Stephen Lendman

In place since 1978, it lets authorities detain and/or deport foreign nationals and other non-citizens suspected of human rights violations, alleged threats to national security, or claimed affiliation with organized crime, using (usually bogus) secret evidence withheld from defense counsel.

Since 1991, 27 residents have been affected. In February 2007, Canada's Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in Charkaoui v. Canada. However, eight months later in October, the Canadian House of Commons passed Bill C-3 (a so-called anti-terror measure), amending the 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by introducing a special advocate into the certificate process on the pretext of protecting subjects during secret proceedings.

That and other provisions are troubling, including indefinite detentions, with or without charges, draconian house arrest with continuous monitoring and surveillance, and deportations to despotic states unjustly. Doing so assures torture, imprisonment or death. It's why subjects fled to Canada, believing they'd be safe.

The special advocate provision is reprehensible, providing legal cover for a fundamentally unjust process designed to stigmatize, vilify, convict, imprison, or deport mostly innocent victims to oblivion, pretending national and public security were protected.

Read more »

Stephen Lendman

Hyped support reveals gross hypocrisy about a deeply flawed process and outrageous price for it. More on that below. Yet a September 14 New York Times editorial headlined, "Ratify the New Start Treaty," saying;

"Failure to ratify this treaty would be hugely costly for American credibility and security....The Senate needs to ratify New Start now."

In fact, endorsing ratification undermines the Times' credibility. More why below.

A more recent Washington Post November 19 editorial headlined, "The New START pact should be passed, not politicized," saying:

"....the treaty ought to be approved. But no calamity will befall the United States if the Senate does not act this year....In reality, Mr. Obama's urgency (has) less to do with national security than with the upcoming shift in Senate seats" next year.

The Los Angeles Times said ratifying Start could be

"a defining moment for Obama. Failure might be regarded abroad as confirmation that the administration is too weak to put its stamp on world affairs."

Most major media reports endorse ratification. None explain key facts about a deeply flawed treaty or what's ahead when implemented. An earlier article on Obama's Nuclear Posture Review explained why, accessed through this link.

Calling it old wine in new bottles, it explained that nuclear disarmament or serious reductions aren't envisioned or planned. New and upgraded weapons will replace outdated ones. Dangerous testing will continue, and billions of dollars will be committed to proliferate a first-strike capability with overwhelming destructive power, including from space. Obama's Nuclear Posture Review was more about war making than prevention.

Read more »

Patrick Martin
WSWS

"People affiliated with our organisation have already been assassinated."

"There is not the slightest acknowledgement throughout the interview that the US government in particular, and all governments worldwide, routinely engage in illegal and underhanded activity, or that WikiLeaks is performing a public service by exposing the conflict between what governments say officially, and what they say and do privately."

In a lengthy interview with BBC News, broadcast Tuesday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange answered many of the smears directed by the media against him as part of a campaign to discredit the organization as it releases of thousands of secret US diplomatic cables.

It was Assange’s first face-to-face broadcast interview since his release from jail December 17, after spending nine days in London’s Wandsworth prison on an extradition arrest warrant from Sweden. The presenter of the BBC’s “Today” program, John Humphrys, focused the interview almost entirely on the trumped-up claims of sexual assault that are the basis of the Swedish warrant, although no actual charges have been filed against Assange.

The entire tenor of the interview is that of a prosecutor interrogating a prisoner, not one journalist engaging in a discussion with another. The BBC man might as well have been wearing a badge.

Read more »

Paul Craig Roberts
Information Clearing House

What explains the gullibility of Americans, a gullibility that has mired the US in disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and which promises war with Iran, North Korea and a variety of other targets if neoconservatives continue to have their way?

Part of the explanation is that millions of conservatives are thrilled at the opportunity to display their patriotism and to show their support for their country. Bush’s rhetoric is perfectly designed to appeal to this desire. "You are with us or against us" elicits a blind and unquestioning response from people determined to wear their patriotism on their sleeves. "You are with us or against us" vaccinates Americans against factual reality and guarantees public acceptance of administration propaganda.

Another part of the explanation is that emotional appeals have grown the stronger as the ability of educated people to differentiate fact from rhetoric declines. The Bush administration blamed 9/11 on foreign intelligence failures; yet, the administration has convinced about half of the public that mass surveillance of American citizens is the solution!

Many Americans have turned a blind eye to the administration’s illegal and unconstitutional spying on the grounds that, as they themselves are doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear. If this is the case, why did our Founding Fathers bother to write the Constitution? If the executive branch can be trusted not to abuse power, why did Congress pass legislation establishing a panel of federal judges (ignored by the Bush administration) to oversee surveillance? If President Bush can decide that he can ignore statutory law, how does he differ from a dictator? If Bush can determine law, what is the role of Congress and the courts? If "national security" is a justification for elevating the power of the executive, where is his incentive to find peaceful solutions?

Emotional appeals to fear and to patriotism have led close to half of the population to accept unaccountable government in the name of "the war on terrorism." What a contradiction it is that so many Americans have been convinced that safety lies in their sacrifice of their civil liberties and accountable government.

Read more »