Political Notes by Freyashawk

David Laffer and the War on Drugs

2011-11-11T09:11:00.000-08:00

An American veteran who was involved in the first invasion of Iraq shot four people in a pharmacy in Long Island in the course of a robbery aimed to net medications for himself and his wife. He had lost his job. She evidently was going through withdrawals.

From the Washington Post:

'Laffer said he committed the robbery because he had lost his job, and his wife required not only painkillers but also blood pressure medicine, anti-nausea pills and muscle relaxants.'

He claimed that he did not intend to kill any one, that the shootings occurred when he lost control of the situation in a panic. This is no defence in law, of course, as any killing committed in the course of a felony is considered to be murder, irrespective of the mens rea of the individual.

What is interesting about this sad and rather sordid case is the national outrage that it has sparked in the U.S. both among members of the legal profession involved in the prosecution, conviction and sentencing and with respect to the general public.

The New York Post published a quote in which some one referred to David Laffer and his wife as 'diseased rats'. They threw the proverbial book at both defendants when they sentenced them but that did not suffice to diminish the fury of those who considered the crime to be more heinous than any committed by an individual who was not unfortunate enough to be addicted to drugs.

I expect that my attitude on this will be extremely unpopular but I felt I had to go on record as declaring that drug addiction is a MEDICAL PROBLEM and should not be a LEGAL issue.

Furthermore, who taught David Laffer to kill in the first place? He was a soldier in the first infamous invasion of Iraq and thus conditioned to the use of a firearm! This fact is not mentioned by any of the news articles that deal with the case.

The government tells a man that he will be a hero if he kills people. Both Iraqi invasions have been filled with incidents of mass murder of civilians by U.S. and Allied Troops. David Laffer evidently led a fairly quiet, normal life after his return from the killing fields of Iraq... until he lost his job.

No, there is absolutely NO justification for his actions whatsoever, and there are programmes, however inadequate, that exist to help drug addicts in the States when they are going through withdrawals. Even so, the vitriolic response in this case by the prosecutors, judge and general public with respect to the man and his wife is prompted by their addiction to drugs rather than the actual crimes. This can be seen in the actual quotes by individuals who award Laffer and his wife invariably with descriptions demoting them from human to 'animal'. (Not that animals are inferior to human beings in my view. Quite the contrary.)

In the same way that the so-called 'war on terrorism' refuses to deal with the underlying causes of international disgust with American foreign policies, those involved with the case of David Laffer and his wife fail even to address the spurious nature of the 'war on drugs' and its role in these killings. If David and his wife could have obtained the medications and/or drugs they needed, there would have been no robbery of the chemist and no murders. Yet, I have not seen a single article by the American press that addresses THIS topic.

It is interesting to see how the era of 'Prohibition' has been romanticised since the laws that made alcohol illegal were repealed. What is the difference between illegal alcoholic substances and illegal drugs? None whatsoever except the legislation that governs their acquisition and use. What is the difference between legal drugs and illegal drugs? None except the legislation that places them in one category or another. Why should it be so difficult to obtain LEGAL DRUGS? People can mouth platitudes about the 'dangerous' quality of certain substances but it seems to me that an adult should be responsible for his or her own safety and not be subjected to the stranglehold of the AMA. The American Medical Association is not as much concerned with the actual SAFETY of the general public as it is by financial considerations. Malpractice suits are one concern and the ability to CONTROL the dispensation of medications absolutely is another. The AMA is not about to relinquish THAT monopoly.

What if an individual could go into a local pharmacy/chemist and simply BUY whatever he or she needed at a reasonable price? It is not simply narcotics that can be prohibitively expensive but other life-saving medications, whether for heart disease or high blood pressure. There are an unconscionable number of individuals who have to choose between food and medication. The government's answer is to provide an HMO for EVERY ONE, but that is nonsense. The HMO system is beggaring the U.S. as well as placing the safety and welfare of the general public in the hands of arbitrary organisations whose sole concern is their own financial profit.

People have begun to awaken from their lethargy. Where the crimes of international banking is concerned, there are quite a few who actually have taken to the streets in protest. The 'Occupy Wall Street' may be the most famous of these, but it is not by any means the only protest.

It is time to bring down the HMO system and to loosen the control of the American Medical Association. People need to be more proactive where their own health is concerned. Doctors are NOT Gods nor even demigods unless you cede them the power of life and death. There is a saying to the effect that there is nothing a doctor hates more than some one who has access to Web M.D. and other internet sites that allow patients to research their own health issues. Well, it is time for the general public to recognise that they must curtail the power of the medical profession to give or withhold medications and to dispense sentences of life or death to lowly individuals who do not own medical degrees.

The media that has been covering the cases of David Laffer and his wife should take the opportunity to discuss the social underlying CAUSES of crimes like these rather than glorying in a holier-than-thou attitude of fury and outrage.

American Jewish ex-Marine sails on the 'Audacity of Hope'

2011-07-04T09:54:00.000-07:00

It gives me hope when I see Jewish-Americans opposing the Israeli Occupation and its draconian measures against the Palestinian people. Although the 'leadership' in terms of politics in general has come to disgust me, individuals still light our way and give us hope that selfishness, self-interest and material gain does NOT always rule.

The following piece was written by a man named Ken Mayers, an American Jew who is an ex-Marine and who actively is opposing the Israeli Occupation's blockage of Gaza by joining others on 'The Audacity of Hope', part of the international Flotilla.

Newspaper Editor's note: As of 1 July, CNN was reporting that 'The Audacity of Hope', a U.S. ship carrying Americans, was stopped by the Greek Coast Guard near the port of Perama on its way to Gaza. This piece was written before the departure.

Ken Mayers wrote:

'Between 1942 and 1945, 21 members of my mother's extended family are known to have died in German concentration camps. Undoubtedly there were others whose place and dates of death are still unknown. Others managed to escape to Israel, where I still have family.

'So why am I going to be sailing on 'The Audacity of Hope' in an attempt to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza? My reasons follow two distinct threads.

'The first thread is tied to my ethnic heritage as suggested in my opening paragraph. At a universal and abstract level, I am following this course of action because I believe the blockade is illegal under international law that prohibits the collective punishment of a population. But at a personally more specific level, it is because I believe the power elite that rules Israel has drawn too narrow an understanding from the great lesson of the Holocaust, a lesson often summarized in the slogan, 'Never again!'

The narrow understanding can be stated as 'Never again shall Jews be subjected to the persecution that culminated in the Holocaust.' A broader understanding would be, 'Never again should any people be subjected to the persecution that culminated in the Holocaust.'

'It is a tragic irony that after a millennium of confinement to the ghettos of Europe, the Jewish state turns around and creates the world's largest ghetto in Gaza by blockading its ports, controlling its air space, and with some support from Egypt, imposing tight limits on access and egress by land. But far beyond tragic was the turning of the ghetto into a killing field with Operation Cast Lead from Dec. 27, 2008, through Jan. 21, 2009. According to a B'Tselem report, '1,389 Palestinians were killed, 759 of whom did not take part in the hostilities. Of these, 318 were minors under age 18.'

'Since Cast Lead, the blockade of Gaza has further tightened, further delaying any substantial recovery from the devastation of the attack. Since the weapons and armaments used in the attack in large part either came from the United States or were enabled by the $3 billion annual aid given to Israel by our government, the act of attempting to break the blockade is an act of atonement.

'The second thread is tied to my service as a Marine Corps officer from 1958 to 1966 when I gave up that career in dismay with American foreign policy. It is tied to that brief career in two ways. First of all, I took an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' That oath had no expiration date. I still feel bound by it and I strongly believe that our policy-makers are violating the Constitution in the carte blanche support, financial and military, that they provide to the Israeli government. The second way is another element of atonement — atoning for the support that I provided the forces of empire in those Marine Corps years.

'It has been almost exactly one year since the Israeli Defense Force attacked the ships of the first international flotilla en route to Gaza, killing nine passengers on the Turkish ship, Mavi Marmara. We must not let the Israeli government or the American government think that stopping one flotilla settles the question for all time.'

END OF ARTICLE

Newspaper Editor's note: Ken Mayers, who resides in Santa Fe, N.M., is a former major in the Marines and a participant in the Gaza Freedom flotilla.

Non-Ethical Ethix Marketing

2011-06-29T13:14:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time, they were called 'ambulance chasers'. I was rather surprised to see an advert on Facebook about the possibility of obtaining compensation for addiction to a perfectly legal and quite effective painkiller named 'Opana'.

The advert does not give the name of the company who placed it. If you go to the website, you will not see the name of the company immediately either. You will be asked to fill out a form giving your name, address as well as particulars about your 'addiction' or the 'addiction' of a family member to Opana.

In very small print at the bottom of the page is the following:

;By leaving this box checked, I agree that the information viewed is advertising and that you agree to receive future advertisements from Ethix Marketing and/or its partners.
I agree that submitting this form and the information contained therein does not establish an attorney client relationship.
I agree that the information submitted will be reviewed by more than one attorney and/or law firm.
I agree that the information that I will receive in response to the above question is general information and I will not be charged for the information. I further understand that the law for each state may vary, and therefore, I will not rely upon this information as legal advice. Since this matter may require advice regarding my home state, I agree that local counsel may be contacted for referral of this matter.
I understand that I may receive, and am willing to accept, a telephone call from a lawyer/law firm to discuss this submission.'
END OF QUOTE

Well, quite frankly, the 'Ethix' corporation has to be involved in 'ambulance chasing' of the very worst sort. Addiction is such a buzz word in our society that individuals who NEED painkillers for severe pain or other legitimate medical conditions often go through hell before a physician will prescribe them, simply because of the negative social connotations and potential for legal problems.

I cannot agree with a social mentality that seeks to protect individuals from themselves. Adults are supposed to be fully capable of making their own decisions and doing their own research. Physicians should not be made liable when all they are doing is attempting to follow the Hippocratic oath by helping a patient deal with severe pain!

Addiction is not necessarily the worst fate that can befall an individual. Living in conditions of intolerable pain is far worse. Morphine and its derivatives at least are based on organic substances and their use has been documented for thousands of years. To me, synthetic substances that alter brain waves and 'block' messages from the body to the brain are far more dangerous, even though society is quite happy to allow physicians to prescribe those as an alternative to true painkillers, simply because of the possibility of 'addiction' to opiates.

There is something terribly wrong with a society that would prefer to push medications that reduce an individual's humanity by tampering with the messages that the body has developed to alert the brain to the time-honoured medications that simply alleviate pain to some extent. Opiates do not 'kill' severe pain, but they can mitigate the effects to the point where the patient can tolerate it.

While doctors remained terrified of prescribing legitimate opiates to patients, pharmaceutical sales representatives were pushing drugs like celecoxib (Celebrex) that actually killed people as an alternative. Doctors were passing these out like sweeties.

Celecoxib, which is not an opiate, has the following side effects:

Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; trouble breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); bloody or black, tarry stools; change in the amount of urine produced; chest pain; confusion; dark urine; depression; fainting; fast or irregular heartbeat; fever, chills, or persistent sore throat; hearing loss; mental or mood changes; numbness of an arm or leg; one-sided weakness; red, swollen, blistered, or peeling skin; ringing in the ears; seizures; severe headache or dizziness; severe or persistent stomach pain or nausea; severe vomiting; shortness of breath; sudden or unexplained weight gain; swelling of hands, legs, or feet; unusual bruising or bleeding; unusual joint or muscle pain; unusual tiredness or weakness; vision or speech changes; vomit that looks like coffee grounds; yellowing of the skin or eyes.

A few people actually have died from severe GI toxicity caused by celecoxib.

Another 'preferred' alternative to opiates is even more dangerous, in my view. This is the class of drugs known as 'anti-depressants'. Pharmaceutical companies have been recommending that physicians dispense these in lieu of real painkillers, but anti-depressants can have far more negative side-effects than any CNS opiate painkiller. Furthermore, an anti-depressant CHANGES the actual personality and being of the patient where any CNS drug does not have this effect.

One of the most common anti-depressants used to treat severe chronic pain, although it is NOT a painkiller, is Sertraline (Zoloft).

Sertraline is an antidepressant in a group of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Sertraline affects chemicals in the brain that may become unbalanced and cause depression, panic, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive symptoms.

In fact, although they are called 'anti-depressants', this class of drugs often promotes thoughts of suicide in patients on which some have acted to their eternal detriment.

Common side-effects include suicidal behaviour, anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia, rigid muscles, high fever, sweating, fast or uneven heartbeats, overactive reflexes, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, feeling unsteady, loss of coordination; headache, trouble concentrating, memory problems, weakness, confusion, hallucinations, fainting, seizure, shallow breathing or breathing that stops.

Surely common sense would tell a physician that a patient who suffers from severe chronic pain based on a PHYSICAL CONDITION should not be placed in a position where he/she has to deal with MORE serious problems such as those listed above? Why is it better to subject a patient to this than to prescribe a simple opiate?

The answer to this is nothing more than fear generated by the word 'addiction'. Like any propaganda or prolonged brainwashing campaign, the concept of addiction has been manipulated for political and commercial reasons. The spurious 'war on drugs' plays a role in this as well.

Recently, my stepfather died in hospice from a condition which made it impossible to breathe without agony. At the end, they gave him morphine to allow him to die in peace. A member of my own family threw tantrums over this, attempting to remove him from the hospice, screaming that he should not be 'drugged'.

Impending loss of a loved one can cause people to behave irrationally but it is the climate of our society that encourages individuals to consider morphine as an evil rather than a blessing given to us by nature.

It is time to put an end to this nonsense and to rehabilitate opiates into society's good graces, not for entertainment or recreation, but for the purpose of helping individuals deal with intolerable pain. Companies like 'Ethix' are NOT ethical in the least when they continue the witch hunt against legitimate painkillers. Shame on them and shame on a society that allows media-generate hysteria to usurp common sense.

Twelfth Night here but Christmas Eve in Gaza

2009-01-06T13:03:00.000-08:00

********************************************
Yesterday, one day before Christian Orthodox Christmas Eve in Palestine, Zionist missiles crashed into two United Nations schools, murdering 30 people in one of the schools and three more in the other attack. A number of children were among those who were killed. At least 55 more were injured when Zionist artillery shells landed outside a U.N. school in Gaza, according to official U.N. sources. 14,000 people had sought refuge in U.N. schools throughout the Gaza strip.

In the past 11 days, at least 640 Palestinians have been killed and 2,850 have been wounded by Zionist attacks on a fundamentally civilian population. This is a population, moreover that has suffered from decades of oppression by the Zionist entity.

Christ was a champion of the oppressed and disenfranchised and yet few in the West are willing to raise their voices against the unconscionable invasion that is occurring at this moment in Palestine and is part and parcel of an ongoing policy of genocide against the Palestinian people. I would like to be able to be inspired wholly by visions of beauty and magic, but a part of me cannot be oblivious to the carnage in Gaza. Any one in ANY land who celebrates the magic of Christmas and Twelfth Night must speak out unequivocally against the murders and destruction being committed in the name of the spurious 'war against terror'. The entire concept of 'terror' when applied to a sophisticated, highly militarised Occupation is absurd. It is tantamount to a claim that an armed bully is defending himself against 'terror' in the form of his victim. The nuclear option is in the hands of the Israelis, not the Palestinians. The wildly inaccurate rockets fired by Hamas are nothing more than a desperate attempt to make a statement to the effect that the Palestinian people refuse to be swept under the carpet, and refuse to accept the ever-expanding theft of their land. Irrespective of the pros and cons of Hamas' strategies, it is innocent people who are being killed by Israeli missile strikes and the Israeli invasion of Gaza cannot be condoned.

In this holiday season, how many of us will have the courage to speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves? Every one moans about the recession and 'hard times', but what people experience in the States is nothing compared to the horror that is occurring in Gaza.

I try very hard not to post here about political issues, but this situation transcends politics and cuts to the very core of our humanity. I may love fantasy, but we all have to live in the real world.
For those who are entirely ignorant of the situation in Gaza, a recent article by Jeremy Hammond provides some salient facts:

Top 5 Lies about Israel's Assault on Gaza

By Jeremy R. Hammond

Lie #1: Israel is only targeting legitimate military sites and is seeking to protect innocent lives. Israel never targets civilians.

The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of property in the world. The presence of militants within a civilian population does not, under international law, deprive that population of their protected status, and hence any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting militants is, in fact, a war crime.

Moreover, the people Israel claims are legitimate targets are members of Hamas, which Israel says is a terrorist organization. Hamas has been responsible for firing rockets into Israel. These rockets are extremely inaccurate and thus, even if Hamas intended to hit military targets within Israel, are indiscriminate by nature. When rockets from Gaza kill Israeli civilians, it is a war crime.

Hamas has a military wing. However, it is not entirely a military organization, but a political one. Members of Hamas are the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Dozens of these elected leaders have been kidnapped and held in Israeli prisons without charge. Others have been targeted for assassination, such as Nizar Rayan, a top Hamas official. To kill Rayan, Israel targeted a residential apartment building. The strike not only killed Rayan but two of his wives and four of his children, along with six others. There is no justification for such an attack under international law. This was a war crime.

Other of Israel’s bombardment with protected status under international law have included a mosque, a prison, police stations, and a university, in addition to residential buildings.

Moreover, Israel has long held Gaza under siege, allowing only the most minimal amounts of humanitarian supplies to enter. Israel is bombing and killing Palestinian civilians. Countless more have been wounded, and cannot receive medical attention. Hospitals running on generators have little or no fuel. Doctors have no proper equipment or medical supplies to treat the injured. These people, too, are the victims of Israeli policies targeted not at Hamas or legitimate military targets, but directly designed to punish the civilian population.

Lie #2) Hamas violated the cease-fire. The Israeli bombardment is a response to Palestinian rocket fire and is designed to end such rocket attacks.

Israel never observed the cease-fire to begin with. From the beginning, it announced a “special security zone” within the Gaza Strip and announced that Palestinians who enter this zone will be fired upon. In other words, Israel announced its intention that Israeli soldiers would shoot at farmers and other individuals attempting to reach their own land in direct violation of not only the cease-fire but international law.

Despite shooting incidents, including ones resulting in Palestinians getting injured, Hamas still held to the cease-fire from the time it went into effect on June 19 until Israel effectively ended the truce on November 4 by launching an airstrike into Gaza that killed five and injured several others.

Israel’s violation of the cease-fire predictably resulted in retaliation from militants in Gaza who fired rockets into Israel in response. The increased barrage of rocket fire at the end of December is being used as justification for the continued Israeli bombardment, but is a direct response to the Israeli attacks.

Israel's actions, including its violation of the cease-fire, predictably resulted in an escalation of rocket attacks against its own population.

Lie #3) Hamas is using human shields, a war crime.

There has been no evidence that Hamas has used human shields. The fact is, as previously noted, Gaza is a small piece of property that is densely populated. Israel engages in indiscriminate warfare such as the assassination of Nizar Rayan, in which members of his family were also murdered. It is victims like his dead children that Israel defines as “human shields” in its propaganda. There is no legitimacy for this interpretation under international law. In circumstances such as these, Hamas is not using human shields, Israel is committing war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions and other applicable international law.

Lie #4) Arab nations have not condemned Israel’s actions because they understand Israel’s justification for its assault.

The populations of those Arab countries are outraged at Israel’s actions and at their own governments for not condemning Israel’s assault and acting to end the violence. Simply stated, the Arab governments do not represent their respective Arab populations. The populations of the Arab nations have staged mass protests in opposition to not only Israel's actions but also the inaction of their own governments and what they view as either complacency or complicity in Israel's crimes.

Moreover, the refusal of Arab nations to take action to come to the aid of the Palestinians is not because they agree with Israel’s actions, but because they are submissive to the will of the US, which fully supports Israel. Egypt, for instance, which refused to open the border to allow Palestinians wounded in the attacks to get medical treatment in Egyptian hospitals, is heavily dependent upon US aid, and is being widely criticized within the population of the Arab countries for what is viewed as an absolute betrayal of the Gaza Palestinians.

Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been regarded as a traitor to his own people for blaming Hamas for the suffering of the people of Gaza. Palestinians are also well aware of Abbas' past perceived betrayals in conniving with Israel and the US to sideline the democratically elected Hamas government, culminating in a counter-coup by Hamas in which it expelled Fatah (the military wing of Abbas' Palestine Authority) from the Gaza Strip. While his apparent goal was to weaken Hamas and strengthen his own position, the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Middle East are so outraged at Abbas that it is unlikely he will be able to govern effectively.

Lie #5) Israel is not responsible for civilian deaths because it warned the Palestinians of Gaza to flee areas that might be targeted.

Israel claims it sent radio and telephone text messages to residents of Gaza warning them to flee from the coming bombardment. But the people of Gaza have nowhere to flee to. They are trapped within the Gaza Strip. It is by Israeli design that they cannot escape across the border. It is by Israeli design that they have no food, water, or fuel by which to survive. It is by Israeli design that hospitals in Gaza have no electricity and few medical supplies with which to treat the injured and save lives. And Israel has bombed vast areas of Gaza, targeting civilian infrastructure and other sites with protected status under international law. No place is safe within the Gaza Strip.

-Jeremy R. Hammond is the editor of Foreign Policy Journal (www.foreignpolicyjournal.com), a website dedicated to providing news, critical analysis, and opinion commentary on U.S. foreign policy from outside of the standard framework offered by government officials and the mainstream corporate media, particularly with regard to the "war on terrorism" and events in the Middle East. He has also written for numerous other online publications. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Contact him at: jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com.

Sunday, 4 January 2009

Palestine Chronicle

Illegal U.S. Mandate to Police the World

2008-10-29T06:49:00.000-07:00

As the Presidential election looms large on the horizon, it appears to dwarf actual current events worldwide, including a new illegal U.S. invasion of another sovereign nation. In this instance, it is an invasion of Syria that the U.S. has executed on the blatantly provocative grounds that 'We are taking matters into our own hands'. By what legal mandate does the U.S. swoop down into the territory of yet another sovereign nation to kill civilians or any one else for that matter? There is absolutely no legal justification for such actions. In fact, it is an act of state-sponsored terrorism, plainly illicit and moreover, one that may have unpleasant results in terms of furthering international hostility towards the U.S.

The 'American people' appear to be oblivious of the extent to which the U.S. military, purportedly acting 'in their name', is committing acts of terrorism throughout the globe or if not oblivious, certainly are not responding to the threat to the rule of law that these actions represent.

What other war crimes will Bush commit before he leaves the White House? His determination to fabricate evidence in order to drum up public support for his outrageous invasion of Iraq is public knowledge now but the dangers represented by his attitudes have not be addressed properly. His own definition of nations including Iran and Syria as part of an imaginary 'axis of Evil' should have acted as a warning to the American people to curtail a dangerous megalomaniac willing to wage war against the entire world in pursuit of his own agenda. Yet, without ever declaring war, Bush now has escalated his international dubious 'war on terror' by invading Syria.

This sort of arrogance and lack of concern for the rule of law will not go unchallenged by the world even if the American public chooses to sweep it under the carpet. While the American public puzzles over a Presidential election consisting of two candidates who, au fond, represent similar platforms where international policy is concerned, they allow the current Executive to commit acts of state-sponsored terrorism without expressing the outrage these attacks merit. Democrat and Republican alike both in the past and in terms of their vision of the future have embraced a foreign policy that spells ultimate ruin in terms of justice and which only will encourage more hostility and retaliation against Americans.

In the context of illicit actions undertaken in the name of the 'American people', I would recommend the recent film, 'Rendition'. The title of the film refers to a common U.S. practice known as 'extraordinary rendition' whereby individuals, including American citizens are kidnapped by the C.I.A. or other government agents and sent abroad to be tortured. The practice began under Clinton's presidency but achieved greater popularity after the 11 September 'attacks'.

One such actual case is that of Maher Arar, a software engineer with dual Canadian/Syrian citizenship, who was 'detained' in September 2002 during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He was held in detention on American soil for two weeks without any access to a lawyer, then deported, not to Canada, but to Syria, ironically the subject of the latest illicit American military 'strike'. Under U.S. recommendation and pressure, he was tortured in Syria as a suspected 'terrorist'.

Ultimately, Arar was held in Syria for almost a year before the Canadian government secured his release. Exonerated by the Canadian government and awarded $10.5 million in damages, the U.S. government nonetheless has removed neither him nor any of his family members from its international 'terrorist watch list'.

Another case is that of Khalid el-Masri, a German national with the same name as wan al-Qaeda operative involved with the Hamburg cell. Seized at a border chequepoint in Macedonia while on vacation, he was handed over to CIA operatives who drugged him and flew him to Afghanistan. There he was tortured and abused for months before finally convincing his captors that they had the wrong man. Without apologies or restitution, el-Masri was flown back to Europe and dumped on a lonely road in Albania. He eventually made his way back to Germany, where he continues to pursue legal action.

Countless others detained by the CIA simply have been taken to Guantanamo, where only a few have been released. Mamdouh Habib, an Australian citizen of Egyptian birth was kidnapped in Pakistan in October 2001 and sent to Egypt under the 'rendition' programme, where he endured electrocution, cigarette burns, and beatings for six months before being sent to Guantanamo. There he languished until 2005, when he finally was released without ever being charged.

In 2005, the media actually published information to the effect that the U.S. was maintaining a network of secret prisons throughout the world where the CIA kept and interrogated thousands of individuals never charged with any crime. Some of these facilities were alleged to be on European soil. Among other sites, a former Soviet air base in Eastern Europe was used as a detention centre where 'enhanced interrogation' techniques, otherwise known as torture, were applied. When exposed, the U.S. government quickly moved the detainees to North African facilities, safely out of reach of further investigation.

The film 'Rendition' delineates the chilling reality of these practices, and shows how even the innocent can be 'persuaded' to admit guilt when broken by tortures now known to be commonplace at U.S. facilities like Guantanamo as well.

One wonders how either of the Presidential candidates, should they be successful in gaining the vote, will address fundamental human rights issues such as 'rendition'... McCain makes much of his own detention in the past but one doubts that he would make any changes where 'rendition' or the spurious 'war on terror' are concerned. Unfortunately, one can expect no better from Obama, a man who clearly embraces the 'special relationship' with the occupiers of Palestine, stating that: 'My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction.' Where Iran was concerned, he declared that 'The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons' and avowed that 'we should take no option, including military action, off the table'.

So here we have Frick and Frack, who may march beneath different party affiliations but who both have no intention of changing U.S. foreign policy in any substantial way. As long as the 'two-party system' retains its stranglehold in American politics, there is no hope of justice in terms of international affairs.

King Charles I and President Saddam Hussein

2008-10-12T19:43:00.000-07:00

Tonight, PBS aired a programme about the trial of Saddam Hussein. There appeared to be some surprise as to the strategy of the defence, which was to deny consistently the legitimacy and jurisdiction of the tribunal. Why should this be a surprise to any one with any knowledge of history? It is the same argument used by King Charles I against Cromwell's henchmen. He simply consistently denied the jurisdiction of the court to judge him. Both Charles I and Saddam Hussein were executed. Both would have been executed whatever arguments they had put forward in courts determined to make their deaths a reality. In point of fact, both Charles I and Saddam Hussein demonstrated dignity and courage when faced with death and a staunch determination not to lend their enemies one iota of false legitimacy. Neither were fools. Neither were blinded by the desperate need that a coward has to save his skin at any price.

New names for old Conditions

2007-09-10T10:20:00.000-07:00

I noticed an Associated Press article about a 'new' medical condition in Iraq christened TBI or 'Traumatic Brain Injury'. With a host of new therapies and medical specialisation relating to the 'disorder', much is being made of its unusual and unprecedented nature. Doesn't any one read history? Doesn't any one read literature?

Greek and Roman writers discussed this condition and in the wake of the First World War, writers like H.G. Wells wrote a number of books that featured soldiers who suffered from a similar condition, known then as 'shell shock'.

I had a personal friend in the British paratroopers who told me about life in the 'elite' branch of the military. The training for military exercises is inimical to ordinary life.

One medical specialist noted that poor sleeping habits were the result of training that forced them to be 'alert all the time.'

Another remarked that: 'Their nervous system becomes acclimated to being constantly on alert - fight or flight.'

Drugs including strong amphetamines are given to soldiers on a regular basis when the situation merits it. It is well-known that 'uppers' can cause mental disorders, including anxiety and paranoia attacks. My friend thought he was going mad until I showed him literature dealing with the side-effects of drugs like 'speed'. He recognised the drugs that he and his companions had been given but had been unaware of the fact that they were what was known on the street as 'speed'.

Soldiers are trained to become 'killing machines'. Ordinary human life does not allow individuals to be 'killing machines'. Is it any wonder that these soldiers return to civilian life unequipped to deal with normal situations?

What is amazing to me, however, is the way people focus on THEIR own society, their time period and their situation as if it were something unique and new. Lessons seldom are learned from the past even when the past is acknowledged.

The article dealing with TBI only discussed American soldiers, making no mention of the traumatic stress and TBI suffered by the Iraqi people. There was no mention of the depleted uranium in Iraq either, the presence of which is poisoning the land and its people.

The United States has been using vast quantities of depleted uranium in munitions in Iraq. Uranium dust spread by the air after the explosion of any projectile containing DU causes birth defects and cancer, apart from the other immediate health hazards it poses to those who inhale it.

By illegally using hundreds of tons of depleted uranium (DU) against Iraq, Britain and America have gravely endangered not only the Iraqis but the whole world.

It is not only Iraq itself that may be affected by use of depleted uranium. Dr. Chris Busby, a British radiation expert, declared: 'I'm horrified. The people out there - the Iraqis, the media and the troops - risk the most appalling ill health. And the radiation from depleted uranium can travel literally anywhere. It's going to destroy the lives of thousands of children, all over the world. We all know how far radiation can travel. Radiation from Chernobyl reached Wales and in Britain you sometimes get red dust from the Sahara on your car.'

There are those who may consider, like the infamous Madeleine Albright that the six million Iraqi infant deaths caused by the economic sanctions were 'well worth the price', and that Iraqi deaths from depleted uranium therefore would be of no consquence. I say to them: 'Look to your own children! Who knows the ultimate affects of the U.S. military adventure in Iraq to ALL of us on this planet?'

Depleted uranium is one of the real 'weapons of mass destruction' whose use should be considered a war crime. I believe it is far more significant than the ordinary effects of military service on U.S. soldiers, including 'shell shock' or 'TBI'. How could any one imagine that killing as a chosen profession could not have untoward effects on the human psyche...

Comparing World 'Leaders'

2007-09-08T08:21:00.000-07:00

Whatever one may think about the ideologies of various international 'leaders', it is a fact that George Bush Jr. would be bested in any comparison with Usama bin Laden, whether based on personal intelligence, courage or the ability to make a memorable declaration.

Usama bin Laden has another advantage in the services of a highly talented American writer named Adam Gadahn, although the assumption by an American 'senior intelligence official' that bin Laden's latest video 'has Adam Gadahn written all over it' is a little arrogant. After all, bin Laden always was extremely articulate and lyrical both in past interviews and speeches. It did not require the services of an 'American' to give his declarations power.

In a new video released by al Qaeda, Usama bin Laden aptly declares that Bush is 'like the one who plows and sows the sea: He harvests nothing but failure.'
In all fairness, this is not an original comparison. It is derived from an old proverb. Nonetheless, it is both accurate and eloquent. Arabic is a language that lends itself to poetry and verbal elegance, and Arab and Muslim leaders never have been afraid of making lyrical statements in political and social contexts.

Unfortunately, perhaps, Western cultures have rebelled against the old Victorian flowery verbiage that made poets like Swinburne immortal. Nonetheless, in any contest, Bush's response that 'it's important that we show resolve and determination to protect ourselves, deny al-Qaeda safe haven and support young democracies' demonstrates his failure to learn anything of consequence, despite his many years in high office. He is the proverbial 'broken record', repeating the same bits of nonsense again and again.

In fact, the best weapon that Bush could muster on the public relations front recently was a confession that he is a man who weeps often and copiously! If that were intended to soften the hearts of a world grown weary of his endless deceits, bare-faced lies and shameless glory-mongering, it is simply another example of the pathetic nature of the man.

Although bin Laden's assurance that the best solution to the conflict in Iraq would be universal acceptance of Islam is simplistic and poses far more questions than it answers, there is no doubt that George Bush's 'vison' of democracy led by the American military industry and multi-national corporations cannot be considered desirable in any world.

'My name is Baghdad'

2007-08-25T16:30:00.000-07:00

The illusions under which the obscene invasion of Iraq began are in tatters. Those who supported the war with enthusiasm in their arrogance, believing that the wealth and power of the West could force its brand of 'democracy' upon the world now are becoming weary of the lives lost on THEIR side. If they only had listened from the start and had bothered to study the situation, they would not have supported the invasion of Iraq in the first place. It reminds me of Mrs. Beare in 'Mother and Son' who lamented, 'Why do our boys have to die? What can't it be only their boys?' (* see note)

In any case, here is a beautiful lament for Baghdad sung by Tina Arena with a powerful visual statement about the war, a nation now in ruins because of the arrogance and greed of corrupt Western leaders and their gullible 'subjects' who were willing to follow them blindly into this endless 'engagement' of dishonour and shame.

Here is 'Je m'appelle Baghdad':

One final point: The archaeological and cultural wonders destroyed by the Western invasion of Iraq had far more intrinsic value to the entire world and civilisation in general than the World Trade Centre ever could have possessed. Yet the hype about the events of 11 September never ends... Unfortunately, it is that sort of tunnel vision that set those events in motion. What is called 'terrorism' often is the only weapon available to the dispossessed and disenfrancised.

*Maggie Beare's lament is paraphrased. I need to watch that episode again.

Politics and Idealism

2007-08-02T12:32:00.000-07:00

Throughout my childhood, tales of heroes very often centred on commitment to a political or social cause. A hero must be willing to fight and even die for the cause to which he/she is sworn. Freedom, justice and self-determination are wonderful concepts. 'Peace' is an ideal that is utopian in nature, but I quickly determined that peace without justice could be defined as nothing more than a type of slavery or an excuse for cowardice.

People are divided over fundamentals often. The philosophy of the individual often is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of the community. 'Am I my brother's keeper?' is a question that must be answered one way or the other by any political or social manifesto.

There are those who believe that each individual is responsible for his/her own welfare and that self-determination combined with survival of the fittest actually creates the healthiest and most ethical course of action. Others believe in the duty of society to protect the weak against the strong, and to take care of those who are incapable of caring for themselves.

The contemporary doctrine of 'tough love' actually denies the virtue of helping the weak with its claim that true love requires non-intervention, allowing an individual to drown if need be rather than casting a life support system in his/her direction.

I personally cannot agree with that philosophy. Although I do understand the concept of 'enablers' and have experienced manipulation at the hands of some individuals I tried to help in the past, I continue to maintain that there is a duty on the part of the strong to protect the weak. All human beings are NOT created equal. Furthermore, the vicissitudes of life often can diminish an individual's own potential to survive.

At the same time, I support the inalienable right of any individual or nation to self-determination. That right cannot be abrogated by any perception that another person may 'know better'. The right to self-destruct as well as the right to attain the ultimate positive state of being deserve the same protection. In like fashion, people do have the right to live as slaves if they choose to do so. Who are we to insist upon the freedom of others? The truth of the matter is that few individuals who truly could be defined as 'free' and 'independent' walk this earth. Almost every one carries chains and in many cases, those chains have been forged and tempered by the individual himself/herself. People for the most part are terrified of freedom. They prefer the security of a prison to the insecurity of freedom. They prefer the security of a bad relationship to the freedom of loneliness. Who is to tell them they must cast aside all the elements in their lives that allow them to function? Not I. Although I feel I would rather die than make the choices some others have made, it is not for me to judge.

Where politics is concerned, most of the time our ideals are high but the manifestation of those causes is as flawed as human nature. Even in revolutions, leaders ultimately display the very elements they promised to combat! The man who fights against tyranny later becomes a tyrant himself. People are impure by nature, and the motivations that drive individuals towards public office, fame or leadership often are not as noble as they would like to think. Ego is very much a part of it.

That having been said, I do firmly believe that it is vital for every individual to embrace a social or political cause that will not benefit him or her personally. To support or fight for a cause simply because it is just is something that ennobles the human spirit and allows us never to forget that we are connected as a commmunity to all humanity. Despite the personal failures of groups and leaders to maintain the highest standards, it is important never to lose faith in our ideals. Nobility cannot exist in vacuo. It is expressed through our actions and our commitment to justice, whether in the private or public sphere.

Aesthetics and Ritual in Religion

2007-07-12T10:26:00.001-07:00

An AP article last week declared that 'Pope Angers Jews, Liberals with Rite'. In fact, what Pope Benedict did was to reverse a ruling requiring a Bishops' approval to celebrate the old Latin Mass in churches throughout the world. The Tridentine Mass, which the Second Vatican Council replaced with a New Mass, was the rite that had been celebrated for almost two thousand years by the Roman Catholic Church. In comparison, the Mass instated pursuant to the Second Vatican Council is far less graceful and far less meaningful in many ways. The Tridentine rite is formal in nature and the Latin Mass was designed to be universal. Any Roman Catholic could enter a Church anywhere in the world and participate in the Mass. To celebrate Mass in the vernacular is to break the international community into national affiliations, preventing an individual from entering fully into the sacrament unless he/she is conversant in the language in which the Mass is performed.

Furthermore, the Tridentine Mass possesses an eloquence and grace that is not to be found in the liturgy developed by the Second Vatican Council. There is some justification for the idea of creating a sacred space, a sacred time and a sacred language for the purpose of spiritual meditation and the attainment of a higher state of consciousness. The prayer rug or masalah in Islam creates a sacred space. Mantras of the Buddhists could be considered a sacred language designed solely to transform the state of consciousness.

Latin in the 21st century is not colloquial in nature. It has become a sacred language pursuant to its use in the Roman Catholic liturgy for almost two thousand years. People complained that the Mass in Latin was meaningless because they spoke the words without understanding them. I submit that was their own fault and not the fault of the liturgy.

Muslims throughout the world learn to read and recite the Qur'an in Arabic because Arabic is the sacred language of Islam. Colloquial Arabic is not the same as the Classical form of the language in which the Qur'an is written; thus, it requires some effort for any individual to read and recite Qur'an.

Why should Roman Catholics be lazier than their Muslim counterparts? In point of fact, when Greek and Latin were taught as mandatory courses in schools, the standard of learning in general was higher. Latin provides an excellent foundation for any Romance language and even English, which is a hybrid, benefits from a good understanding of Latin.

The Roman Catholic liturgy lost most of its appeal when the New Mass supplanted the Tridentine Rite. Roman Catholics gradually have been losing their connection with their spiritual heritage. Rome is the centre of the Roman Catholic world and Latin is the language of Roman Catholicism.

One should note that the Latin Mass inspired individuals from every nation and heritage, despite the fact that it probably was not the 'native language' of any one apart from the Romanians in the past thousand years. Latin once was the language of ambassadors and foreign relations. It was a language that was almost universally understood by the educated masses for many centuries.

A few decades ago, there was a movement to create a new 'universal' language. The language that was developed was given the name, 'Esperanza'. The movement was unsuccessful, to say the least. It would have been far more logical to have revived the teaching of Latin, a language that has been in circulation for over two thousand years and still is an integral part of Western civilisation.

In many areas in the U.S. there now is a movement to promote Spanish in place of English, to make the nation 'bi-lingual'. Would it not be more reasonable and just to reinstate Latin? Making Spanish the partner of English disregards the other ethnic groups in the United States. Instead, Latin should be taught once again in the schools as a mandatory course.

As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, Pope Benedict did not jettison the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. He simply recognised the value of the old Latin rite. Nonetheless, there has been an 'outcry' by some in response.

Does any outside community have a right to interfere in the liturgy of another faith? Why should the Jewish community or any other be allowed to criticise the Roman Catholic liturgy? A single prayer on Good Friday ostensibly is the focus of Jewish outrage because it includes the hope that the Jews might recognise the divinity of Christ. It does not call for a crusade or for any practical human measures to bring this to pass. It is a prayer to God. It follows, therefore, that any community that does not believe in the Roman Catholic Trinity should not be threatened by such a prayer. If Christ is not the Son of God and Man, his 'Father' would not possess any power to change the hearts of any human being.

I personally do not believe that religion should concern itself with politics and would strip all religions of their political components. The 'conversion' of any individual should be a matter solely between an individual and the Divine. On the other hand, I find it rather disturbing that any one would be threatened by the simple option to return to a liturgy that is one of the most beautiful ever designed by Western civilisation.

The Lesson of Karbala

2007-01-29T09:13:00.000-08:00

At this juncture in history, it is extremely important not to allow media propaganda to foment further sectarianism among Muslims. Ashura, the 10th day of Muharram, is commemorated by the followers of 'Ali, the 'Shi'ani Ali' and yet, the example of Husayn, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, is an inspiring one for people everywhere, no matter what their religious affiliations might be.

One of the most famous sayings of the Shi'a is: 'Every day is Ashura, every land is Karbala.' What this means essentially is that the fight for justice is not localised, nor can it be a consideration that is ignored most of the time and only brought into focus on special occasions.

We all have our own private struggles and pre-occupations. Every one is confronted by pain, suffering, and threat of loss, whether of people we love, our livelihoods or our homes. That is no excuse for us to neglect universal concerns of justice.

The lesson of the events of 11 September, for example, is that people can ignore the rights and suffering of others only at their peril. When the cries of the oppressed are ignored by the rest of the world, they must find an outlet somewhere.

Possibly the biggest mistake that has been made was the response of the U.S. and its allies to the events of 11 September. Instead of embarking upon a war against the entire world, a war against all those whose voices are NOT heard by this administration, the U.S. should have renounced its blind support of the Zionist entity and begun to show some understanding of the causes of Resistance.

'Terrorism' is the response of the helpless and the disenfranchised. The answer is not a spurious 'war against terror'. That is the response of a bully who believes that he can overpower all resistance to his desires. It would be a great pity if ordinary individuals do not begin to accept responsibility for the actions undertaken by governments in their name. It is time to repudiate these corrupt governments and their corrupt policies.

T

Crowd Control through Technology

2007-01-26T10:49:00.000-08:00

It could be something from a science fiction novel, but in fact, the U.S. military has created and tested a 'heat ray gun' that shoots a beam of such intense heat at its targets that the individuals feel enveloped in flame. The military's euphemism for this torture device is 'active denial system'.

Marine Colonel Kirk Hymes, director of the 'non-lethal weapons' programme at Quantico, boasts that the heat ray gun is 'one of the key technologies for the future' and declares that 'non-lethal weapons are important for the excalation of force, especially in the environments our forces are operating in.'

Apart from being guilty of leaving prepositions dangling at the end of sentences, one suspects that Hymes and his cohorts are involved in programmes primarily designed to suppress domestic and international human rights such as freedom of speech as well as the freedom to demonstrate against unpopular policies, leaders and governments.

Another new product of technology is 'ShockRounds' by Technosis, a type of bullet that delivers an intense electrical shock to the victim. In the words of its manufacturers, 'the delivery of this high voltage pulse to the nervous system of the individual target causes a temporary "shutdown" of voluntary neurological activity, which, in turn, provides the opportunity to subdue and restrain the target before revival.' I don't suppose a 'non-lethal' weapon of this sort could cause heart attack, seizure or death.

Superpowers like the U.S. never have been reluctant to cause 'collateral damage' in their 'military strikes' or other actions taken in undeclared wars throughout the world. One really doubts that any one involved in the 'military machine' actually would choose 'non-lethal force' over a weapon that kills in dealing with its targets outside the United States. Actually, a massacre at a place called Waco in Texas provides chilling evidence that U.S. government agencies operating within the U.S. itself prefers lethal to non-lethal force in dealing with its 'enemies'.

What then is the real purpose of a 'heat ray gun' and other 'non-lethal' weapons like sonic devices that cause intense nausea? The Zionists, always ahead of the game where military technology and terrorism are concerned, have been using a device they affectionately named 'The Scream' against Palestinians for a couple of years now. The U.S. is using a sonic device in Iraq, in tandem with more mainstream explosives and firearms. Many new devices and weapons are tested on battlefields where lawsuits for negligence or recklessness cannot be brought against the manufacturers. In fact, historically speaking, the U.S. actually has created armed conflicts in the past primarily in order to boost the economic interests of the armaments industry. Without war or the threat of 'terrorism', these businesses might be hard-pressed to turn a profit.

I submit that the primary purpose of 'non-lethal' weapons is to silence protest and keep the public under control. Political protests are the real target of weapons such as these. The idea that there might be some humanitarian impulse at work in designing 'non-lethal' weapons for use in combat is ludicrous. These are weapons that are being designed for use in domestic situations against U.S. citizens and the public needs to be made aware of this fact before it is too late. What is truly frightening about these weapons is the fact that they can be made almost invisible. They do not look like guns or other weapons that an ordinary individual would recognise. They look almost like television satellite dishes and can be mounted almost anywhere, on the side of a building or a vehicle. They could be installed in every public place and switched on whenever the government felt the need to 'control' a crowd. In fact, it is possible that private businesses and individuals would be able to purchase the technology as well as 'anti-crime' devices.

Unfortunately, the general public demonstrates little anxiety or even interest where matters like this are concerned. Even when so-called 'non-lethal' weapons are shown to be quite lethal, the general public continues to believe the myths by which they were marketed. 'Rubber bullets' for example, can be deadly and are used to murder Palestinians on a regular basis. In fact, a 'rubber bullet' is not a rubber bullet at all. It is a steel bullet with a thin rubber coating. Used at short range, it is as deadly as any other bullet. Journalists have written articles to this effect for years but the 'general public' still believes that a 'rubber bullet' is a harmless device used simply for 'crowd control' rather than a weapon used to further decimate the Palestininan population. For those who have little interest in events in Palestine, it is worth noting the fact that 'rubber bullets' have been used against political demonstrators in the U.S. as well.