed out, it isn’t even about long-term economic investments and American business.
Hell, it’s not even about cheap gas.
So, go on, enlighten me. Because even though I was there, I’ve got no goddamned idea what it is that we’ve lost in Iraq beyond the 4,487 men and women we shipped home in metal boxes, beyond the 32,223 wounded and maimed, beyond the trillions of dollars we spent in our rage and our drive for revenge and our lust for blood.
Today, John McCain and Mitt Romney and the rest of the conservative war machine are railing against the President.
McCain stirred from the yellow fog of his bamboo cage and proclaimed in his best Old Man Yelling At Clouds voice, “We won Iraq! Obama lost it!”
Really Johnny Walnuts? Tell me, what did we win? And what have we lost? Please be specific, because I’d really like to know.
We no more “won” Iraq than McCain’s own father “won” Vietnam.
McCain claims he “predicted” the sectarian violence now tearing Iraq apart. Really? Where the hell was clairvoyant John McCain back in 2003 when he voted along with the rest of them to send us into war? And later, where was his great predictive ability when Iraq began tearing itself apart? I guess he was at a Dixie Chicks concert, he must have been out in the lobby ordering a plate of Freedom Fries when his pal George W. Bush let Iraq disintegrate into civil war.
And so here we are.
The same old motley cast of characters, the warhawks and the chickenhawks and the billionaires and the simple-minded saber-rattlers and the same old hate-filled pundits, they just can’t wait to jump back into Iraq.
Mitt Romney, John McCain, one who never served and one who damned well ought to know better, men who both wanted to be President of the United States and who both lost to Barack Obama, they just can’t wait to send other people’s kids back into the meat grinder.
Here’s my question.
Why?
Why, John McCain?
Why, Mitt Romney?
Why, conservatives?
This time you fuckers goddamned well tell me why.
What’s the goal? What’s the objective? Is it to end terrorism? Is it to enforce peace at the muzzle of a gun? Is it it to make defense contractors rich? Is it for jobs? Or is it for magic flying bunnies who shoot rainbows and cheap gasoline out of their little assholes to the sound of Yankee Doodle Dandy?
Or, or, is it just because you hate Barack Obama?
That’s it, isn’t it?
It is.
You sons of bitches one and all, you simpering capering madmen, this time at least have the courage to face the cameras, to look into America’s eyes, and tell them that their sons and daughters will be dying because you John McCain, because you Mitt Romney, because you Dick Cheney, because you Donald Rumsfeld, because you George W. Bush you lying bastard, because you conservatives hate Barack Obama…and for no other reason.
Go on, tell us, go on. Wave your little flags and beat your fleshy chests, roll out the marching bands and tell us just how many more American soldiers should die. Go on, put a number on it. Ten? A hundred? Fifty four thousand? How many of us have to die? How many more bodies will it take to satiate your mindless hunger for blood and revenge? How many more American lives are worth your insane hatred of the president? How many? How much further into debt should we drive our nation, another trillion dollars? Two? Ten? A hundred? Put a price on it you insane sons of bitches, go on, give me a number, write me a check. Tell me how much you’re willing to pay, show me the goddamned money. How many more years? How many? One? Five? Another decade? Fifty? What is it? Don’t wave your hands and make some vague prognostication, give me a number, how many lives, how much money, how many years? You look us in the eye and you fucking tell us.
I’ll tell you what, let’s go back to Iraq.
Oh, yes, let us do that.
I’ll dig out my uniform and strap on my pistol and gird up my sword and ride into battle yet again.
Just so long as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and every single one of those powdered, Botoxed talking heads at Fox News are in the vanguard. That’s right, you cowards, you put on a uniform and you lead the charge this time around. The Koch brothers and Mitt Romney can pay for it, every goddamned penny, we’ll bleed them until they’re dry and then we’ll pull the gold fillings from their teeth to pay for it right along with the rest of their Wall Street cronies. You fuckers got rich off the last one, you can damned well pay for this one. And when you run out of money, we’ll take your blood, fair’s fair.
Strap John McCain into the cockpit of an A-4 Skyhawk and let him fly air cover.
If he gets himself shot down and taken prisoner again, well, you know what? Fuck him, leave him to the enemy because frankly his hate and bile and raging insanity have done more damage to this country than Bowe Bergdahl ever did.
The terrorists can keep him.
Peace love and understanding tell me Is there no place for them today They say we must fight to keep our freedom But Lord knows there’s got to be a better way
War what is it good for Absolutely nothing… – Edwin Starr, “War” 1969
My thank-you note to journalist David Pugliese follows the posting.
Related posting: 2013-10-09 Inside Canada’s top-secret billion-dollar spy palace, CBC News)
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Government orders federal departments to keep tabs on all demonstrations across country
by David Pugliese
June 4, 2014
The federal government is expanding its surveillance of public activities to include all known demonstrations across the country, a move that collects information even on the most mundane of protests by Canadians.
The email requesting such information was sent out Tuesday by the Government Operations Centre in Ottawa to all federal departments.
“The Government Operations Centre is seeking your assistance in compiling a comprehensive listing of all known demonstrations which will occur either in your geographical area or that may touch on your mandate,” noted the email, leaked to the Citizen. “We will compile this information and make this information available to our partners unless of course, this information is not to be shared and not available on open sources. In the case of the latter, this information will only be used by the GOC for our Situational Awareness.”
The Government Operations Centre or GOC is supposed to provide strategic-level coordination on behalf of the federal government “in response to an emerging or occurring event affecting the national interest.”
It assesses the requirement for developing plans to prevent or deal with emergencies such as pandemics, earthquakes, forest fires and floods. It also monitors overseas situations such as the 2011 crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.
But the Government Operations Centre has also been involved, as an intelligence clearing house, in compiling information on Aboriginal protesters. Tuesday’s email, however, significantly expands its surveillance activities to include all demonstrations by any person or group.
Wesley Wark, an intelligence specialist at the University of Ottawa, said such an order is illegal. “The very nature of the blanket request and its unlimited scope I think puts it way over the line in terms of lawful activity,” said Wark. “I think it’s a clear breach of our Charter rights.”
Wark said the only lawful way a Canadian government agency, with the appropriate mandate, would have to monitor a demonstration would be if that agency could establish that the protest would constitute some kind of threat to civil order.
“But it has to be specific and it has to be justifiable in law to mount such surveillance,” he added.
Wark also questioned why the Government Operations Centre would issue such an order. It is mandated to assess incoming information about emergencies and threats to the security of Canada but it doesn’t have a legal mandate to issue directions, he added.
Jean Paul Duval, a spokesman for Public Safety Canada, noted in an email that “such requests for information fall within the mandate of the Government Operations Centre which facilitates information-sharing for potential and ongoing events with other federal departments, provinces and territories, and its partners through regular analysis and reporting.”
Liberal MP Wayne Easter, the party’s public safety critic, said the order appears to be a continuation of the Conservative government’s efforts to keep track of Canadians who might disagree with government policy.
“Demonstrations, as long as they are peaceful, are part of a healthy democracy,” Easter said. “This is the kind of tactics you would see in a dictatorship.”
The GOC was created in 2004 by Public Safety Canada. It is connected with the operations centres of 20 federal departments and agencies, as well as with those of the provinces and territories, and other countries, including the United States.
NDP MP Paul Dewar said the email is part of what he sees as a disturbing pattern on the part of government to increase its collection of information on the public. “This government is turning into Big Brother,” said Dewar. “This is clearly out of bounds from what GOC is supposed to do.”
Last year the Government Operations Centre was involved in coordinating a response to Aboriginal demonstrations against fracking. The GOC distributed a map of the area where the RCMP had conducted raids on protesters who had seized an oil company’s vehicles. It also produced a spreadsheet detailing 32 planned events in support of anti-fracking.
Those included a healing dance in Kenora, Ont., a prayer ceremony in Edmonton and an Idle No More “taco fundraiser, raffle and jam session” planned at the Native Friendship Centre in Barrie, Ont., according to documents obtained through the Access to Information Act by APTN National News.
= = = = = = = = = = =
From: Sandra Finley [
Sent: June-06-14 6:57 PM
To: David Pugliese
Subject: Thank-you
Hello David,
Sometimes I read an important article and then look to see who wrote it. More than once, and most recently today, your name appears. I murmur Bless David Pugliese.
I want to express gratitude on behalf of myself and many other Canadians.
Your June 4th report,
coupled with
makes me very nervous.
I also find worrisome:
The build-up of personal files on individual Canadians at StatsCan is relentless, through “surveys”. I know because people who are threatened with prosecution if they don’t supply the information, often google and end up on my blog. There isn’t a day that goes by without hits on the related pages. I have never stopped receiving input from aggrieved Canadians, and replying to questions, offering information and advice.
I recall one of the complainants supplying a written communication from StatsCan that described how the workers work Saturdays, Sundays, all days and hours of the week.
Coercion, intimidation, bullying of people to supply the information – – in a situation where, I am of the considered opinion, the wording of the Statistics Act is sufficiently clear: the surveys are voluntary. But not according to StatsCan. What they are doing is illegal and offensive, an attack on our Charter Rights, as far as I am concerned.
Eve Stegenga from Powell River is back in Court on July 17th over the Lockheed Martin issue at StatsCan. Every case helps to raise more awareness in another community.
I THINK that more and more Canadians are aware that we are in trouble and mobilizing. But my sample is biased, I tend to be attracted to people who are activist, informed.
Anyhow, keep fighting the good fight!
And thank-you.
Best wishes,
Sandra Finley
D’Arcy writes:
Hi folks,
This news story in this morning’s StarPhoenix should raise concerns on many levels:
“Arbitrator rules against tenure veto power” by Jason Warwick
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/saskatoon/Arbitrator+rules+against+tenure+veto+power/9905370/story.html (INSERT: The text is copied below in case the link becomes inactive.)
The recommendation to veto the granting of tenure to a U of S professor was made by former president Peter MacKinnon to the Board of Governors at the end of 2011. The decision to grant the President veto power over tenure was made by the Board at a closed-door meeting (they ALL are) in 2012. Then in March 2014, a ruling on the matter by an outside arbitrator was received by the Board – before the Buckingham fiasco even broke (we think). Now Board chair Susan Milburn said the Board will need a couple of months to decide whether or not to appeal the ruling. She says they need to consult with the University stakeholders (it will be interesting to see who they believe those to be!).
D’Arcy Hande
Saskatoon
CANADA
Mahatma Ghandi once wrote that there are seven sins in the world: wealth without work; pleasure without conscience; knowledge without character; commerce without morality; science without humanity; worship without sacrifice; and politics without principle.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
TEXT OF ARTICLE:
Arbitrator rules against tenure veto power
University considering appeal
By Jason Warick, The Starphoenix June 4, 2014 1:01 PM
Susan Milburn, chair of the University of Saskatchewan board of governors
Photograph by: Greg Pender, The Starphoenix
An arbitrator chastised the University of Saskatchewan for allowing its president to veto tenure appointments after a sociology professor’s nomination was rejected.
It was wrong for the president to act as “gatekeeper” in the case of sociology professor Despina Iliopoulou and overrule the unanimous decision of the tenure committee, stated the March 23 decision by arbitrator Andrew Sims.
This violation of academic freedom is harming the university’s reputation and must be fixed immediately, says University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association (USFA) senior professional development officer Jim Cheesman.
The case could set a precedent for the way Canadian universities operate, he said.
“Tenure is an essential pillar of a university. This is absolutely critical.”
Board of governors chair Susan Milburn said the university will need a couple of months to decide on a possible appeal. In the meantime, the veto power will remain.
“We need to hear from our stakeholders,” Milburn said.
Cheesman and Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) executive director Jim Turk said the university’s reputation is being damaged more with each passing week as it disputes the decision.
“This is very harmful to academic freedom. The decision should be respected,” Cheesman said.
The U of S was enveloped in controversy after the head of its School of Public Health, Robert Buckingham, was fired and escorted off campus for speaking out against various reforms. The events led to the ouster of provost Brett Fairbairn and president Ilene Busch-Vishniac.
Other staff and faculty also said Buckingham himself terminated those who spoke out.
Amid these controversies, the USFA expressed alarm that the U of S board of governors may have granted the president veto power over tenure during a closed 2012 meeting.
Advanced Education Minister Rob Norris expressed concern about the veto issue and said his ministry is investigating.
“Is it of concern? The answer is yes, it is. We’re doing our own internal review at the ministry and certainly this will be part of an ongoing dialogue with the board,” Norris told reporters last month.
Cheesman said the tenure decisions of collegial bodies should not be “intercepted” by the president or other administrators. The USFA took on the case on behalf of Iliopoulou, who is no longer working at the U of S. She declined to comment when reached Sunday.
Turk said professors from across Canada are watching events at the U of S closely.
“You have a heavy-handed administration at the U of S. It’s disappointing the administration and board don’t respect the process,” Turk said.
Turk called on Milburn and interim U of S president Gordon Barnhart to act decisively and restore the university’s reputation. According to Sims’ decision, the U of S renewals and tenure appeal committee unanimously recommended Iliopoulou for tenure, meaning she would be made a permanent professor.
Then-president Peter MacKinnon made a presentation to the board arguing that the president could veto tenure appointments made by the collegial body. The board agreed and rejected Iliopoulou. Her salary and benefits were terminated Dec. 9, 2011.
Sims said both MacKinnon and the board were incorrect.