Black Dog

Here's a question: in the years since 9-11, of all the hundreds, if not thousands of individuals detained in a heightened climate of fear and suspicion, how many people in the United States have been convicted on terrorism related charges? I'll answer that: according to the Justice Department's own data, 39 people have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security since 2001 (out of several hundred domestic detainees). I point this out only to show that hysteria is a powerful force. We're being buffeted by claims that there are hordes of closet Muslim terrorists just waiting to blow us and themselves to smithereens at the drop of a hat. But if that was the case, surely the numbers would reflect that. They do not. I use American data here for obvious reasons: if the country most likely to be targetted by terrorism, and most active in attempting to prevent it has been unable to find significant evidence of widespread terrorist activity, then the same would likely apply to Canada. I haven't seen anyone make a convincing case that there is a genuine threat to Canada from its citizens of Arab or Muslim descent. Comments like: are merely recipes for a witchhunt. Has anyone of the above been convicted of a crime that would warrant deportation? If the feds can come up with the evidence to try and convict anyone or other sufficient grounds for deportation, fine. But there's no way we should be shipping people out based solely on their personal beliefs, no matter how repellant they are.

Since you aren't able to rebut my arguments or even resolve your own contradicary statements, I'll take this as acknowledgment of my ""intellectual superiority". Seriously: when did "you pot somoking hippies think you're so smart" become a sunstitute for rational debate.

1) Why in the name of al that's good and holy would you think a malignant turd like Michael "Savage" Weiner would make a good source of information? 2) It's interesting that you mention aid workers when most aid organizations like the Red Cross/Cresent, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders etc etc. that are doing yeoman's work are not connected to the Occupation authorities and in many cases, are extremely critical of the U.S.'s handling of the occupation. 3) No one has said Iraq is better off without help. NGO's and aid organizations seem to being making much more progress with limited resources than the bloated and thouroughly corrupt political establishment has with the billions of dollars they have access to (or do you really think the recent revalations like the $9 billion of missing reconsruction money, or Halliburton's oercharging the U.S. government to the tune of $61 million are anomalies?). If it were up to people like you, though, there would be no questioning and no chance to expose the gross incompetence, inefficiency and wholesale corruption of the whole operation to date. My personal experience tells me its foolish to trust the government. All human endevours tend towards heierarchal modes of organization and it is in just such systems that the worst human traits: greed, ambition, vindictivness and rapaciousness. And its frankly amazing to me that the same people who curse the corruption of the Liberal party hierarchy here in Canada seem to honestly believe in the simon-pure motives of the U.S. in Iraq when the two are, fundamentally, products of the same organizational system and culture. As for quoting from others, since I lack first-hand experience on Iraq, then I must rely on others' experience. If you dispute that necessity, I suggest you keep your objections in mind next time Bush gives a speech on how much progress is being made in a country he's spent less than a day in. I would dispute that Iraqis went to the polls for a photo-op. The Kurds and Shiites went in hopes of furthering their ambition of a decentralized Iraq where, coincidentally enough, they would hold the balance of political and economic power. The Sunnis went to prevent their ever-weakening hold on their traditional privilege from slipping further. No one went because they want a unified, secular, democratic Iraq. Hey dummy: did it occur to you that, since the insurgency is predominately Sunni, they wanted their own people to vote in hopes of defeating the constitution? Now that the constitution appears to have passed in spite of widespread resistance by the Sunnis, expect a surge in insurgent activity. The numbe rone rule of counterinsurgency is to deprive the insurgents of a base of popular support. By ramrodding this constitution through, the U.S. and its erstwhile Kurdish and Shiite allies have just handed the inurgents that popular support on a silver platter. I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear of this meme, as it seems to be a convienent way to open the door for the U.S to extracate themselves from the bloody mess of Iraq while still claiming success. Where's that "Mission Accomplished" banner? Well, Iran is stoked.

Utter nonsense. Many religious groups, Christian and otherwise, support a degree of separation between church and state. And this may come a sa surprise to Leafless, but many chruch denominations also support gay rights, such as marriage.

It's called a "rebuttal". Look it up, right after you look up "how to write a sentence". Legislation does not define a nation's character, but reflects it. You keep bl;atehring on about how the patriation of the Cosntiution and the enactment of the Charter was an affront to democracy, but I fail to see why Canadians should have a say. It's a representative democracy, after all. The English language is not under attack anywhere, save Quebec. As for using the NWC to enforce religious convictions: are you daft? The state has no place doing so. The roots of the Canadian system in the British parlimentary model is both self-evident and irrelevant to this debate. As near as I can tell, your beef is with the recognition of certain rights as being universal for all Canadians. So, if freedoms are under attack by our own government, and the U.S. is such a stalwart protector, why haven't they stepped in? Could it be because our freedoms are not under attack? Certainly, Liberal corruption is a serious thing, and the Canadian electoral system is in dire need of reform, but grab a little perspective here.

That's factually incorrect. Fourth guilty plea in Buffalo terror case BUFFALO, New York (CNN) -- The fourth of six Yemeni-American men accused of attending an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan pleaded guilty Tuesday to terrorism-related charges. CNN 'Paintball Terrorists' Convicted of Conspiracy ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Three American Muslims accused of using paintball games to train for holy war were found guilty of conspiracy charges on Thursday. FoxNews <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First article: Re: second article: Link Who else? Bush has claimed "the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 serious Al Qaida terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three Al Qaida plots to attack inside the United States." So far, we've seen the above, plus Jose Padilla (who has not been charged with any crime or permitted to talk to a lawyer since his detention in 2002) and Iyman Faris, who pleaded guilty in June 2003 to two felony charges connected to a plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, a plot U.S. officials admitted that Faris had abandoned because he deemed it unlikely to succeed. None of these cases have the hallmark of a well-cordinated, capable terrorist organization. I think it's safe to say that the threat of Al Qaeda has been greatly exaggerated. No, the term itself has become something of a catch all, a "brand name" used to label any act of terrorism I think you have it backwards. Al Qaeda is a product of the radical Islamic schools that sprouted up in Pakistan during the 1980's as training grounds for the anti-Communist mujahideen fighters. Radical Islam itsself filled the niche previously occupied by secular Arab nationalism, a ideaology virtually stamped out by the west during the '60s and '70s through reflexive support of Israel and dictators like the Shah.

Actually, Canadians were ranked eighth.

It ain't the logic so much as the syntax.

You contradict yourself. Quebec is able to maintain its divisive language laws because of the concessions made to the provinces (ie. the notwithstanding clause). So, if the constitution is flawed, it is because it gives the provinces a backdoor to duck out of their obligation to guarantee individual rights. If you had your way, all provinces would be free to ignore individual rights if they so chose.I'm not sure that's the kind of country we'd like to see. More self-contradiction. Either the Charter is based on those initial freedoms (whatever they may be), or the rights therein are not the rights and freedoms that were fought for (as you contended earlier). Yet, according to you, our freedoms are under attack. If that is the case, then clearly the U.S. military is not doing its job.

Maybe you shouldn't be so ethnocentric in your opinions toward other cultures. The biggest difference between Iraq's constitutional process and America's constitutional process is that Iraq is allowing all groups to participate. I'm sure there would have been some slight disagreements on the behalf of the native population and the slave population in America, if they would have been allowed to participate. Definitely a little "squabbling" as you call it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Ethnocentric"? Based on words you put in my mouth? I have made no judgement on how the Iraqi process should go, but simply stated your comparison of Iraq's constitutional process with that of the United States is a poor one. You somehow interpreted that as meaning I expected the two processes to be idenitical, when I said no such thing. As for your contention that the Iraqi process is somehow more inclusive, well, that's debatable at best, but really neither here nor there (I'll refrain from pointing out the squabbling that did occur in the United States between the federalist and anti-federalist camps). In Iraq, we have a process where two groups hold the hammer over the third, a process brokered by the U.S. ambassador in and resulting in a fluid document, the result of which likely being the decentralization and de facto break up of the country on sectarian/ethnic lines. In other words, the key difference between the two processes is that one was guided by certain elites to balance competiing interests and prevent the formation of a system of regional confederacies, the current Middle Eastern version is a winner-take-all scramble. The fact that no one at the negotiating table in Iraq is all that concerened with things like pluralism or equal rights (after all, how does one maintain equal rights when a patriarchal, old-time religion is codified as the source of all law?) seems to escape the right wing.

Well, your premise is a little over-the-top, however, yes, there are large differences between Iraq of 2005 and America of 1787. So why do you think the Constitutions and political process should be exactly the same? I believe the term is enthnocentric. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You should probably consider those differences you speak of before putting forward such a patently silly comparison.

"Unusually high" voter turnout sparks election audit Look at Nineveh province: a Sunni Arab majority of about 1.7 million, versus 200,000 Kurds and 500-600,000 non-Kurdish, non-Arab minorities, widely expected to be the lynchpin of any Sunni effort to defeat the constitution. Last report from the polls: an overwhelming (78 per cent) "yes" vote. I smell a rat.

How many times has the U.S. Constitution been changed since the summer of 1787? Case closed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Uh...no. See, the simple fact that the Iraqi constitution will be changed within months of its passage renders the referendum moot, as the document the people are voting for now is not the one they'll eventually get. The process allowed (and the Iraqis had requested) a six-month postponement of the deadline. The U.S, however, wanted a deal done. That haste and the subsequent concessions (none of which have addressed the key issues such as the creation of a southern Shi'a superregion and decentralized control of Iraq's oil wealth), have cast the legitimacy of the whole process in doubt. What makes your analogy even more facile is the fact that the U.S.Constitution was drafted and subsequently amended by a stable government that was largely representative of the people who elected it, not a set of squabbling, violent sects with deep-seeded tribal and religious loyalties that transcend any spirit of nationalism.

And why would that be? Could it be because most Iraqis were voting for a constitution that they haven't read, a document which will continue to undergo revisions over the next few months, and which a large portion of the population rejected either by voting "no" (an impotent gesture, given the changes put in by the Shia/Kurdish factions that all but guaranteed a "yes" vote) or boycotting the process. Or could it because I see the constitution's passage as a purely symbolic gesture, and a lousy one at that, given if it passes, the Sunnis will be enraged and the Shi'a factional militias emboldened. If the constitution is defeated, the Sunnis will be emboldened and the Shi'a enraged: in other words: this is a win-win for the insurgency, as it pretty much guarantees the de facto civil war will continue, if not escalate.

Leafless: you're out to lunch. No, the legal, democratic and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter are I would counter that the idea of delegating individual rights to the provinces is ridiculous, simply because, without broad constitutional gurantees, there would be no consistency. No? So freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of the press, peaceful assembly, and freedom of association are not the freedoms "we" fought for? Tell me: which freedoms are missing? That implie sthat some one is trying to take those righst and freedoms away and are prevented from doing so only by he U.S.A. That is not the case. What's more, the U.S.A. doesn't give a flying fig abot Canadians' individual rights: thankfully, those are protected by our own law.

Yawn. Without getting into the massive flaws of the constitution, the voting process, it's worth pointing out that this event is no more likely to end the civil strife in Iraq than the Jnauary elections: indeed, it will only excerbate it.

A few things to note: 1) The data in question refers only to on-site industrial emissions, not pollution in general, nor does teh report provide information on all pollutants, all sources of chemicals, data from facilities in Mexico (with the exception of criteria air contaminants), environmental damage, or health risks. 2) Canada (according to 1998 data) released only 23 per cent as much of the chemicals as the US, so we're starting off at a much lower level. 3)Airborne emissions are only one part of the report. For instance, it also reports releases into water. In this case, the release of this particular set of chemicals into surface water decreased in Canada by almost 50 per cent but increased in the US by 16 per cent. So, while the data may be correct, it's limited and does not speak to the bigger picture.

Uh...no. Individual rights and freedoms are inherent: that is, no one has to earn the rights guranteed under the charter.

Toro: So you concede that Clinton was no leftist. Kerry was no leftist. Hillary is no leftist. The Democratic party is a corporate party through and through, in thrall to the same elites as the G.O.P with the same ultimate interests in mind. The idea that the Dems are a left party is a myth propigated by far-right idealogues. What I am saying is they've tracked too far to the right and need to settle into a niche. If that means maintaining a position on the centre, so be it, but any further move to tthe right simply risks soldifying them as Republican-lite.

Juan Cole, has some questions about the letter, based on some interesting elements. Other doubts

Why is the right winning? Is it because of a massive socio-political shift? Or is it the work of a massive, well-funded political machine that has been steadily plowing its way across teh talk radio airwaves and back rooms, and overall dominating th epolitical discourse. (Indeed, not just dominating, but defining: hence the transformation of liberal into a dirty word.)

For starters, I would dispute those numbers. In the last election, avowed conservatives constituted only 34 percent of the electorate. The largest share of the American electorate (45 percent) calls itself moderate, and they went for Kerry by a 54 to 45 percent margin. 21 per cent of voters call themselves liberal. In any case, I'd still be cautious of using that as a barometer. For one thing, "liberal" has become a perjorative term (or have you not wondered why so many left types use the word "progressive" nowadays): I have to wonder how many "moderates" are simply cowed liberals or fiscal conservatives.

Same goes for Canada. So the number of referendums is your benchmark of democracy? And "totalitarian democracy" is a contradiction. That's an extremely idealized way of looking at it. Funny you should mention the U.S. Constitution: it too was imposed without a referendum, and its Bill of Rights fulfills the same role as our Charter of Rights (that is; a constitutional safeguard of individual civil rights and liberties ). Are you suggessting that individaul civil rights and liberties should not be protected?

Which is kinda my point, innit? I mean, low taxes, small government yadda yadda are not what people tend to think of when they think of the Democrats (the party of the New Deal). If the "liberal" Kerry lost because of his inability to articulate a clear mesage, doesn't that sink the theory that the problem is that the Democrtas are too left? In other words, what's to say that an articulate, unapologetically left-wing candidate couldn't win? No. They lost because the Republicans ran a better campaign. They lost because incumbents are always tough to beat. They lost, as you said, because of a lack of an articulate message. I also believe they lost because the Republicans cheated.

Probably no more than do now. Illicit narcotics are easy enough to get that if one has it in mind to get 'em, one can. An increase in supply does not necessarily lead to an increase in demand.