Globe and Mail: Forces’ terror manual lists natives with Hezbollah

March 31, 2007

The Canadian army’s terror manual now lists radical natives as “a potential military opponent, lumping aboriginals in with the Tamil Tigers, Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad”.

OTTAWA — Radical natives are listed in the Canadian army’s counterinsurgency manual as a potential military opponent, lumping aboriginals in with the Tamil Tigers, Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad.

The military is putting the finishing touches on the manual, but a draft version of the document obtained by The Globe and Mail outlines a host of measures the military might use to fight insurgents at home and abroad. The measures include ambushes, deception and killing.

Read: Forces’ terror manual lists natives with Hezbollah (Globe and Mail)


CBC Docs this Weekend: ‘Can We Save Planet Earth’?

March 31, 2007

I would like to draw attention to a couple of good documentaries on CBC Newsworld this weekend.

Please note that all films listed are 60 minutes unless otherwise indicated.



(Saturday March 31 at 10pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld)


Crazy Eights is an intimate look at the life of the Canadian soldier at war in the dusty and dangerous region of southern Afghanistan. The Royal Canadian Regiment Charles Company Eight Platoon-The Crazy Eights-have suffered more than any platoon in the war, sustaining casualties in both Operation Medusa and a friendly fire attack over Labour Day weekend. A crew spent a month in Afghanistan with The Crazy Eights, hunkered down in dust- filled trenches while the platoon struggled to rebuild a war-ravaged nation.

Watch an excerpt online.


(Monday April 2 at 10pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld)


Of the hottest years on record, nine out of ten have occurred since 1990. Thousands of plant and animal species are already on life support.

Hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves and forest fires are happening with more regularity and intensity than ever before. And in a matter of decades, some coastal communities could be entirely under water. All because of global warming. All because of the choices we make every day.

Legendary UK broadcaster Sir David Attenborough says we’ve reached a tipping point and that we must act now to save our planet.

Discuss this film online.

CNN’s Impeachment “Reality Check” Needs Fact Check

March 31, 2007

This latest Action Alert from FAIR shows CNN’s misleading “reality check” regarding the nature of impeachable offenses. After reading the article, I strongly urge readers to follow FAIR’s suggestion and contact CNN at the address provided below.

Action Alert
CNN’s Impeachment “Reality Check” Needs Fact Check


On March 26, CNN‘s Situation Room program presented a “reality check” of discussions of impeaching George W. Bush. Reporter Carol Costello concluded, “To sum it up, the only way President Bush can be impeached is if he violates the law.” But that summary is misleading.

The CNN report took up the issue primarily in response to Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel’s recent comments about impeachment. Anchor Wolf Blitzer introduced the idea this way: “They used to be just whispers, quiet conversations about impeaching the president, but now as we just saw, they’re getting a little bit louder.” As an example, CNN played a clip from Hagel’s interview on ABC‘s This Week (3/25/07), where he said, “Any president who says I don’t care or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don’t care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed, if a president really believes that, then…there are ways to deal with that.”

In response, Costello disputed such talk: “But decisions people may disagree with doesn’t make a president impeachable. Reality check.” Costello then quoted George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who claimed that “the Framers did not want a president impeached because he simply is a bad president or he does bad things or stupid things. But once the president starts to violate federal law, then he gets into a realm of impeachable offenses.” Costello then introduced what was presented as another example of loose talk about impeachment—a quote from Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.), who criticized a potential an attack on Iran because it is “illegal to threaten aggressive war against another nation.”

While that comment doesn’t necessarily relate to impeachment—presumably Kucinich is accurately referring to provisions of the United Nations charter forbidding aggressive war—it nonetheless earned a “reality check,” with Costello insisting: “The Constitution makes it clear, you can dislike a president all you want, but the only way a president can be impeached is if he is found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.”

There are several problems with Costello’s formulation. “High crimes and misdemeanors” does not necessarily refer to a president breaking a statutory law. As many commentators have noted (e.g., Center for Constitutional Rights, “Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush”; Elizabeth Holtzman in the Nation, 1/12/06), the framers (specifically George Mason and Alexander Hamilton) crafted that language deliberately to allow for political deliberations over what might constitute an impeachable offense. The move to impeach Richard Nixon, for example, was marked by a serious debate over the question of whether impeachment should solely address violations of federal law, or take a broader view, in line with the debate that took place among the framers of the Constitution. The three articles of impeachment that were before the House at the time of Nixon’s resignation included one based on indictable offenses, one based on political abuses, and one that was a mixture of the two.

As the American Bar Association explains on its website, “What precisely constitutes ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is… uncertain because the courts have not specifically defined or interpreted the term, unlike other constitutional clauses.” The ABA adds that “many experts agree that there are different standards for impeachable and criminal conduct.”

Right after Costello’s “reality check,” Blitzer interviewed former Defense Secretary William Cohen, who contradicted what Costello had just presented as “reality,” arguing: “I would only take issue with the notion that a president could only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. We went through this. It doesn’t necessarily mean a crime as we define a felonious crime, but rather it could be an abuse of power.” Cohen then undermined the idea that Bush might meet such a standard, saying that “the notion that you’re talking about impeachment at this point for political differences, I think, is off the base.” So on the question of what exactly constitutes a “high crime,” should CNN viewers believe the network’s journalist, or another guest?

If CNN accepts its own reporter’s view that only a narrow definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” applies, it is worth mentioning that Bush’s warrantless domestic wiretapping plan violated the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Ironically, the very legal expert CNN tapped to analyze the impeachment debate is on the record elsewhere arguing that Bush’s FISA violation could very well be an impeachable offense. As reported (12/20/05), “According to Turley, there’s little question Bush committed a federal crime by violating the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.” So even by that narrow standard, Bush arguably met it by violating FISA law. As Salon quoted Turley: “The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear…. At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment.”

As was clear during the Clinton administration, impeachment is a political decision made by Congress. When CNN tells viewers that “high crimes and misdemeanors” only refers to violations of federal statutes, it is taking an arguable legal position and turning it into a fact. In doing so, CNN is treating an issue endorsed by millions of Americans—the impeachment of George W. Bush—as a fringe issue in conflict with the Constitution.

ACTION: Tell CNN‘s Situation Room to clarify its “reality check” on the nature of impeachable offenses, and to add more voices to its discussion of impeachment—including experts who argue that Bush could be guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Situation Room
Comment page:
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( ). We can’t reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to

MidEast Dispatches: Fallujah Fears a ‘Genocidal Strategy’

March 31, 2007

Fallujah Fears a ‘Genocidal Strategy’

Inter Press Service
Ali al-Fadhily*

FALLUJAH, Mar 30 (IPS) – Iraqis in the volatile al-Anbar province west of Baghdad are reporting regular killings carried out by U.S. forces that many believe are part of a ‘genocidal’ strategy.

Since the mysterious explosion at the Shia al-Askari shrine in Samara in February last year, more than 100 Iraqis have been killed daily on average, without any forceful action by the Iraqi government and the U.S. military to stop the killings.

U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces working with them are also executing people seized during home raids and other operations, residents say.

“Seventeen young men were found executed after they were arrested by U.S. troops and Fallujah police,” 40-year-old Yassen of Fallujah told IPS. “My two sons have been detained by police, and I am terrified that they will have the same fate. They are only 17 and 18 years old.”

Residents of Fallujah say the local police detention centre holds hundreds of men, who have had no legal representation.

Others are killed by random fire that has long become routine for U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. Sa’ad, a 25-year-old from the al-Thubbat area of western Fallujah was killed in such firing.

“The poor guy kept running home every time he saw U.S. soldiers,” a man from his neighbourhood, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. “He used to say: Go inside or the Americans will kill you.” Sa’ad is said by neighbours to have developed a mental disability.

He was recently shot and killed by U.S. soldiers when they opened fire after their patrol was struck by a roadside bomb.

Last week, U.S. military fire severely damaged the highest minaret in Fallujah after three soldiers were killed in an attack. What was seen as reprisal fire on the minaret has angered residents.

“They hate us because we are Muslims, and no one can argue with that any more,” 65- year-old Abu Fayssal who witnessed the event told IPS. “They say they are fighting al- Qeada but they are only capable of killing our sons with their genocidal campaign and destroying our mosques.”

Others believe occupation forces have another sinister strategy.

“It is our people killing each other now as planned by the Americans,” Abdul Sattar, a 45- year-old lawyer and human rights activist in Fallujah told IPS. “They recruited Saddam’s security men to control the situation by well-known methods like hanging people by their legs and electrifying them in order to get information. Now they are executing them without trial.”

IPS has obtained photographs of an elderly man who residents say was executed last month by U.S. soldiers.

“Last month was full of horrifying events,” a retired police officer from Fallujah told IPS. “Three men were executed by American soldiers in the al-Bu Issa tribal area just outside Fallujah. One of them was 70 years old and known as a very good man, and the others were his relatives. They were asleep when the raid was conducted.”

Another three men from the same tribe were executed similarly in ar-Rutba town near the Jordanian border. Their tribe did not carry out the usual burial ceremony for fear that more people would be killed. Instead, a cousin performed a religious ceremony in Amman in Jordan.

“Seven people were executed in al-Qa’im recently, at the Syrian border,” Khalid Haleem told IPS on telephone from al-Qa’im. “They were gathering at a friend’s place for dinner when Americans surrounded the house, with armoured vehicles with helicopters covering them from the air. Those killed were good men and we believe the Americans were misinformed.”

Adding to the violence are U.S.-backed Shia militias which regularly raid Sunni areas under the eyes of the U.S. and Iraqi army. Residents of Fallujah, Ramadi, and especially Baghdad have regularly reported to IPS over the last two years that Shia militiamen are allowed through U.S. military cordons into Sunni neighbourhoods to conduct raids.

Last month, residents report, more than 100 men aged 20 to 40 were executed by Shia militias in Iskandariya 40 km south of Baghdad and Tal Afar 350 km northwest of the capital. Another 50 were detained by the Iraqi Army’s fifth division, that many believe is the biggest death squad in the country.

A U.S. military spokesperson in Baghdad told IPS that their troops “use caution and care when conducting home raids” and “in no way support Shi’ite death squads and militias.”

In the face of the U.S.-backed violence, most Iraqis now openly support attacks against occupation forces.

“The genocidal Americans are paying for all that,” a young man from Fallujah told IPS. “They seem to be in need of another lesson by the lions of Fallujah and Anbar.” He was referring to the intensive resistance attacks in and around Fallujah that have killed dozens of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers this month.

According to the U.S. military, at least 1,194 U.S. soldiers have died in al-Anbar province since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The number is far higher than in any other province in Iraq.

(*Ali, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region)

_______________________________________________*** Think Dahr’s work is vital? We need your help. It’s easy! ***(c)2007 Dahr Jamail.
All images, photos, photography and text are protected by United States and international copyright law. If you would like to reprint Dahr’s Dispatches on the web, you need to include this copyright notice and a prominent link to the website. Website by photographer Jeff Pflueger’s Photography Media Any other use of images, photography, photos and text including, but not limited to, reproduction, use on another website, copying and printing requires the permission of Dahr Jamail. Of course, feel free to forward Dahr’s dispatches via email.

More writing, commentary, photography, pictures and images at

Reminder: Union Education Meeting in Support of Six Nations, Hamilton Ontario, Saturday March 31st

March 30, 2007

This is a reminder about the event this coming weekend. Please register if you’re interested in coming. Please feel free to let others know about it.


Information about registering is at the end of this post. If you are planning to come you need to register. Please bring snacks for the potluck lunch/snack break. Contact or call 416-526-4255 for more information.

>>DATE: 11:30AM – 5:00 PM Saturday, March 31st, 2007

>>LOCATION: Hamilton Horseshoe Club – 170 Brockley Dr


Community Friends for Peace and Understanding with Six Nations, a grass-roots coalition of community and labour activists is hosting this meeting in order to create a place for trade union activists in southern Ontario to come together to build union support for the Six Nations reclamation. From the beginning of the reclamation, the trade union movement has issued statements of support and made financial donations.

However, this support needs to be sustained as well as extended into the rank-and-file of the union movement, as we at the grassroots work consistently to build bridges between the common values and interests of the trade union movement and those of indigenous peoples.

Members from the following unions will be present at the workshop: CAW 707, CAW 555, CAW 88, CUPE 3903, CUPE 3906, CUPE 1281, CUPE 4400, CUPE 5167, USWA 1005, and USWA 1998.

11:30am SHARP Welcoming session:

– people from Six Nations welcome union activists to the event

– representative from Community Friends explains the purpose of the meeting

– go around and introductions of everyone present


The purpose of this session is to provide people with the historical and political background to the struggle going on and to provide people with the tools to convince their fellow union members about the justness and righteousness of the Six Nations cause. Speakers include Hazel Hill from the reclamation site, Ruby Monture, and Rhonda Hill – mother of Six Nations political prisoner Christopher Hill. Other speakers TBA

2:00-2:30pm snack break


Some people argue that trade unions exist for the purpose of defending their membership from their bosses and should only be limited to working around workplace issues. Other people argue that “an injury to one is an injury to all” and that trade unions are powerful vehicles for social justice and solidarity on a wide range of issues not limited to the workplace. This panel discussion will address the question of how trade unions have related to indigenous struggles in the past, how they do so today, and why the union movement can be an important ally for indigenous peoples across the country. The second part of this session will focus on the nuts and bolts issues of how we can work within the union movement to build support for indigenous sovereignty in general and concrete support for Six Nations in particular and address the kinds of problems and challenges we might face in doing this work.Speakers: Lindsay Hinshelwood, CAW 707; Tom Keefer, CUPE 3903; Joanne Webb, CUPE National Aboriginal Council, and others TBA from the Trade Union Movement.


>>Please email form to or call 416-526-4255 for more information.





>>PHONE #:





Toronto: Defend the Cabbagetown Restaurant

March 30, 2007


Community Based and Legal Challenges to be Set in Motion

As part of the drive to shut down neighbourhood bars and restaurants used by low income people, the Old Cabbagetown Business Association and other upscale interests have won a ruling by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission to take away Victor Jiang’s liquor licence. This means, effective immediately, the Cabbagetown Restaurant must stop selling drinks to its customers. An appeal will be put in very soon that will include a bid to win the right for Victor to sell beer while it is underway.

The issues are clear. This is about removing the places where poor people gather socially all the better to be able to drive them from the area.

Several of the places in the neighbourhood that have been closed and are now being targeted have in common the fact of being businesses operated by immigrant people. Victor hasn’t got the means to open a bar that caters to local yuppies. His restaurant is his means of making a modest living and into which he has put a huge amount of work. Now all that is on the line.

For those who support the fight to keep the Cabbagetown Restaurant open, we ask two things:




If you need more info on this, call OCAP at (416) 925-6939


Ontario Coalition Against Poverty

10 Britain St. Toronto, ON M5A 1R6


Tomgram: Karon, Why Condi’s Diplomacy Should Start with Bush

March 30, 2007

Ever since September 2001, the President’s central operative image has been “war” — specifically, his “global war on terror” (promptly transformed into the grim acronym GWOT). With it went the fantasy that we had been plunged into the modern equivalent of World War II with — as George loved to put it — “theaters” of operation and “fronts” on a global scale. Remember how, as we occupied Baghdad in April 2003, administration pronouncements almost made it seem as though we were occupying Tokyo or Berlin, 1945? And when things went badly in Iraq, that country quickly became “the central front in the war on terror” in the President’s speeches. Well, now it may indeed be just that.

In the framework — essentially a fundamentalist religion — of global force and “preventive” war adopted by the Bush administration, the only place for diplomats was assumedly on the sidelines, holding the pens, as the enemy surrendered to the military. (Too bad, when we hit Baghdad, there was no one around to surrender, no way to put a John Hancock on our “victory.”) Otherwise, as classically happened in Iraq, where the State Department, despite copious planning for the postwar moment, was cut out of the process and left in the Kuwaiti or Washingtonian dust by Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, all issues of diplomacy were essentially relegated to Wimp World. After all, as the infamous neocon slogan once went, “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.” And it was well known that diplomats were not “real men.”

Nowhere on the planet was a diplomat worth a sou. Not surprisingly, then, the two central figures in George W. Bush’s second-term diplomatic non-endeavors became his two key female enablers, Condoleezza Rice, now secretary of state, and Karen Hughes, now undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs. Not surprisingly, Rice has managed to do nothing of significance on our planet — even the great diplomatic “success” of this administration, its shaky deal with North Korea, was basically crafted by the Chinese on terms worse than could have been obtained years earlier — and Hughes, as diplomacy’s spinmeister, has managed to put less than no polish on our globally disastrous image.

By now, of course, we’ve arrived at a moment in the Middle East so grim, so fraught with dangers, so at the edge of who knows what, with so many disparate crises merging, that it’s even occurred to Rice something must be done. As Tony Karon, savvy guy, senior editor at, and the creator of the ever-thoughtful and provocative blog Rootless Cosmopolitan points out, Rice has so far gotten a free ride here. Her approval ratings, until recently, hovered well above 50%, while the President’s were sinking close to 30%. Let Karon now explain to you where we really are in the Middle East, diplomatically speaking. Tom

Condi’s Free Ride

The Fantasy of American Diplomacy in the Middle East
By Tony Karon

They must serve up some pretty powerful Kool Aid in the press room down at Foggy Bottom, judging by U.S. media coverage of Condi Rice’s latest “Look Busy” tour of the Middle East.

Secretary of State Rice’s comings and goings have long been greeted with a jaded disdain by the Arab and Israeli media. As Gideon Levy wrote plaintively (and typically) in Israel’s Haaretz last August,

Click here to read more of this dispatch.