It has been a while coming, but has finally arrived. The state's broadcaster, CBC is finally dead. It may still have a website, it may still fill the airwaves with sound and fury, but for all journalistic intents it is a corpse, a rotting shell of its former self with no pulse, no heartbeat and devoid of a soul.
I have been watching this slow cancerous death occur for at least ten years now. At first, it was just a cough, a sniffle, a small shiver. One noticed a bias creeping in, colouring the headlines, shading the corners of reports, trimming the truth from the tree. As time went on, these biases became more blatent. Quality reporting of facts seemed to fall by the wayside, replaced with glam and sex, tabloid musings over celebrity, shock value stories and tramped up whores. While not surprised, as one wouldn't be if the lifelong chainsmoker developed lung cancer, it was still devasting to watch, like the proverbial train wreck one cannot take their eyes from.
The plug was finally pulled these last weeks with the introduction of the 'new and improved' web page. We now see the obvious censorship which has been going on for a while. At the very least before this changeover one could comment, and often find links to far better information within those comment sections. It was hopeful and pleasing to see that not all Canadians were fooled by the outright propoganda often filling the articles, some by CBC some by AP, you know the spiel. That is now officially over. There is no freedom of press in what was once a national institution, respected globally for being fair, honest and above board. No longer does the CBC even try to present an even handed persona. No, they have at the least, given that pretext up. I guess one could say they have become far more transparent, the truth out there for all to see, for all to gaze upon, like the exploited hookers in the shop windows in Amsterdam, or a stinking fish washed up on the shores of the Gulf Coast.
From the continuous selling of the Global Warming Lie, the double handed approach to all things Israel, the clear and utter censorship of their supposedly public forums and the added porn and glitz it is now impossible to tell our state media producer from any other hired presstitute.
RIP CBC
Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Muzzling the CHRC, reigning in the Demons
Congratulations to Marc Lemire and his small victory against the likes of Richard Warman and the Nazis at the Canadian Human wRongs Commission. Of course, our dear friends and protectors at the Canadian Jewish Council are in a fit, well good, isn't that their normal state of being anyway? Richard Warman must be foaming at the mouth, again a natural state for this uber-whiner!
So, what does this decision actually mean? Legally, not much - as the law still stands. However, judge Hadjis has said that he has interpreted it as unconstitutional, so now the ball is in the hands of the courts - who alone have the power to strike down section 13.
At the very least, Marc's site, Freedom Site, will remain online. This is a good thing, whether one agrees with Lemire or not.
You can read Marc's statement here.
So, yes it is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to ensure that the holier than thou alarmists and gaggers are stopped in their tracks. That said though, it would sure be nice to have Warman outed for the agent provocateur that he is, so come on Warman, launch and appeal with your buddies at the CJC, we all want to hear about the nasty, dirty tricks you both use to silence anyone you may not agree with. Bring it on, then we can all see the lies you spread and the disgraceful way you conduct yourself!!
Three cheers for Marc Lemire!
So, what does this decision actually mean? Legally, not much - as the law still stands. However, judge Hadjis has said that he has interpreted it as unconstitutional, so now the ball is in the hands of the courts - who alone have the power to strike down section 13.
At the very least, Marc's site, Freedom Site, will remain online. This is a good thing, whether one agrees with Lemire or not.
You can read Marc's statement here.
So, yes it is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to ensure that the holier than thou alarmists and gaggers are stopped in their tracks. That said though, it would sure be nice to have Warman outed for the agent provocateur that he is, so come on Warman, launch and appeal with your buddies at the CJC, we all want to hear about the nasty, dirty tricks you both use to silence anyone you may not agree with. Bring it on, then we can all see the lies you spread and the disgraceful way you conduct yourself!!
Three cheers for Marc Lemire!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
United Church of Canada - Anti-Semites all of them!!
Well, Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress (Israeli is US) seems to certainly thinks so, though I'm sure Bernie finds anti-semites in his bedclothes at night.
This time though, he's after the UCC for the wording of their divestment report - which can be read here. I guess Bernie baby doesn't like the term 'apartheid' or that the UCC has named the ministers (you know the ones supposedly working for the CANADIAN constituents) whom have taken free trips to Israel as well as those who hold dual citizenship.
Gee, Bernie I guess the truth hurts eh?
While reading CBC this morning I noticed this article, as I sent off a comment, and took a gander at some of the other lame items they had listed, it had disappeared from the front page and been buried under a bunch of other meaningless dribble.
So, for the sake of the memory hole, here's the link below:
United Church drops Israel 'apartheid' wording
Delegates at the United Church of Canada's national meeting have voted almost unanimously to reject controversial language used in material for a proposed divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel.
Well, nice cave in boys! What do you want to bet that they will drop the entire divestment idea sooner rather than later? Afterall, the UCC has itself some skeletons in the closet which would be best not too see the light of day (native reserves). I wouldn't put it past the CJC having used this as a tool to get the 'language' changed - we can count on more smears coming out in the next while.
Bernie - you really need to join the human race - or move to Israel already.
This time though, he's after the UCC for the wording of their divestment report - which can be read here. I guess Bernie baby doesn't like the term 'apartheid' or that the UCC has named the ministers (you know the ones supposedly working for the CANADIAN constituents) whom have taken free trips to Israel as well as those who hold dual citizenship.
Gee, Bernie I guess the truth hurts eh?
While reading CBC this morning I noticed this article, as I sent off a comment, and took a gander at some of the other lame items they had listed, it had disappeared from the front page and been buried under a bunch of other meaningless dribble.
So, for the sake of the memory hole, here's the link below:
United Church drops Israel 'apartheid' wording
Delegates at the United Church of Canada's national meeting have voted almost unanimously to reject controversial language used in material for a proposed divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel.
Well, nice cave in boys! What do you want to bet that they will drop the entire divestment idea sooner rather than later? Afterall, the UCC has itself some skeletons in the closet which would be best not too see the light of day (native reserves). I wouldn't put it past the CJC having used this as a tool to get the 'language' changed - we can count on more smears coming out in the next while.
Bernie - you really need to join the human race - or move to Israel already.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Good Luck Leslie Hughes - You're Going to Need it!!
Canadian politician sues Jewish Groups
Lesley Hughes, who was dumped as a Liberal candidate in a Winnipeg-area electoral district, claims the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith Canada made false and defamatory accusations that she is anti-Semitic.
In a lawsuit filed June 16, Hughes alleges that as a result of the actions of the CJC and B'nai Brith, former federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion revoked her candidacy in last September's federal elections.
Hughes is suing the organizations, four of its senior members and Peter Kent, now a federal Cabinet minister who represents a heavily Jewish Toronto-area district.
In her lawsuit Hughes acknowledges that in a 2002 article in a Winnipeg community newspaper, she repeated a variation of the Internet canard that legions of Jews avoided death in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center because the Mossad knew of the attacks in advance.
"Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it," she wrote.
Well, Leslie I admire your fortitude, and wish you all the luck in the world, as you will need it - badly. No matter the threats waged against you and your family and friends - please don't settle.
Though, I predict that this will be dropped. It is a 'David and Goliath' struggle which is stacked in favour of the Goliaths - the 'Jewish' organisations - which of course should really be called Zionist, as these radical bastards don't represent all Jews and tend to give Judaism a REALLY bad name.
Lesley Hughes, who was dumped as a Liberal candidate in a Winnipeg-area electoral district, claims the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith Canada made false and defamatory accusations that she is anti-Semitic.
In a lawsuit filed June 16, Hughes alleges that as a result of the actions of the CJC and B'nai Brith, former federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion revoked her candidacy in last September's federal elections.
Hughes is suing the organizations, four of its senior members and Peter Kent, now a federal Cabinet minister who represents a heavily Jewish Toronto-area district.
In her lawsuit Hughes acknowledges that in a 2002 article in a Winnipeg community newspaper, she repeated a variation of the Internet canard that legions of Jews avoided death in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center because the Mossad knew of the attacks in advance.
"Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it," she wrote.
Well, Leslie I admire your fortitude, and wish you all the luck in the world, as you will need it - badly. No matter the threats waged against you and your family and friends - please don't settle.
Though, I predict that this will be dropped. It is a 'David and Goliath' struggle which is stacked in favour of the Goliaths - the 'Jewish' organisations - which of course should really be called Zionist, as these radical bastards don't represent all Jews and tend to give Judaism a REALLY bad name.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Alan Park?! Your career is probably over...
I must say, this is rather good. Though, I will wager it may effect Alan's career in the 'entertainment' industry.
Edited to add: I got the link to this off of Rense - he has it under Alan Park, which is partly why I clicked on it. Though I cannot verify that it is indeed him doing the narration - it does sound like him but a search for 'driving toons and alan park' does not confirm this. Cinecity is connected to Andy Robillard.
Whoever made it - it's good.
Edited to add: I got the link to this off of Rense - he has it under Alan Park, which is partly why I clicked on it. Though I cannot verify that it is indeed him doing the narration - it does sound like him but a search for 'driving toons and alan park' does not confirm this. Cinecity is connected to Andy Robillard.
Whoever made it - it's good.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Galloway's Toronto Speech
Below is a link to the FULL speech given to the Toronto audience:
World Press Network
Enjoy!!
I'd pay a good sum to see him debate Kenney and Harpercrit!
World Press Network
Enjoy!!
I'd pay a good sum to see him debate Kenney and Harpercrit!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Welcome to Canada Israel North, No Not You Mr. Galloway!!
Well, it's totally confirmed now - as if there was any doubt.
Israel controls Canada's policies. Period. End of Line.
What a fracking joke.
I am outraged and ashamed of our pitiful politicians and in this case the spineless judge, Luc Martineau. No doubt he received a phone call or visit from our dishonourable friends at the JDL!!
What did they give you Judge? What did they threaten you with? Hmmmm? Here are some of his weasely words:
The judge noted there is some evidence that may back Galloway's claim the matter had been "prejudged" and the result of "external lobbying" and "political influence," but he declined to overturn the decision "which is alleged to be one made in bad faith and politically motivated."
Evidence that 'may' back Galloway's claim?? May?? Good grief, the JDL was slapping itself on its back for achieving this!! They are a bloody terrorist organisation according to the CIA and FBI! Both B'nai B'rith and the CJC applauded it!! Holy crap can this judge be any more idiotic? Not able to use common sense??
The judge said if Galloway chooses to further challenge the federal government's decision, a court will likely have to grapple with the question of whether his participation in the aid convoy or any personal financial support for the convoy should be considered "engaging in terrorism" or whether it "simply represents a symbolic gesture and political statement made by pacifists through the provision of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people of Gaza."
Well - what does he think? Honestly, if Mr. Galloway were 'engaging in terrorism', how then could he still hold a seat in our sister parliament in England for crying out loud??
I hope he takes this the whole way through the courts! I am truly dumbfounded by this, and I sure hope other Canadians are too!! We admit Bush, Israeli War Criminals and the like, Suharto for instance - but not Galloway?
Here's some links to various reports:
Judge denies British MP Galloway's request to enter Canada - CBC
Judge denies Galloway's bid to enter Canada - Toronto Star
Galloway has no criminal record and has never been denied entry to any other country. Last week, he delivered a speech at New York's Columbia University in which he called for a single-state option in the Middle East.
British Lawmaker barred from Canada - JTA
I'll throw in this one, even though Penny already has it up, but it gushes like the above, and speaks to the judge's comment on 'political motivation':
Jewish group proud of role in barring Galloway
And just in case you missed it, the Jewish Defense League of Canada. Pay them a visit - it's worth it. These people are Kahanists - Mier Kahane was even considered a terrorist by Israel herself!!
How embarassing to be Canadian today.
Our new flag?
Israel controls Canada's policies. Period. End of Line.
What a fracking joke.
I am outraged and ashamed of our pitiful politicians and in this case the spineless judge, Luc Martineau. No doubt he received a phone call or visit from our dishonourable friends at the JDL!!
What did they give you Judge? What did they threaten you with? Hmmmm? Here are some of his weasely words:
The judge noted there is some evidence that may back Galloway's claim the matter had been "prejudged" and the result of "external lobbying" and "political influence," but he declined to overturn the decision "which is alleged to be one made in bad faith and politically motivated."
Evidence that 'may' back Galloway's claim?? May?? Good grief, the JDL was slapping itself on its back for achieving this!! They are a bloody terrorist organisation according to the CIA and FBI! Both B'nai B'rith and the CJC applauded it!! Holy crap can this judge be any more idiotic? Not able to use common sense??
The judge said if Galloway chooses to further challenge the federal government's decision, a court will likely have to grapple with the question of whether his participation in the aid convoy or any personal financial support for the convoy should be considered "engaging in terrorism" or whether it "simply represents a symbolic gesture and political statement made by pacifists through the provision of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people of Gaza."
Well - what does he think? Honestly, if Mr. Galloway were 'engaging in terrorism', how then could he still hold a seat in our sister parliament in England for crying out loud??
I hope he takes this the whole way through the courts! I am truly dumbfounded by this, and I sure hope other Canadians are too!! We admit Bush, Israeli War Criminals and the like, Suharto for instance - but not Galloway?
Here's some links to various reports:
Judge denies British MP Galloway's request to enter Canada - CBC
Judge denies Galloway's bid to enter Canada - Toronto Star
Galloway has no criminal record and has never been denied entry to any other country. Last week, he delivered a speech at New York's Columbia University in which he called for a single-state option in the Middle East.
British Lawmaker barred from Canada - JTA
I'll throw in this one, even though Penny already has it up, but it gushes like the above, and speaks to the judge's comment on 'political motivation':
Jewish group proud of role in barring Galloway
And just in case you missed it, the Jewish Defense League of Canada. Pay them a visit - it's worth it. These people are Kahanists - Mier Kahane was even considered a terrorist by Israel herself!!
How embarassing to be Canadian today.
Our new flag?
Decision Today on Galloway
Just a quickie:
Judge to rule whether British MP can enter Canada
Here's hoping for some sanity to prevail.
But I'm not holding my breath.
It sure feels wonderful being the JDL's lackey!!
Judge to rule whether British MP can enter Canada
Here's hoping for some sanity to prevail.
But I'm not holding my breath.
It sure feels wonderful being the JDL's lackey!!
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Care About Free Speech?
DEFEND FREE SPEECH
Website from Rivero's broadcast today.
Canada should be ashamed! Kenney must be polishing his jackboots!
What will it take for people to wake the F*** up????
Website from Rivero's broadcast today.
Canada should be ashamed! Kenney must be polishing his jackboots!
What will it take for people to wake the F*** up????
Friday, March 27, 2009
Galloway - Comment
Comment
This a link to Galloway's PressTV's show where he takes questions from all over the world in various media and kvetches for a while.
I was stuck filing today and doing end of month stuff... yawn... so I gave it a listen. He always manages to bring a smile to my face, and hope to my heart.
If only we had an MP so outspoken and brutally honest as he.
Enjoy!
This a link to Galloway's PressTV's show where he takes questions from all over the world in various media and kvetches for a while.
I was stuck filing today and doing end of month stuff... yawn... so I gave it a listen. He always manages to bring a smile to my face, and hope to my heart.
If only we had an MP so outspoken and brutally honest as he.
Enjoy!
Monday, March 23, 2009
More George Galloway
There's a petition everyone can sign here at Canadians for Peace and Justice in the mideast.
Meanwhile, I can't get over some of the comments on the CBC newsite. It seems the JDL and others have their hasbarfa agents out in full tilt!!
CBC News - British MP says decision to ban him from Canada was inappropriate
They're using all the usual tricks too.
Sheesh...
Meanwhile, I can't get over some of the comments on the CBC newsite. It seems the JDL and others have their hasbarfa agents out in full tilt!!
CBC News - British MP says decision to ban him from Canada was inappropriate
They're using all the usual tricks too.
Sheesh...
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Canada Bans Galloway
It seems that my country is slipping faster and faster into the realm of Zionist controlled fascism. I certainly knew of the bias, and have been writing about it and commenting for years now. Still, I am surprised that our government would ban an elected MP, from entering Canada solely because the Jewish Defence League and her partners in suppression B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress told them too. That of course, speaks volumes in and of itself.
Canada sadly is complicit in the current crimes against Humanity occuring in besieged Gaza and the Occupied West Bank. Our leaders, lacking anything resembling a spine, have caved to the Lobby's pressures.
Truly I am disgusted. I will write my reps, but of course I am old enough to know that a response will NOT be forthcoming, as my own MP is firmly in thier pocket. So much so that he darn near ran away from me during the last campaign (his wife certainly pulled a vapourisation act, while his sons stood a few meters away looking embarrassed and giggling).
Here's an interview, of course it's NOT Canadian:
Now, considering the Jewish Defence League itself has been branded a 'terrorist' organisation in the past is this not rather ironic?
Why are we listening to this Mr. Weinstein's threats? Pray tell what does Hitler and the bloody Holocaust have to do with the slaughter in Gaza? The slaughter in Lebanon? The sabre rattling against Iran? Outside of being a diversion, to evoke some kind of misplaced sympathy for Israel and to stop all REAL debate, there is NO reason to mention it. It's old, it's tired and it's really HOLLOW.
I would much prefer if Mr. Weinstein packed his bloody bags and made aliyah already. We don't need him here.
Canada sadly is complicit in the current crimes against Humanity occuring in besieged Gaza and the Occupied West Bank. Our leaders, lacking anything resembling a spine, have caved to the Lobby's pressures.
Truly I am disgusted. I will write my reps, but of course I am old enough to know that a response will NOT be forthcoming, as my own MP is firmly in thier pocket. So much so that he darn near ran away from me during the last campaign (his wife certainly pulled a vapourisation act, while his sons stood a few meters away looking embarrassed and giggling).
Here's an interview, of course it's NOT Canadian:
Now, considering the Jewish Defence League itself has been branded a 'terrorist' organisation in the past is this not rather ironic?
Why are we listening to this Mr. Weinstein's threats? Pray tell what does Hitler and the bloody Holocaust have to do with the slaughter in Gaza? The slaughter in Lebanon? The sabre rattling against Iran? Outside of being a diversion, to evoke some kind of misplaced sympathy for Israel and to stop all REAL debate, there is NO reason to mention it. It's old, it's tired and it's really HOLLOW.
I would much prefer if Mr. Weinstein packed his bloody bags and made aliyah already. We don't need him here.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
IAW and Censorship Alive and Well
I'm sorry I missed this and just caught it at Norman's blog:
CBC News at six reports on IAW poster from Amr Gafar on Vimeo.
Needless to say, this is the one time I wished I'd watched some 6 o'clock news. Kinda made me wish I was still at the uni too.
Clearly the administration at both Ottawa and Carleton Universities were given their marching orders. Considering the tax-deductible donations they have received over the years this is no surprise. Though I must say, things were far more open when I attended my own courses as a student.
I guess there must be our own version of Campus Watch up here too.
Rosanne Ruente (the blonde above in the video) - "The fact that I listened to you is the fact that you were heard."
Could this woman be more condescending? Talk about an absolute dismissal with zero comment, cowardly to say the least. Shameful too, for a person of her status.
Shame on both Ottawa and Carleton Universities.
CBC News at six reports on IAW poster from Amr Gafar on Vimeo.
Needless to say, this is the one time I wished I'd watched some 6 o'clock news. Kinda made me wish I was still at the uni too.
Clearly the administration at both Ottawa and Carleton Universities were given their marching orders. Considering the tax-deductible donations they have received over the years this is no surprise. Though I must say, things were far more open when I attended my own courses as a student.
I guess there must be our own version of Campus Watch up here too.
Rosanne Ruente (the blonde above in the video) - "The fact that I listened to you is the fact that you were heard."
Could this woman be more condescending? Talk about an absolute dismissal with zero comment, cowardly to say the least. Shameful too, for a person of her status.
Shame on both Ottawa and Carleton Universities.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Not a Swammi, but I saw this coming...
We used to have a little TV station here, competing with CJOH (CTV) and CBC, they were bought out by 'A' channel. Leaving the stupid name aside, there was quite a turnover of staff at the time, and of the old folks who worked at CHRO few remained. This station served much of the Valley, and had a wonderful local, small town feel to it. I recall at the time thinking, how long will this last?
Well, seems they are now scaling back and will no longer offer 'evening news'.
'A' channel cuts jobs, drops local newscasts
The current monopoly of Canadian media is a crime - a crime against differing viewpoints and crime against opinion.
What a joke, but not a funny one. By concentrating media into the hands of the few (the Aspers) we as Canadians suffer, we suffer because we don't get a balanced view from 'journalists'. We also suffer because a large part of the audience is left out in the cold. At least the A channel did cover local events, tractor pulls, Valley news and the like - who will do it now? Who will serve the community's interest? Well, likely CBC will help out, but hey they've had their own budgets slashed and really there isn't that much local programming.
I guess it's just easier to produce fluff and stick a tape into the machine than to actually provide REAL news to the viewers.
Ahhh to live with blinders on!
Sad.
Well, seems they are now scaling back and will no longer offer 'evening news'.
'A' channel cuts jobs, drops local newscasts
The current monopoly of Canadian media is a crime - a crime against differing viewpoints and crime against opinion.
What a joke, but not a funny one. By concentrating media into the hands of the few (the Aspers) we as Canadians suffer, we suffer because we don't get a balanced view from 'journalists'. We also suffer because a large part of the audience is left out in the cold. At least the A channel did cover local events, tractor pulls, Valley news and the like - who will do it now? Who will serve the community's interest? Well, likely CBC will help out, but hey they've had their own budgets slashed and really there isn't that much local programming.
I guess it's just easier to produce fluff and stick a tape into the machine than to actually provide REAL news to the viewers.
Ahhh to live with blinders on!
Sad.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Seriously Free Speech
Seriously Free Speech
Please visit this site to learn more about CANWEST's SLAPP suit against the activists who last June made a parody of the Vancouver Sun and it's bias reporting on the Israeli/Palestine tragedy.
Check out the above video for a little back ground on this issue.
Then ask: Is it any wonder that we weren't informed about the Security treaty between Israel and Canada, nor have we heard that now the Canadian Embassy in Venezuela will be serving Israel's interests there?
Please visit this site to learn more about CANWEST's SLAPP suit against the activists who last June made a parody of the Vancouver Sun and it's bias reporting on the Israeli/Palestine tragedy.
Check out the above video for a little back ground on this issue.
Then ask: Is it any wonder that we weren't informed about the Security treaty between Israel and Canada, nor have we heard that now the Canadian Embassy in Venezuela will be serving Israel's interests there?
Monday, February 2, 2009
I go a few days and look what happens!
Good grief can't a girl get some downtime? I haven't bothered with the blog for a few days, clear to anyone who happened by, but here I am today with some time and in the right mood to take a gander at my tiny and insignificant blog and what do I see as I check my statcounter?
This (among others):
VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referrer http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=horray for mr kaplan %22lee kaplan%22
Search Engine Phrase horray for mr kaplan "lee kaplan"
Search Engine Name Google
Search Engine Host www.google.com
Host Name
IP Address 199.159.114.226 [Label IP Address]
Country United States
Region Maryland
City Gaithersburg
ISP Usda Office Of Operations
Returning Visits 0
Visit Length Multiple visits spread over more than one day
What the heck is that? Who are these people and why are they here - of all places? And why due to a search on Mr. Kaplan's name? Apparantly the USDA is the United States Department of Agriculture, so what are they doing going nuts on this blog?
Is Mr. Kaplan being investigated? We can hope. Though oddly, I doubt it.
Oh and Dee - if you are around and visiting - they were very interested in keying your blog and mine together in their search phrases.
So what does this mean? Probably nothing, maybe something. I could just be having a paranoid moment.
This (among others):
VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referrer http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=horray for mr kaplan %22lee kaplan%22
Search Engine Phrase horray for mr kaplan "lee kaplan"
Search Engine Name Google
Search Engine Host www.google.com
Host Name
IP Address 199.159.114.226 [Label IP Address]
Country United States
Region Maryland
City Gaithersburg
ISP Usda Office Of Operations
Returning Visits 0
Visit Length Multiple visits spread over more than one day
What the heck is that? Who are these people and why are they here - of all places? And why due to a search on Mr. Kaplan's name? Apparantly the USDA is the United States Department of Agriculture, so what are they doing going nuts on this blog?
Is Mr. Kaplan being investigated? We can hope. Though oddly, I doubt it.
Oh and Dee - if you are around and visiting - they were very interested in keying your blog and mine together in their search phrases.
So what does this mean? Probably nothing, maybe something. I could just be having a paranoid moment.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thank goodness for the Law!
Well, it's been a while.
And things are, of course, no different. The wagon is still careening off the cliff and no one seems to have packed parachutes.
I finally decided to meander through the many posts that didn't make it.
I found this one and thought of the soldiers now coming forward and telling of the atrocities they did commit while invading and occupying Gaza for a month. They, themselves are coming forth - and now it's in the news, now it's being listened to - it sure didn't when it was happening.
Is this thier out? Is this the 'legal' way to conclude, given the outright testimonies of both solider and civilian, that war crimes were never committed?
It could well be.
Hence, I'm throwing this up out of the memory hole:
(Yes it's the full piece - because this is exactly the kind of stuff that gets flushed).
Consent and Advice
On the first day of Operation Cast Lead, the air force bombed the graduation ceremony of a police course, killing dozens of policemen. Months earlier, an operational and legal controversy was already swirling around the planned attack. According to a military source who was involved in the planning, bombing the site of the ceremony was authorized with no difficulty, but questions were raised about the intent to strike at the graduates of the course. Military Intelligence, convinced the attack was justified, pressed for its implementation. Representatives of the international law division (ILD) in the Military Advocate General's Office at first objected, fearing a possible violation of international law.
"This was a very large group of people who at that moment were ostensibly civilians and the next day would become legitimate military targets," says an operational source. "You take these dozens of policemen and put them in your gunsights. That certainly came up in all the discussions and soul-searching."
Over the course of several months, the operational echelons, particularly Military Intelligence, kept up the pressure on the army's legal staff. In the end, ILD authorized the air strike as it was carried out. The "incrimination" of the policemen (that is, justifying an attack on them) was based on their categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals.
"Underlying our rationale was the way Hamas used the security forces," says a senior ILD figure. "Actually, one can look at the totality as the equivalent of the enemy's armed force, so they were not perceived as police. In our eyes, all the armed forces of Hamas are the equivalent of the army, just as in the face of the enemy's army every soldier is a legitimate target."
Experts in international law term the justification for the bombing raid problematic. "In a properly run state, attacking policemen as though they are soldiers is prohibited," says Prof. Yuval Shany, who teaches public international law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "When we are dealing with a government like Hamas, in which the boundaries between the different forces are not clear, the police force may have a combat role. But if you follow that line, there is not much that differentiates them from [Israeli] reservists or even from 16-year-olds who will be drafted in two years. You have to draw the line and restrict attacks to those in active service. This is not the only case in which the IDF offered a flexible interpretation of the law. The army attacked the infrastructure of the Hamas government and hit ministries. But unless you can show that there was military equipment in those offices, an attack on structures that do not serve a military purpose is a violation of the rules of war. The buildings are civilian sites and must not be attacked."
However, after entertaining initial doubts, ILD authorized the bombing of Hamas governmental targets. "As we understand it," says a senior figure in ILD, "the way Hamas operates is to use the entire governmental infrastructure for the organization's terrorist purposes, so that the distinctions are a bit different. We adjust the targets to the case of a terrorist regime."
Civilian on the roof
The ILD is based in a neglected building in the Kirya, the defense establishment compound in Tel Aviv. The unit consists of about 20 officers who hold a legal education. The department has existed in its present form and name since the start of the 1990s. Until then the unit was known as the International Law Branch, or 'Debil' in the Hebrew acronym, a word that means imbecile, until a senior officer in the unit demanded a change of name.
ILD takes pride in the influence its officers exerted on the character of the war in Gaza. For example, the unit induced the IDF to warn people before their homes were bombed by means of a procedure known as 'knock on the roof'; echoing the 'knock on the door campaign' in Israel in which funds are raised to fight cancer; in which munitions are fired harmlessly at roof corners. Sources in the unit say they tried to draw lessons from the warnings that were given in the Second Lebanon War. According to human rights organizations, the civilians in Lebanon were not told which places were safe and the roads on which they fled were bombed and became death traps. Once a warning is issued, say senior ILD officers, a strike against civilians who are bodily defending a structure can be validated as though they were combatants. Other legal experts dispute this. Among them is Colonel (res.) Daniel Reisner, who headed ILD until about five years ago. In his view, as he told Haaretz after Operation Cast Lead, such civilians retain their civilian status. I don't think you can incriminate someone who is standing on a roof just because he is there," Reisner said. "Possibly the attack on him will be considered legitimate -collateral damage," but he will not be a target."
A senior ILD figure explains: "The people who go into a house despite a warning do not have to be taken into account in terms of injury to civilians, because they are voluntary human shields. From the legal point of view, I do not have to show consideration for them. In the case of people who return to their home in order to protect it, they are taking part in the fighting."
What about a civilian who positions himself in front of a tank?
"If someone stands in front of a tank in order to block its progress, he is participating in warfare." But he says that in practice, the IDF does not attack civilians in such cases.
ILD's permissive posture comes as no surprise to jurists who monitor the unit's legal opinions. According to one of them, the unit is considered -more militant than any other legal body in Israel, and is ready to adopt the most flexible interpretations of the law in order to justify IDF operations." Pressure from operational elements and an understanding of their considerations on the part of ILD appear to affect the unit's legal opinions. "The army knows what it wants. For the operational echelon things are very clear," says an IDF operational source. "When the legal advisers thought something was objectionable or problematic, they definitely came under pressure to produce a positive bottom line."
"Our goal is not to fetter the army, but to give it the tools to win in a lawful manner," says an ILD officer. Reisner, the unit's former commander, says he understands why it has acquired a reputation for permissiveness: "We defended policy that is on the edge: the "neighbor procedure" [making a neighbor knock on the door of a potentially dangerous house], house demolitions, deportation, targeted assassination; we defended all the magic formulas for dealing with terrorism. In that sense, ILD is a body that restrains action, but does not stop it. The army says, "Here is a magic formula, is it within the bounds of what is possible? To which I will reply, I am ready to try to defend it, but I am not sure I will succeed. If it's white I will allow it, if it's black I will prohibit it, but in cases of gray I will be part of the dilemma: I do not stop at gray."
The dilemma of the gray areas and ILD's attempts to discover untapped potential in international law may perhaps explain the unit's great enthusiasm for providing legal advice to the army and the glint in advisers' eyes when certain terms roll off their tongue: 'proportional equilibrium,' 'legitimate military target,' 'illegal combatants.' 'What we are seeing now is a revision of international law,' Reisner says. 'If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries. If the same process occurred in private law, the legal speed limit would be 115 kilometers an hour and we would pay income tax of 4 percent. So there is no connection between the question 'Will it be sanctioned?' and the act's legality. After we bombed the reactor in Iraq, the Security Council condemned Israel and claimed the attack was a violation of international law. The atmosphere was that Israel had committed a crime. Today everyone says it was preventive self-defense. International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it. At first there were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal moulds. Eight years later it is in the center of the bounds of legitimacy."
Did the attacks of September 11 influence your legal situation?
"Absolutely. When we started to define the confrontation with the Palestinians as an armed confrontation, it was a dramatic switch, and we started to defend that position before the Supreme Court. In April 2001 I met the American envoy George Mitchell and explained that above a certain level, fighting terrorism is armed combat and not law enforcement. His committee [which examined the circumstances of the confrontation in the territories] rejected that approach. Its report called on the Israeli government to abandon the armed confrontation definition and revert to the concept of law enforcement. It took four months and four planes to change the opinion of the United States, and had it not been for those four planes I am not sure we would have been able to develop the thesis of the war against terrorism on the present scale."
Individual approach
One of the core reasons for ILD's permissive approach may be its desire to preserve a modicum of relevance and influence in periods when the atmosphere in the General Staff and the territorial commands is particularly militant. A former senior commander notes that in the period when Daniel Reisner; an articulate, charismatic officer; headed the unit, its staff, and above all Reisner himself, acquired a respected status within the IDF officer corps. By the same token, the influence of the current staff, under the command of Colonel Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, is not self-evident. Sources involved in the work of Southern Command note that the commanding general, Yoav Gallant, is quite suspicious of the advisers and is known as a 'wild man,' a 'cowboy' or a 'sheriff' in terms of the importance; meaning lack of importance; he attaches to legal advice. The legal adviser to Southern Command was not invited to the situation appraisal ahead of the Gaza offensive and was excluded from smaller planning forums. Yet it was actually Operation Cast Lead that led to something of an improvement in relations between ILD and Gallant.
****
Ahh well, read it and weep. This is their out.
Twist and shout!
And things are, of course, no different. The wagon is still careening off the cliff and no one seems to have packed parachutes.
I finally decided to meander through the many posts that didn't make it.
I found this one and thought of the soldiers now coming forward and telling of the atrocities they did commit while invading and occupying Gaza for a month. They, themselves are coming forth - and now it's in the news, now it's being listened to - it sure didn't when it was happening.
Is this thier out? Is this the 'legal' way to conclude, given the outright testimonies of both solider and civilian, that war crimes were never committed?
It could well be.
Hence, I'm throwing this up out of the memory hole:
(Yes it's the full piece - because this is exactly the kind of stuff that gets flushed).
Consent and Advice
On the first day of Operation Cast Lead, the air force bombed the graduation ceremony of a police course, killing dozens of policemen. Months earlier, an operational and legal controversy was already swirling around the planned attack. According to a military source who was involved in the planning, bombing the site of the ceremony was authorized with no difficulty, but questions were raised about the intent to strike at the graduates of the course. Military Intelligence, convinced the attack was justified, pressed for its implementation. Representatives of the international law division (ILD) in the Military Advocate General's Office at first objected, fearing a possible violation of international law.
"This was a very large group of people who at that moment were ostensibly civilians and the next day would become legitimate military targets," says an operational source. "You take these dozens of policemen and put them in your gunsights. That certainly came up in all the discussions and soul-searching."
Over the course of several months, the operational echelons, particularly Military Intelligence, kept up the pressure on the army's legal staff. In the end, ILD authorized the air strike as it was carried out. The "incrimination" of the policemen (that is, justifying an attack on them) was based on their categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals.
"Underlying our rationale was the way Hamas used the security forces," says a senior ILD figure. "Actually, one can look at the totality as the equivalent of the enemy's armed force, so they were not perceived as police. In our eyes, all the armed forces of Hamas are the equivalent of the army, just as in the face of the enemy's army every soldier is a legitimate target."
Experts in international law term the justification for the bombing raid problematic. "In a properly run state, attacking policemen as though they are soldiers is prohibited," says Prof. Yuval Shany, who teaches public international law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "When we are dealing with a government like Hamas, in which the boundaries between the different forces are not clear, the police force may have a combat role. But if you follow that line, there is not much that differentiates them from [Israeli] reservists or even from 16-year-olds who will be drafted in two years. You have to draw the line and restrict attacks to those in active service. This is not the only case in which the IDF offered a flexible interpretation of the law. The army attacked the infrastructure of the Hamas government and hit ministries. But unless you can show that there was military equipment in those offices, an attack on structures that do not serve a military purpose is a violation of the rules of war. The buildings are civilian sites and must not be attacked."
However, after entertaining initial doubts, ILD authorized the bombing of Hamas governmental targets. "As we understand it," says a senior figure in ILD, "the way Hamas operates is to use the entire governmental infrastructure for the organization's terrorist purposes, so that the distinctions are a bit different. We adjust the targets to the case of a terrorist regime."
Civilian on the roof
The ILD is based in a neglected building in the Kirya, the defense establishment compound in Tel Aviv. The unit consists of about 20 officers who hold a legal education. The department has existed in its present form and name since the start of the 1990s. Until then the unit was known as the International Law Branch, or 'Debil' in the Hebrew acronym, a word that means imbecile, until a senior officer in the unit demanded a change of name.
ILD takes pride in the influence its officers exerted on the character of the war in Gaza. For example, the unit induced the IDF to warn people before their homes were bombed by means of a procedure known as 'knock on the roof'; echoing the 'knock on the door campaign' in Israel in which funds are raised to fight cancer; in which munitions are fired harmlessly at roof corners. Sources in the unit say they tried to draw lessons from the warnings that were given in the Second Lebanon War. According to human rights organizations, the civilians in Lebanon were not told which places were safe and the roads on which they fled were bombed and became death traps. Once a warning is issued, say senior ILD officers, a strike against civilians who are bodily defending a structure can be validated as though they were combatants. Other legal experts dispute this. Among them is Colonel (res.) Daniel Reisner, who headed ILD until about five years ago. In his view, as he told Haaretz after Operation Cast Lead, such civilians retain their civilian status. I don't think you can incriminate someone who is standing on a roof just because he is there," Reisner said. "Possibly the attack on him will be considered legitimate -collateral damage," but he will not be a target."
A senior ILD figure explains: "The people who go into a house despite a warning do not have to be taken into account in terms of injury to civilians, because they are voluntary human shields. From the legal point of view, I do not have to show consideration for them. In the case of people who return to their home in order to protect it, they are taking part in the fighting."
What about a civilian who positions himself in front of a tank?
"If someone stands in front of a tank in order to block its progress, he is participating in warfare." But he says that in practice, the IDF does not attack civilians in such cases.
ILD's permissive posture comes as no surprise to jurists who monitor the unit's legal opinions. According to one of them, the unit is considered -more militant than any other legal body in Israel, and is ready to adopt the most flexible interpretations of the law in order to justify IDF operations." Pressure from operational elements and an understanding of their considerations on the part of ILD appear to affect the unit's legal opinions. "The army knows what it wants. For the operational echelon things are very clear," says an IDF operational source. "When the legal advisers thought something was objectionable or problematic, they definitely came under pressure to produce a positive bottom line."
"Our goal is not to fetter the army, but to give it the tools to win in a lawful manner," says an ILD officer. Reisner, the unit's former commander, says he understands why it has acquired a reputation for permissiveness: "We defended policy that is on the edge: the "neighbor procedure" [making a neighbor knock on the door of a potentially dangerous house], house demolitions, deportation, targeted assassination; we defended all the magic formulas for dealing with terrorism. In that sense, ILD is a body that restrains action, but does not stop it. The army says, "Here is a magic formula, is it within the bounds of what is possible? To which I will reply, I am ready to try to defend it, but I am not sure I will succeed. If it's white I will allow it, if it's black I will prohibit it, but in cases of gray I will be part of the dilemma: I do not stop at gray."
The dilemma of the gray areas and ILD's attempts to discover untapped potential in international law may perhaps explain the unit's great enthusiasm for providing legal advice to the army and the glint in advisers' eyes when certain terms roll off their tongue: 'proportional equilibrium,' 'legitimate military target,' 'illegal combatants.' 'What we are seeing now is a revision of international law,' Reisner says. 'If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries. If the same process occurred in private law, the legal speed limit would be 115 kilometers an hour and we would pay income tax of 4 percent. So there is no connection between the question 'Will it be sanctioned?' and the act's legality. After we bombed the reactor in Iraq, the Security Council condemned Israel and claimed the attack was a violation of international law. The atmosphere was that Israel had committed a crime. Today everyone says it was preventive self-defense. International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it. At first there were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal moulds. Eight years later it is in the center of the bounds of legitimacy."
Did the attacks of September 11 influence your legal situation?
"Absolutely. When we started to define the confrontation with the Palestinians as an armed confrontation, it was a dramatic switch, and we started to defend that position before the Supreme Court. In April 2001 I met the American envoy George Mitchell and explained that above a certain level, fighting terrorism is armed combat and not law enforcement. His committee [which examined the circumstances of the confrontation in the territories] rejected that approach. Its report called on the Israeli government to abandon the armed confrontation definition and revert to the concept of law enforcement. It took four months and four planes to change the opinion of the United States, and had it not been for those four planes I am not sure we would have been able to develop the thesis of the war against terrorism on the present scale."
Individual approach
One of the core reasons for ILD's permissive approach may be its desire to preserve a modicum of relevance and influence in periods when the atmosphere in the General Staff and the territorial commands is particularly militant. A former senior commander notes that in the period when Daniel Reisner; an articulate, charismatic officer; headed the unit, its staff, and above all Reisner himself, acquired a respected status within the IDF officer corps. By the same token, the influence of the current staff, under the command of Colonel Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, is not self-evident. Sources involved in the work of Southern Command note that the commanding general, Yoav Gallant, is quite suspicious of the advisers and is known as a 'wild man,' a 'cowboy' or a 'sheriff' in terms of the importance; meaning lack of importance; he attaches to legal advice. The legal adviser to Southern Command was not invited to the situation appraisal ahead of the Gaza offensive and was excluded from smaller planning forums. Yet it was actually Operation Cast Lead that led to something of an improvement in relations between ILD and Gallant.
****
Ahh well, read it and weep. This is their out.
Twist and shout!
Monday, January 26, 2009
I'm starting to like this guy - Richard Williamson on 911
You go Richard!! Keep the faith, keep the truth and keep being brave!!!!
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Why can't we just talk about it?
Why can't we - I mean really? I was going to ignore this story because I'm kind of sick of thinking about this topic, but I made the masochistic mistake of venturing onto a comment thread at CBC discussing this bishop, Richard Williamson. I had to read the article to actually learn what all the hooplah was about in the first place. Me being me, I went and dug up what the man actually said, in context, since the media will never do that for me.
Turns out it's this:
Okay. So what?
I'll leave it to all of you to make up your own minds. Yet, please ask yourself this: Is there any other historical event where questioning it is a crime?
Turns out it's this:
Okay. So what?
I'll leave it to all of you to make up your own minds. Yet, please ask yourself this: Is there any other historical event where questioning it is a crime?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)