July 2004 Archives

When John Kerry made his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president on Thursday night he had to reach two constituencies. The first of these is the swing voters and for this he needed to strike certain notes and play on certain themes. And most of all he had to be heard above the din of the conventional media wisdom that he had no real support within his own party and no real platform other than to "boot Bush". On this score I give him a double -- he's on base but he needs more than a sacrifice fly to come home.

The other constituency Kerry had to target is the delegates who were on the convention floor. These are the people who now go back to their own communities to do the hard work of getting Kerry and other Democrats elected. They needed to leave the hall with the passion and enthusiasm to fight on. Based on the C-Span coverage I saw I'd credit him with a triple on this score. The reaction to his speech indicated that the troops have rallied behind him but a serious error on the bases could still see him called out at the plate.

Much of what Kerry said didn't resonate with me, but it wasn't supposed to. I'm not American and he wasn't speaking to me. But it resonated deeply when he described the upcoming election as the most important in our lifetime. On that much we agree.

A continued surge in Democratic support could see both the White House and control of the Senate change hands but given the small number of seats in the House of Representatives that are up for grabs, control of that house will remain with the Republicans. If Democratic support falls flat then the GOP would undoubtedly retain control over the executive and both houses in the legislative branch. Given four more years to pack the courts, it would allow the Republicans to solidify control of all three branches of government.

That would entrench a governing philosophy that isn't just a competing vision for the United States but a repudiation of the ideals on which that nation was founded, ideals which are difficult enough to live up to with honest effort but which have served Bush only as a cover story to present to a smug and cynical media while his actions contradict them.

Those who currently control the Republican party have made it clear what kind of country they want: one where dissent is treason and challenging authority is terrorism; one where everything from science to civil rights is fair game to be politicized in the pursuit of power; one where freedom is defended rhetorically while being increasingly denied to its own citizens; one where might makes right; one where the environment, the economy and even the future will be put at risk to benefit the wealthy and powerful.

Yes, I think the stakes are that high. And so, too, do the people who oppose Bush and support Kerry. That's why the infamous "circular firing squad", the tendency for different factions within the Democratic party to squabble among themselves and weaken their own cause, appears to have been abandoned for this election season in favour of a united party with a determination to stick together and win. They can always fight among themselves later and probably will.

If Kerry makes constant reference to his own military service and to military issues in general, it's because the US is at war. The Bush campaign has given every indication of making national security and "steady, decisive leadership" key issues and the Republicans, rightly or wrongly, benefit from the conventional wisdom that they're stronger on these issues. If Kerry talks about the War on Terror™ it's because Bush and a compliant media have spent three years drumming that meme into the public consciousness.

If the Democrats wrap themselves in the flag at every opportunity it's because they expect to have their patriotism challenged at every turn from now until Nov. 2. And if they speak of faith and God more than they otherwise would, it's because Bush and the Republicans have made faith a central issue and have attempted to redefine it in their own image.

It looks to me like the Democrats have made a collective decision to do what it takes to win. If it means co-opting Republican rhetoric and transforming Republican symbols to their own purpose, so be it. I wish them luck.

I'd expect to find lots to criticize in a Kerry administration and not least because he'd face a hostile House and lots of pressure to be hawkish and aggressive on the world stage in defence of American interests. But to contend that there's no substantial difference between the Bush Republicans and the Kerry Democrats, as I've seen some do, is to ignore everything that the last three and a half years has taught us. Look at the policies of the Clinton administration, consider that Clinton was hardly the most liberal of Democrats, then re-examine George Bush's record. If a Kerry victory isn't a victory for hope, it would at least give hope a little room to breathe and a little time to regroup.

I expect a close election in November but I'm thinking Bush and company will go down to defeat. Aside from uniting the Democrats, which is no mean feat in itself, they've made too many mistakes and too many of those can still come back to haunt them between now and the election. But a Bush defeat won't be a final defeat for the forces behind him. They have too much power of their own and too much invested in the infrastructure of think tanks and media outlets that allow them to blare their talking points unceasingly day in and day out. They've become experts at controlling the terms of the public debate. A defeat at the polls may represent a setback for them, but they'll be back. It doesn't end with Bush.

I think we need to find out who's been running around the country for the last three and a half years impersonating Rex Murphy because apparently the real Rex has been off on retreat somewhere completely cut off from the media.

The major question of the U.S. election is the ferocity of distaste for George W. Bush. It spans the spectrum, from Hollywood to Harvard. It is disquieting that the politics of the most powerful nation on Earth revolves on so petty an axis.
...
The big question before the American electorate this fall is whether the ferocity of anti-Bush sentiment is sufficient to propel a tepid, anti-charismatic trimmer to the White House as his replacement. John Kerry's campaign is but the respectable camouflage for the far more engaged and nearly hysterical anger that propelled Howard Dean to within a careless scream of the Democratic nomination. But make no mistake: Anger over Mr. Bush is the fuel of the Democrats' effort. John Kerry is white paint on a very red rocket.

It is not the war in Iraq, nor the campaign against terrorism that is the issue. Or the economy. Or the stewardship of the world's only empire. It's the infinitely petty question of a scarcely rational emotion: How do you feel about George Bush?

That's disquieting.

I see the barest acknowledgement of some of these issues in Murphy's column, as if he's written from a hastily prepared crib sheet, but no acknowledgement at all that the profound opposition to Bush on the part of many Americans might actually be based on the issues. In Murphy's world, that opposition is unfathomable unless you assume some kind of baseless, irrational mass hysteria that's affected millions.

So either the real Rex Murphy's been living in a cave for three and a half years or he's secretly working for Karl Rove. And that couldn't be. Could it?

Cross-posted at the E-Group

Just when you thought it was safe to read the Canadian press again, scandal rears its ugly head.

Two new audits are alleging a long list of abuses by suspended Canada Post president Andre Ouellet, including improper hiring practices, problems in contract tendering and running up questionable expenses.

The audits, conducted by accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP, also found evidence of shoddy paperwork and financial controls.

Revenue Minister John McCallum, who is also the minister responsible for the postal corporation, called the findings "troubling" in a news release issued late Thursday.

* Ouellet claimed expenses that averaged $250,000 a year, with no receipts
* He intervened in the tendering process for three contracts worth a total of $35 million
* Between 1996 and 2003, almost all 83 "special hires" done outside normal rules by Canada Post involved people who had been referred by Ouellet

And then there's the icing on the cake involving everyone's favorite cabinet minister who had nothing to do with anything:

* Canada Post paid $75,000 for trips for former Public Works minister Alfonso Gagliano

But fire this guy and put him out of our misery.

Klein denounces open meeting on health care

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein said that holding September's first ministers' meeting on health care in public is going to turn the summit into "The Gong Show."

There were notable comments from a couple of other premiers as well.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, viewed by some of the premiers participating in the meetings as Martin's agent, says that he is optimistic that a breakthrough agreement can be reached between the provinces and the federal government.

"There is a happy alignment with the stars," McGuinty said.

Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm, who appeared alongside Calvert, says that premiers can't just pull numbers out of a hat.

"We have to be rational and pick a number that will work, because Canadians are tired of this dialogue," Hamm said.

Democrats Headed for New Low in Convention Viewers

With roughly 10 percent fewer Americans watching than four years ago, the Democratic convention may be headed for an all-time low in TV viewership for a national party meeting, according to ratings issued on Wednesday.

Network executives say the low ratings prove that public interest in the event has waned as national conventions have lost their drama and evolved into carefully scripted political infomercials.

But critics say the major networks themselves have contributed to the decline in public interest through their decision to limit coverage of the Democratic and Republican conventions to just an hour a night for three nights of the four-day events.

The critics say that adding insult to injury, network journalists are conveying a message that viewers are missing out on little.

Meanwhile no one can figure out the real policy platforms of the parties because the media don't report them. 57 channels and nothing on.

With Iraq so much in the news it's easy to forget that before Iraq there was Afghanistan. But the latter country was in the news today.

The relief agency M?decins Sans Fronti?res said Wednesday it is pulling out of Afghanistan, discouraged by a fruitless investigation into the slayings of five of its workers and fearful of new attacks.

The Nobel prize-winning group's decision to withdraw was the most dramatic example yet of how deteriorating security has crippled the delivery of badly needed aid and reconstruction in Afghanistan since the Taliban regime was ousted more than two years ago.

MSF had already suspended most of its work after the June killings and recalled all foreign staff to Kabul, the capital.

?Today's context is rendering independent humanitarian aid for the Afghan people all but impossible,? the international group said in a statement.

M?decins Sans Fronti?res, or Doctors Without Borders, said it would explain its decision in detail during a briefing later Wednesday, but cited three main reasons: the dangers on the ground, disappointment that the investigation into the June killings has gone nowhere and what it called the U.S. military's use of humanitarian aid ?for political and military motives.?

The last charge in that quote, that of using humanitarian aid "for political and military motives", cries out for explanation. The article provides part of it along with the fact that the US military denies the charge.

U.S. and NATO troops run several so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams across the country, under which soldiers provide health care, dig wells and perform other work normally carried out by civilians.

Aid groups have long feared that the practice blurs the lines between relief work and soldiers' efforts to persuade local communities to provide intelligence on militants' movements.

The violence directed against humanitarian aid workers has come in a context in which the US backed coalition has consistently sought to use humanitarian aid to build support for its military and political ambitions. MSF denounces the coalition?s attempts to co-opt humanitarian aid and use it to ?win hearts and minds?. By doing so, providing aid is no longer seen as an impartial and neutral act, endangering the lives of humanitarian volunteers and jeopardizing the aid to people in need. Only recently, on May 12th 2004, MSF publicly condemned the distribution of leaflets by the coalition forces in southern Afghanistan in which the population was informed that providing information about the Taliban and al Qaeda was necessary if they wanted the delivery of aid to continue.

I sincerely hope Canadian authorities didn't have any part in this boneheaded move. And I'd like to know how progress will be made in Afghanistan when even organizations like MSF won't stay there.

I've had some comment spam in the past which is why I had previously installed MTBlacklist. But the really nasty stuff started today so I've also implemented MTCloseComments.

Comments will no longer be accepted on posts that are older than 7 days. That means if the post is off the main page, you can no longer add a comment to it. If you have something you really want to say please feel free to email me. There's an email link at the top of the sidebar on the right.

This was really just nasty stuff.

It could signal the end of the internet as we know it. Microsoft has discovered blogging. And wikis, too. There's an article at Wired News that reports on a conference held last Thursday and Friday in California co-chaired by MS and Six Apart, the company responsible for Movable Type. That's the content management software you're looking at right now.

Six Apart was the subject of some controversy earlier this year when they released their new version (3.0) and simultaneously made significant changes to their license agreement, changes which were met with disapproval from much of their existing user base. The article discusses how the company used it's discussion forum and the features of its own software to listen to irate users, elicit suggestions and feedback from them and make adjustments to their plans to keep everyone happy. (James Bow also wrote about this here and here.)

The consensus on the changes, visible in TrackBack entries on Six Apart's website, was that the company got it right the second time, by listening to its customers.

Microsoft employees were on the panel not to defend secrecy, but to laud their company's widespread embrace of blogs and other so-called social-media tools. Long criticized as a secretive corporate behemoth uninterested in customer feedback, Microsoft now boasts over a thousand bloggers, including the prolific and popular Scobleizer.

Microsoft also surprised the tech world on April 5, when the company quietly (without a press release or media event) launched Channel 9, a sprawling developer feedback site that includes feedback forums, a moblog and video blogs from key Microsoft players.

Moblog is a portmanteau of mobile and weblog. A mobile weblog, or moblog, consists of content posted to the Internet from a mobile device, such as a cellular phone or PDA.

And there's more.

The site, which already gets 700,000 unique visitors a month, also has a wiki, which was empty at launch, except for the words "Wikis are cool because they are up to you."

The wiki is now on its way to being a full-fledged knowledge base for developers of Windows software.

A wiki (pronounced "wicky" or "weeky") or WikiWiki is a website (or other hypertext document collection) that allows users to add content, as on an Internet forum, but also allows that content to be edited by other users.

The term can also refer to the collaborative software used to create such a website.

Microsoft has long been first and foremost a marketing company, masters of a carefully crafted and highly controlled image. And in recent years when security has been an increasing concern, they've been notorious for playing their cards very close to the vest and opposing anyone who didn't play the game the same way. In MS's view, security problems were to be reported to them and kept secret from everyone else including, especially, the user community. This new embrace of open communication methods is a bit surprising to some of us long-time MS watchers.

The article quotes a Microsoft spokesman named Lenn Pryor with the unlikely title of "director of platform evangelism".

Pryor does not see Channel 9 as a result of, or reaction to, the open-source movement, but he does acknowledge that open-source development has taught traditional software makers a lesson.

"Open source certainly pushed building software products in public and showed it could be done," Pryor said. "We find developers like transparency about what's going on with products they rely on for their work."

Yes, I'm sceptical but I've been watching Microsoft for a long time. I can't help thinking they've got a tiger by the tail here and may not realize how much pressure this will create for them to change in other ways. This bears watching.

And as further evidence that the internet as we knew it is no more, Talkleft has a post up with a picture of the best known anonymous blogger Atrios, whose real name is Duncan.

So in keeping with the openness and transparency of the new internet order, my real name is @9(#97@!#23*)+....NO CARRIER

It's the opening day of the Democratic convention and apparently John Kerry has given the word to the party rank and file to be disciplined, positive and upbeat. No Bush bashing. In a post at Hullabaloo, digby notes the underlying anger and energy in the grassroots beneath the surface of the public face Kerry wants to see at the convention and remarks:

It's as if the Party has Jack Nicholson's smile.

Cross-posted to the E-Group.

Canada now has the dubious distinction of being home to the largest company ever to be sanctioned for corruption by the World Bank.

The World Bank said yesterday it had blacklisted its first multinational with the debarring of Canadian engineer Acres International from new contracts for three years.

The bank said the company was engaged in corrupt activities to influence the Lesotho Highlands development authority, which was responsible for the multibillion-dollar Lesotho Highlands water project. The project uses dams to provide water to South Africa and electricity to Lesotho.

Acres said it was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling, saying the events in Lesotho occurred 10 to 15 years ago. "The five-year period over which Acres has responded to these allegations has been very trying for our employees," it added.

As for it being "trying" for the employees, it's been a bit trying for Lesotho too. The country has earned international praise for its efforts to prosecute large multinational companies as well as its own officials. In addition to Acres, a German consulting firm, Lahmeyer International, was convicted. On appeal their fine was increased. A French company called Schneider Electric was charged and pleaded guilty and an Italian construction firm, Impreglio, is now under investigation.

But praise seems to be all the encouragement Lesotho can expect. When I last wrote about this, the prosecution of these cases had cost the country roughly $6 million. While Lesotho soldiers on, and while help has been promised both by developed countries and by the World Bank, guess what?

[Attorney-general Lebohang Fine] Maema said the tiny kingdom - hailed for its battle against corporate graft - had been largely fighting alone, despite pledges of financial support from developed countries.

"Various offers of financial assistance have over the years been made to Lesotho. To date, none has been forthcoming," he said.

In researching this post, I came across this interesting piece of information:

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hearing on corruption in multilateral development banks with Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, in the chair, has been advised by experts that a staggering $26-130 billion of World Bank lending since 1946 has been misused. The World Bank has, of course, rejected this figure and mounted a vigorous defence of its anti-corruption efforts.

Senator Lugar made an excellent point in that last article.

... when developing countries lose development bank funds through corruption, the taxpayers in those poor countries are still obligated to repay the development banks. So, not only are the impoverished cheated out of development benefits, they are left to repay the resulting debts to the banks.

Amid general consensus that American intelligence screwed up pretty badly concerning the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, ideas are being floated for improving or reforming intelligence agencies and in particular the CIA. In an article at Slate Fred Kaplan discusses one idea that's been put forward: red teaming. The idea is to put together a team of outside experts whose specific purpose is to challenge the official intelligence. As Kaplan notes, it's been tried before.

So let me get this straight. The CRTC approves a Canadian version of Fox News for broadcast in Canada with the proviso that it include Canadian content and gets accused of censorship. The Canadian Olympic Committee selects an athlete who voted in favour of Quebec sovereignty in 1995 to lead the Canadian team at the opening ceremonies and this causes a controversy.

Let me lay this out:

An organization with a mandate to regulate broadcasting and ensure Canadian content tries to actually, you know, regulate broadcasting and ensure Canadian content and there's a hue and cry across the land that they're acting like thought police. This is a bad thing even though there's no proof that the decision was made for reasons that relate only to partisan politics.

But if an organization that's wholly concerned with amateur sport was to keep track of the political opinions of athletes and make decisions on that basis, if the COC actually did act like thought police, this would be a good thing?

Is there a definitive manual out there somewhere that explains all this in language that's easy to understand? 'Cos I'm really lost now.

Does this mean that if we get to a point where Canadian hotels are barring the doors and escorting people off their property based on how those people voted in a referendum nine years ago, this will be a good thing? Or a bad thing? Can somebody help me out here?

(Yes, the slippery slope argument is still a fallacy. But I'm cranky again today. Indulge me.)

When I saw the head for Jeffrey Simpson's column in today's Globe and Mail I clicked through immediately, expecting a forceful argument in favour of Canada's participation in the American Ballistic Missile Defence system:

There's only one way to go on missile defence

Participation at a small financial price, under the circumstances, is likely the best option.

Simpson acknowledges that the possibility of terrorists or rogue states firing ICBMs at us actually ranks pretty low on the list of likely threats we face these days. And he doesn't try to convince us that the system is foolproof either. He also raises the danger posed by the risk of malfunction, though when he writes it off as something inherent in "any high-tech system" he understates the problem. He should be talking about any high-tech system that's being rushed into service for political reasons without proper testing.

One of the arguments he puts forth in favour of Canadian participation is a familiar one: it's inevitable anyway so we may as well get on board.

The Americans are going to install a system on their territory whether Canada likes it or not, and whether Canada participates or not. U.S. deployment is a given, not an option. And deployment won't change if Democrat John Kerry becomes president.

We cannot afford to spend billions to deploy an unproven missile-defense system. Not only is it not ready, but it's the wrong priority for a war on terror where the enemy strikes with a bomb in the back of a truck, or a vial of anthrax in a briefcase.

When Simpson gets to the hot button issue of the weaponization of space, his own ambivalence comes through again as he raises an issue I've used to argue against BMD.

The proposed system might morph into a space-based one some day. A lot of U.S. defence planners believe it will. The official U.S. defence doctrine insists that no country should threaten the United States from space. So it's a reasonable bet that this system, as it develops and grows, will expand into space, thereby leading to the weaponization of space, something Canada strongly opposes.

So here is the Canadian dilemma or, shall we say, one dilemma among others. Joining the currently planned system is a bit like being in the early stages of a pregnancy. It's a system that does not offend Canadian policy today but is likely to emerge into something bigger, at which point it will be hard for Canada to withdraw.

And then there's the possibility that a system such as this might help to touch off a new arms race. Simpson dismisses this, but again does so unconvincingly.

There was a time, say three or four years ago, when missile defence had the potential of so alarming other countries (Russia, China) that it might have sparked some kind of arms escalation. These countries have now come to terms with the U.S. system, or at least accepted that they cannot stop it. Their acquiescence dissipated a Canadian fear: that missile defence might renew an international arms race.

Welcome back to the future of US-Russian rivalry. Analysts say that a combination of US military efforts - including missile defense, plans for new low-yield nuclear weapons, and expansion up to Russia's western doorstep - are chilling relations with Moscow and spurring a new, higher-tech arms race.

... A strategy rethink is under way in Moscow. Senior officers speak of an "asymmetrical" response to counter US strength without matching Washington's expenditures.

"I understand America's measures as a continuation of the arms race," says Viktor Baranets, military columnist for the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper. "With our slim budget we are making an effort to catch up with the rich American chariot."

"They think that we're kind of crazy to be pursuing [missile defense]," says Marshall Goldman, of the Davis Center for Russian Studies at Harvard. "It is just another example in their minds of how the US is still fighting the cold war."

So in the end we're left with the promise that Canada won't actually be out of pocket a great deal of money, which I would submit remains to be seen, and with this:

The Americans, as Canadian professor Joel Sokolosky explained in a recent paper (Realism Canadian Style), prefer to integrate missile defence into the existing North American Aerospace Defence Command. Canada has always played a part in that system, including having the deputy NORAD commander.

If Canada were to balk at participating in missile defence, NORAD would lose some of its importance to the U.S., or Canada would just be cut out of important NORAD responsibilities. By definition, then, Canada would lose some of its importance to the U.S. as continental defence partner.

Missile defence is not directly in Canada's national interest, but NORAD is. So, too, is being seen in Washington as a reliable partner in the defence of this continent. Canada can pick and choose its foreign involvements in U.S.-inspired interventions around the world. But it doesn't have the luxury of being a slacker in the defence of this continent.

If we're to have a serious public debate on this issue, I'd suggest that Simpson shouldn't be the one to lead the charge for the pro-BMD side. I really don't think his heart is in it. But the conventional wisdom in the press recently is that the deal is all but signed. With the promised foreign policy review still months away it seems like the government is stumbling into something no one is really that enthusiastic about simply because Bush thinks a partial deployment will lend him some national security cred in time for the election in November. And it seems that a public debate on Canadian participation will never materialize. Based on this Simpson column I can see why.

Remember 1997? The big name in browsers was Netscape Navigator and Microsoft's Internet Explorer was the upstart. Then MS released IE 4, a technically superior product, and it was the beginning of the end for Navigator's dominance. In addition to it's superiority, IE benefitted from two things: Microsoft's ability to bundle it with the operating system, which it did with Windows 98, and the ill-fated decision Netscape made to completely trash its existing code base and rewrite the next version from scratch. By the time the new Navigator was ready, IE was so far out in front that there was no catching up. (That first release of the new Navigator, by the way, was a dog. It was so buggy that I had it off my computer an hour after I installed it.)

When I posted recently about the CRTC granting approval (sort of) for Al-Jazeera to broadcast in Canada, it's not for nothin' that I made a comparison to the Fox News Channel. Detractors of the CRTC have long accused that body of censorship, claiming that Fox News has been banned from Canada, forbidden to broadcast here. It's a convenient story since it supports the myth that the CRTC is the weapon of that awful liberal elite, those godless amoral nihilists* who are determined to stamp out all that is fine and conservative in the world.

Cross-posted to the E-Group.

So it turns out that when Dick Cheney kept insisting there really were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, he was off by one letter. The real culprit was Iran.

In its report due next week, the September 11 commission will disclose new evidence suggesting Iranian government officials may have helped facilitate the terror attacks by providing Al Qaeda members with safe passage and ?clean? passports as they traveled from Osama bin Laden?s training camps in Afghanistan through Iran, NEWSWEEK has learned.

Citing a recently discovered December 2001 memo buried in the files of the National Security Agency, the commission report states that Iranian border inspectors were instructed not to place stamps in the passports of Al Qaeda fighters from Saudi Arabia who were traveling from bin Laden?s camps through Iran, according to U.S. officials and commission sources familiar with the report.

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden?s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

But, citing the NSA memo, the report discloses for the first time that eight to ten of the so-called ?muscle hijackers? on September 11 are believed to have traveled through Iran between October 2000 and February 2001?the same period of time that Iranian border guards were facilitating the movement of extremist jihadis entering and exiting the Afghan training camps.

...Officials familiar with the findings [of the commission report] say it provides far stronger evidence of the Iranian government links to bin Laden?s organization than was found of connections between Saddam Hussein?s regime and Al Qaeda?a major bone of contention between the 9/11 panel and members of the Bush administration.

White House officials are characterizing the report as confusing and contradictory, but when it comes to the Middle East White House officials seem to be easily confused.

How to completely destabilize the Middle East in one easy lesson: attack the wrong Muslim country and then advertise to the world that you goofed and try to convince everyone that the real culprit is its neighbour, another Muslim country. This should go over really well.

Via The Agonist, Stratfor reports that Bush has requested Putin send Russian troops to Iraq or Afghanistan just in time for the November presidential election. And Putin is apparently receptive to the idea of responding with as many as 40,000 troops. Aside from the fact that sending Russian troops back into Afghanistan boggles the mind, does anybody else worry that the Pentagon might just get a little overambitious again now that reinforcements might be on the way?

I think things just got even more complicated.

There's been a fair amount of comment, and a little controversy, over the CRTC's decision to allow Al-Jazeera television to be broadcast in Canada. I can't speak to the content of their broadcasts because I've never seen any, but I drop by their English language website regularly to scan the headlines and read the occasional story. They certainly represent a different point of view than the Western media but I haven't seen the hate they've been accused of fomenting.

And it appears I still won't get the chance to judge for myself.

The controversial Arabic-language TV station Al-Jazeera got approval yesterday for digital distribution in Canada -- but don't expect to see its programming any time soon, if ever, via Canadian cable companies and direct-to-home satellite services.
...
Michael Hennessy, president of the Canadian Cable Television Association, which applied more than a year ago to get the 15 third-language services approved for distribution in Canada, said he was particularly "stunned" by yesterday's Al-Jazeera decision. While the CRTC approved its eligibility, it also said whoever distributes the network has to meet what Hennessy called "totally unprecedented conditions:" It has to keep "an audio-visual recording" of all Al-Jazeera programming; and it has to prohibit "abusive comment" from airing on Canadian TV sets, to the extent of permitting distributors to "alter or curtail" Al-Jazeera shows to accomplish that.

Hennessy said these provisos "ensure that no distributor will carry [Al-Jazeera] in this country" because it requires the distributor to assume "a role in controlling content that we don't originate. It's a frightening precedent." He predicted that Arab-Canadians and Italian-Canadians, for that matter, will turn to U.S. satellites and other illegal "grey-market technologies" to get the programming that the CRTC either has denied or restricted.
...
The restrictions on Al-Jazeera seem to have been inspired, in part, by concerns from the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith Canada, which objected to the Al-Jazeera bid, saying it would bring "hateful messaging and anti-Semitic themes" to the country's TV sets if approved unconditionally.

Paul Cellucci leaving ambassador's post: report

Fueling speculation he's heading south for a return to elected office, the American ambassador to Canada will leave his post early next year.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy says Paul Cellucci will leave Ottawa no matter what happens in the November presidential election.

"He's going to stay through the president's first term and then leave some time in early 2005," Beth Poisson told The Globe and Mail on Thursday.

Cross-posted to the BlogsCanada E-Group.

Public testimony had been scheduled to resume in the Arar inquiry next week but has now been postponed "until the fall". Lorne Waldman, Arar's lead counsel, blamed the delay on the government's reluctance to make its files public. But inquiry officials aren't willing to go that far, citing the need to review several thousand documents (*ahem* some of which they haven't received yet) and to consider national security concerns.

The commission stressed the delay was not the fault of the government or any other parties to the inquiry.

"Absolutely not," said Francine Bastien, an inquiry spokeswoman. She cited difficulties with the secure communication system lawyers are using to handle sensitive documents.

Barbara McIsaac, a lawyer for the federal attorney general, said people must understand the process of reviewing documentation is complicated.

Last week I pointed to a short piece at U. S. News, written after the magazine obtained all 106 annexes to the investigative report written by Maj. Gen. Taguba concerning the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Via the Agonist, here's a longer piece based on the same material. The extra length doesn't make things sound any better.

Meanwhile, Seymour Hersh is in the news again. This time it's for a speech he made in San Francisco.

Young male prisoners were filmed being sodomised by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, according to the journalist who first revealed the abuses there.
...
He said: "The boys were sodomised with the cameras rolling, and the worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking. And this is your government at war."

He accused the US administration, and all but accused President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney of complicity in covering up what he called "war crimes".

It might be worth noting that the link above is from the Independent in the UK. None of the traditional North American media seem to be carrying anything about Hersh's comments, but the story is certainly all over the blogosphere. If you want to see for yourself, this post at Eschaton has links to a transcript, a Real audio file and a streaming video.

From time to time I've been accused of using Ahmad Chalabi as my 'whipping boy' because I've insisted that so much of the disinformation concerning Iraq can be traced back to him and to the Iraqi National Congress, the organization Chalabi ran. This article in the Columbia Journalism Review provides a good overview of the way the INC shaped the public debate in the period between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003.

Essentially, the American government provided the funds for the INC to use to feed propaganda back to the American government through defectors, and to the American people through the media. The Americans were gamed on their own dime. All the "greatest hits" of the disinformation campaign are mentioned here: the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, the Mohammed Atta meeting in Prague, the mobile weapons labs, the active nuclear weapons program. All were stories published in the media based on reports by Iraqi defectors and all the defectors were supplied by the INC. From Chris Hedges of the New York Times:

Chalabi seemed to have an ?endless stable? of defectors to talk with reporters, he adds. ?He had defectors for any story you wanted. He tried to introduce me to this guy who said he knew about Iraqi spies on the UN inspection teams: the guy was a thug. I didn?t trust either of them.?

The INC's name for its campaign was the Information Collection Program. Specifically the program was run by a member named Aras Habib, who recently disappeared when "a warrant was issued for his arrest on charges that he was spying for the Iranian government", a development which apparently has made more than a few journalists nervous. And there were quite a few journalists involved in this mess -- the CJR article makes it clear that Judith Miller shouldn't take the rap for this by herself.

In the spring of 2002 Congress became a bit restless at the way the INC was accepting American money and not accounting for it, so they put the funding on hold. In an effort to keep Congress happy, the INC prepared a memo to demonstrate what they were achieving and free up the funding. The memo detailed 108 media stories which had appeared in both the American and the British press.

The list includes articles from nearly every blue-blooded news outfit in America, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Time, Newsweek, The Atlantic Monthly, 60 Minutes, USA Today, the New York Daily News, UPI, and Fox News.

In a front-page story for the Los Angeles Times last month, Bob Drogin reported that intelligence sources he spoke with now suspect that the INC fed defectors to at least eight foreign intelligence agencies to create an echo effect among Western governments.

None of this takes those responsible for the invasion off the hook. As the CJR reports, journalists started out attaching all manner of disclaimers to their stories. Then they quickly forgot the disclaimers and just talked up the stories. UN weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq from Nov., 2002 until March, 2003 when they were told to get out before the bombs started falling. They took every opportunity to investigate the information that was passed to them and none of it panned out. And the CIA's suspicion of the INC was well known -- there was every reason to be skeptical of the info provided by Chalabi's defectors. But they were saying what certain people in the administration wanted to hear and so they were believed.

About the only story that hasn't been traced back to the INC is that of Iraq's attempt to purchase "Yellow Cake" uranium from Niger, which was based on forged documents that surfaced in Italy. According to Josh Marshall, the newly released Butler Report claims that British intelligence stands by the story and has independent corroborating evidence of its validity. Unfortunately, the nature of that evidence isn't disclosed. You don't suppose...?

The July list of top blogs is now up at BlogsCanada. You should check 'em out. It turns out two of them are already on my blogroll which means that for once I'm actually ahead of the curve. Probably never happen again.

Congrats to all on the list.

Cross-posted to the BlogsCanada E-Group.

On Apr. 7th of this year, in response to a complaint filed by Chair of the Commission for Public Inquiries Against the RCMP Shirley Heafey, an Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP named Ghyslaine Clément wrote a letter describing the RCMP's involvement in Maher Arar's detention and deportation. The contents of that letter, and the circumstances surrounding its original release, were the central issue of last week's proceedings in the inquiry.

Clément concluded that the Mounties had acted within the law in sharing information about Arar with American officials but noted that internal RCMP policy had been broken in several instances because the information was shared without the normal 'caveats', i.e. no 'holds' or restrictions were placed on the way in which American officials could use the information.

RCMP policy requires written conditions be attached to documents passed to foreign law-enforcement agencies stipulating that they not be given to anyone outside the "intelligence community of the receiving government."

Clement was satisfied the inconsistencies did not result in the "improper divulgence" of information, nor the exchange of inaccurate material.

Clement said she would recommend the force implement an orientation program for all investigators assigned to national security probes to "better prepare" them for dealing with information exchanges.

She concluded there were no discussions between RCMP members and U.S. officials as to whether Arar "ought or ought not" to be deported to Syria.

Maher Arar was deported to Syria from the U.S. only after the RCMP informed American counterparts they didn't have enough evidence to detain or charge Mr. Arar if he was returned to Canada, CanWest News has learned.

the RCMP was in direct communication with U.S. agencies during the crucial two-week period Maher Arar was jailed in that country before being deported to Syria

"What we see is an abuse of the power of the government officials to withhold information from the public," he said.

When the inquiry reconvenes, Waldman wants the federal government to set the record straight about the RCMP's role in editing the document.

Paul Cavaluzzo, the independent inquiry's lead counsel, says he will make sure that happens.

And while we're on the subject of edited reports, the infamous 89 page report on CSIS involvement in which every single word was blacked out received a little more attention.

This week Justice department lawyer Barbara McIsaac acknowledged "more was redacted than ought to have been redacted."

Testimony won't resume until July 19th. Aside from resolving the issue of who edited the report on the RCMP's involvement we have something else to look forward to.

Commission counsel Paul Cavalluzzo announced yesterday Toronto resident Muayyed Nureddin will appear as a witness.

And just to follow up on my special Paul Cellucci edition post, Cellucci is now making noises about the possibility of some co-operation with the inquiry on the part of the American government although he's still suggesting that no American officials will actually testify or face cross-examination.

Pity.

Since I've spent enough time lately banging away at Internet Explorer, as Andrew put it, tonight I thought I'd talk about some of the interesting email I've been getting. It's amazing how much money is out there that was squirrelled away in bank accounts by now-deceased people and is just waiting to be claimed if only I can see my way clear to offering the smallest amount of assistance to some poor widow, or son, or former business partner who is offering to make me rich for only a few minutes work. Isn't that generous of them?

If you haven't received an email like this, you probably will one day. If you have, most of you were probably smart enough to realize immediately that it was some type of scam. In fact it's such a common con game that it has a name: the 419 Fraud, named after the relevant section of the Nigerian criminal code (Nigeria being the country where this con game first appears to have surfaced). It's also known as the Advance Fee Fraud since that's where the catch is. In order for you to assist in recovering the millions of dollars which you're promised, it's always somehow necessary for you to put up a sum of money for one purpose or another.

The Register has an inside look at a variation I hadn't seen before. An American was contacted by a British bank which claimed to be looking for the next of kin of a client with the same surname as his. The client had died intestate and the bank was supposedly looking for someone to claim the old gentleman's estate. Some time after that, another British banker named Clive contacted the same American to say that the bank's search had turned up empty. Clive, it turns out, had sole access to an account containing over US$8 million and with a little jiggery pokery on the bank's computer system would be able to set our American friend up as the deceased's sole beneficiary in return for half the proceeds.

Where's the catch? The victim was instructed to set up an account in a fictitious web-based international bank to receive the funds. But in order to "activate" the account, he had to make a minimum deposit of his own money before his new found riches would be transferred in. Say goodbye to $1,000. The Reg article has the complete set of emails that were exchanged and it makes for interesting reading if you want to see the way this kind of game plays out -- including Clive's assurances that it's really quite ethical since the money belongs to no one and Clive has a wife and kids to support and please if you're not interested just destroy this message and don't contact my bank and, really, no one would get hurt and it's a once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity.

The Reg also tried to follow up and get in touch with a number of the people at the centre of the scheme, and even managed to speak on the phone with one James Cole, who was the victim's personal Relationship Manager at the fictitious United Merchantile Credit & Investment Bank(UK). Inexplicably, Mr. Cole became quite rude and hung up on them.

In a followup article today The Reg informs us that the bankers are back in business. Suddenly there's a Trans-Atlantic Private Bank online, whose domain was registered by the same fellow who owns the domain for the United Merchantile, a fellow whose cell phone, it seems, is "continually engaged".

Have you checked your email lately? There may be a pleasant surprise waiting for you.

Exclusive: Election Day Worries

American counter-terrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.

... the success of March's Madrid railway bombings in influencing the Spanish elections?as well as intercepted "chatter" among Qaeda operatives?has led analysts to conclude "they want to interfere with the elections," says one official.

As a result, sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call.

I DEEPLY RESENT THE WAY THIS ADMINISTRATION MAKES ME FEEL LIKE A NUTBAR CONSPIRACY THEORIST

The problem with having such a contingency in place is that it opens the debate as to when it's justified to invoke it. Maybe it's a debate worth having, but I doubt it will be a healthy debate if it's conducted under current circumstances. And if the authority lies solely with the executive branch there's no need to even have a debate.

Got your tinfoil hat handy?

Hat tip to The Agonist.

Update and correction: I believe I read the story wrong the first time. DeForest Soaries Jr., the head of the "newly created" US Election Assistance Commission, is actually requesting that the authority to suspend elections be placed in his own agency. My bad. But this makes even less sense. At least Tom Ridge is, I believe, in a cabinet level position (though that was originally against Bush's wishes). Now we're talking about a brand new agency led by someone who's still probably wet behind the ears and couldn't get himself elected to Congress.

U.S. News obtains all classified annexes to the Taguba report on Abu Ghraib

The most comprehensive view yet of what went wrong at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, based on a review of all 106 classified annexes to the report of Major General Antonio Taguba, shows abuses were facilitated--and likely encouraged--by a chaotic and dangerous environment made worse by constant pressure from Washington to squeeze intelligence from detainees.

Daily life at Abu Ghraib, the documents show, included riots, prisoner escapes, shootings, corrupt Iraqi guards, filthy conditions, sexual misbehavior, bug-infested food, prisoner beatings and humiliations, and almost-daily mortar shellings from Iraqi insurgents. Troubles inside the prison were made worse still by a military command structure that was hopelessly broken.

Taguba focused mostly on the MPs assigned to guard inmates at Abu Ghraib, but the 5,000 pages of classified files in the annexes to his report show that military intelligence officers-�-dispatched to Abu Ghraib by the top commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez-�-were intimately involved in some of the interrogation tactics widely viewed as abusive.

Among the more shocking exchanges revealed in the Taguba classified annexes are a series of E-mails sent by Major David Dinenna of the 320th MP Battalion. The E-mails, sent in October and November to Major William Green of the 800th MP Brigade, and copied to the higher chain of command, show a quixotic attempt to simply get the detainees at Abu Graib edible food. Dinenna pressed repeatedly for food that wouldn�t make prisoners vomit. He criticized the private food contractor for shorting the facility on hundreds of meals a day, and for providing food containing bugs, rats, and dirt.

"As each day goes by tension within the prison population increases," Dinenna wrote. "...Simple fixes, food, would help tremendously." Instead of getting help, Major Green scolded him. "Who is making the charges that there is dirt, bugs or what ever in the food?," Major Green replied in an E-mail. "If it is the prisoners I would take it with a grain of salt." Dinenna shot back: "Our MPs, Medics and field surgeon can easily identify bugs, rats, and dirt, and they did." Ultimately, the food contract was not renewed, an Army spokeswoman says, although the contractor holds other contracts with the military.

Via Just a Bump in the Beltway.

Cross-posted at the BlogsCanada E-Group.

I still intend to do a post summarizing the week's developments at the Arar inquiry, but I wanted to pay special attention to the announcement that American ambassador Paul Cellucci has declined an invitation to testify. Or someone has taken the liberty of declining on his behalf.

The often outspoken American ambassador to Canada will not testify at the Arar inquiry, a U.S. official told The Globe and Mail yesterday, an assertion that makes Paul Cellucci the latest in a series of potential witnesses to become a no-show.

"Our view is that it's not appropriate for foreign ambassadors to testify before committees of inquiry of nations other than their own," said a U.S. official, who asked not to be identified.

But in this instance, I think we need very much to hear from Mr. Cellucci. Consider this:

Mr. Cellucci ... raised eyebrows last week by stating that Canada had no role whatsoever in the U.S. decision to deport Maher Arar to Syria

... U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci told a private audience in April that Mr. Arar was "very well known" to Canadian police -- who, he said, "wouldn't be very happy to see him come back to Canada."

Meanwhile a letter to the United States requesting co-operation with the inquiry remains unanswered. I can't say I'm surprised.

Mozilla Flaw Lets Links Run Arbitrary Programs

Security researchers are reporting another security issue in Web browsing under Windows, but this time Internet Explorer is not the culprit. The Mozilla Foundation's Mozilla and Firefox are reported as vulnerable.

The Mozilla Foundation has confirmed the problem and issued a fix, which is available here.

The reports indicate that links in a Web page using the "shell:" scheme can execute arbitrary programs on the user's system. The attacker would have to know the location in the file system of the program, but there are known programs in Windows with buffer overflows.

This means the attacker could create a link in a Web page that could execute arbitrary code under Windows. Through the use of an appropriate META tag, the attack could load without the user having to click a link explicitly.

This has been unscheduled geek blogging because after what I wrote on Tuesday I thought I'd better post something so y'all would know I made it home alive. I did but the truth is, I'm beat. It's been a long couple of days.

...which will hopefully be on Thursday. I'm near the end of the project that's had me on the move so much. If I don't post on Thursday, assume something went terribly wrong.

While McGuinty-bashing has become a pretty popular sport here in Ontario since the provincial Liberals became known as the Fiberals, I think we would be well served to keep track of the neat little surprises the Harris/Eves Tories left in their wake. Like this one:

More than 670,000 people on welfare and disability assistance must wait for a 3 per cent benefits hike because the province's $500 million computer system cannot calculate the increase.

It's just the latest chapter in the saga of Accenture Canada's controversial contract with the Ontario government to modernize the social assistance system.
...
An aide to Social Services Minister Sandra Pupatello said it might take until next March before the system is fixed and couldn't say what Accenture will be paid to correct the problem.

Actually, I can think of one reason: no one thought to ask for that capability.

Accenture released a statement yesterday defending the computer system.

"Accenture was contracted to carry out task orders under the contract to assist the government of the day in achieving its welfare reform agenda. Those activities were completed over the course of the life of the contract and fully accepted and signed off by the then Conservative government of Ontario," the company said.

Provincial Auditor Jim McCarter noted that his predecessor, Erik Peters, sounded the alarm about Accenture, formerly known as Andersen Consulting, in his 2002 annual report to the Legislature.

In his report Peters found: "The new information technology system often failed to provide needed information, provided it inaccurately or provided it in a form that was not useful."

McCarter's assessment was equally negative.

"The last time we looked at it they had a number of unresolved system defects. The system wasn't providing good reliable information. It wasn't giving managers and staff the information they needed to service their clients," he said yesterday.

"I know Accenture was working with ministry people, basically trying to iron out the glitches and the defects in the system. They may still be there, quite frankly.

"You would think they would have had something in there where they could put increases in and make adjustments (to benefits)."

Nobody's perfect

I've harped quite a bit about how insecure Microsoft's browser and email software are but if users of other vendors' operating systems are sitting out there feeling smug, I wouldn't if I were you.

The Micorsoft Windows application is more secure than you think, and Mac OS X is worse than you ever imagined. That is according to statistics published for the first time this week by Danish security firm Secunia.

The statistics, based on a database of security advisories for more than 3,500 products during 2003 and 2004 sheds light on the real security of enterprise applications and operating systems. Each product is broken down into pie charts demonstrating how many, what type and how significant security holes have been in each.

The figures have shown is that OS X's reputation as a relatively secure operating system is unwarranted, Secunia said.

This year and last year Secunia tallied 36 advisories on security issues with the software, many of them allowing attackers to remotely take over the system - comparable to figures on operating systems such as Windows XP Professional and Red Hat Enterprise Server.

"Secunia is now displaying security statistics that will open many eyes, and for some it might be very disturbing news," said Secunia chief executive Niels Henrik Rasmussen. "The myth that Mac OS X is secure, for example, has been exposed."

SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) 8 had 48 advisories in the same period, with 58% of the holes exploitable remotely and 37% enabling system access. Red Hat's Advanced Server 3 had 50 advisories in the same period - despite the fact that counting only began in November of last year. Sixty-six percent of the vulnerabilities were remotely exploitable, with 25% granting system access.

And keep tabs on sites like Secunia. They offer an RSS feed and I've subscribed to it. If I find it useful I'll let you know.

Incidentally, when I visited Secunia's website I noticed a link to a test for something called the Frame Injection Vulnerability. After sounding off about how much more secure I felt using Mozilla instead of Internet Explorer, the version of Mozilla I'm using (1.6) flunked. Time to download the newest version.

This has been Monday night geek blogging because it's always something (with apologies to, and fond memories of, Rosanne Rosannadanna).

Update: Mozilla 1.7 passes the test. It was about time I upgraded anyway.

I was curious when I saw this morning that I'd gotten a couple of hits from google searches on the name Paul Champagne when I hadn't posted anything about him in quite a while. Then I came across this National Post article and all became clear.

You may recall that back in March a story broke concerning millions of dollars paid out by the Department of National Defense for, apparently, nothing. A mid-level DND bureaucrat named Paul Champagne had been fired and there was talk of a federal lawsuit to be launched against Hewlett Packard, the company that billed all those millions. Champagne, meanwhile, was living a lifestyle that befitted his surname and claimed to have made his own millions playing the stock market.

The Post reports that the DND has now recovered $146 million from HP Canada. It also supplies details of how this particular chain of events came to pass. It seems the stock market may have had nothing to do with it.

The gist of the story is that Champagne originally approached a small computer systems company called RMC representing himself as a private defense consultant with high level contacts who was looking for someone to spare him the tedious business of invoicing and collecting for all the work he had to do. He made an arrangement with RMC to invoice for his services and take a 15% cut for their trouble.

Meanwhile, in his capacity as a DND employee, he contacted HP (then Compaq) and told them to expect invoices from RMC, to add their markup, and bill the DND accordingly. He answered all inquiries for details from either RMC or HP with two magic words: top secret.

The one transaction described in the Post story involves a payment received by Champagne of $95,524.79. RMC had received his invoice for that amount, marked it up and re-invoiced HP (then Compaq) for $112,382.10. HP in turn added their 29%, billed the Canadian government and got paid. Apparently there are hundreds of transactions like this over a period of ten years that are under investigation by the RCMP, who place Champagne's take as high as $70 million. Both RMC and HP insist that they were innocent dupes who never questioned why they were making millions for doing a little paperwork now and then. A little "top secret" goes a long way.

For the moment Champagne remains at large and, one presumes, living large in his mansion in the Turks and Caicos.

Speaking as one who favours increased spending on our military, I can only hope that if it happens we won't see half the money go to companies who are simply re-invoicing from invoices submitted by other companies who are, in turn, re-invoicing work that someone else did. Or didn't do. You know what I mean.

Cross-posted to the BlogsCanada E-Group.

There was only one day of public testimony in the Arar inquiry this past week, but it was noteworthy all the same. The first RCMP witness to testify, Deputy Commissioner Garry Loeppky, was questioned on his agency's methods regarding the gathering and sharing of criminal intelligence. What emerged was the fact that you don't have to be a criminal to be grist for the intelligence mill.

When Maher Arar was arrested by U.S. authorities and sent to Syria, it was accepted practice for the RCMP to give U.S. police and security agencies information about people who had done nothing wrong.

... Deputy RCMP Commissioner Garry Loeppky said people who had only briefly associated with someone under investigation could end up in the force's database and the information could be passed on to U.S. investigators.

Now recall from the first week of testimony that the government refuses to specify which countries Canada shares information with or what information is shared. So even if you feel you have nothing to fear from Canadian spooks, what happens when you take your next vacation abroad?

We've been assured by Commissioner Loeppky that information is only shared after "careful consideration". Sorry, sir, but I don't feel any safer. What's become clear is that an officer on the line who receives a request for information from a foreign intelligence service need not go up the line for authorization to release that information. He need only apply his own 'good judgement'. If you're the subject of the inquiry and that officer is having a bad day, you might be in for a bad year. If that officer is far enough removed from the investigation that resulted in your information being added to the database, he may just conclude that if you're on file there must be a good reason. Right?

Loeppky defended this as "good investigative practice". I've written in the past that I expect law enforcement to lobby in favour of practices that make their jobs easier and that it's up to us, and our elected representatives, to remind them that in a free society their jobs aren't supposed to be that easy. Loeppky's bias is revealed in this quote:

Speaking on general policy and not on the specifics of Arar's case, Loeppky said officers would be "very reluctant" to share information if it could lead to human rights violations.

The second to last link is to a Globe and Mail story which also reports this:

A new affidavit gives a hint of things to come, with surprising assertions about the level of RCMP and government involvement in the Arar affair:

Top RCMP national-security officers met with Mr. Arar's Ottawa lawyer, but only after Mr. Arar's yearlong detention in Syria was under way. The Mounties are said to have advised the lawyer, "off-the-record," that Mr. Arar had not committed any crimes but had been in contact with "terrorist-related individuals."

Cross-posted to the E-Group.

Besides being Canada Day, July 1st was the seventh anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong to mainland China. The residents of that city marked the occasion by taking to the streets to demonstrate for universal sufferage and greater democratization. The official police count puts the size of the crowd at just over 200,000 but no one else seems to believe them. By all other accounts the protest actually involved over half a million people.

Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) and already enjoys more civil liberties than on the mainland as well as having a Legislative Council with limited powers for which half the members are elected. But Hong Kong residents want more.

It began last year when there was a demonstration to protest against an incompetent SAR government and a proposed national security law which protestors objected to. Again they sent half a million people into the streets and they won. The law was withdrawn and the people of Hong Kong discovered they had power.

Since then the government in Beijing has attempted to assert itself.

First, it held that last year's demonstration was a challenge to the central government's authority, with the calls for democracy being nothing but a cloak for demanding independence.

This led to a series of high-handed measures taken since mid-February, beginning with a saturation propaganda campaign on patriotism to drive home the point that the central government and the ruling Chinese Communist Party were not to be challenged.

That, in turn, was followed by a re-interpretation of the Basic Law, Hong Kong's mini-Constitution, in a way that, in effect, was a reneging on the promise to grant the SAR a high level of autonomy.

It left Hong Kong with practically zero autonomy on any major political issue.

Finally, Beijing ruled out universal suffrage for the position of chief executive and the legislature in 2007 and 2008, respectively.

All these important decisions, which have a profound impact on political life in Hong Kong, came within three months of one another and without any consultation with the local people.

Teeming crowds overwhelmed the subway system, forcing transit authorities to temporarily close some stations to avoid stampedes. But the protesters were keen to demonstrate their political maturity, heeding appeals from organizers to remain calm and disciplined throughout the day.

"Trust the people of Hong Kong," demonstrators chanted as they marched down Queen's Road Central, one of the city's main thoroughfares. Some chanted the slogan, "Return power to the people," ignoring calls from moderate democrats to avoid antagonizing the Communist leadership in Beijing.

"We are here today to fight for democracy," said opposition legislator Martin Lee, founder of the Democratic Party. Lee has led other democracy activists in toning down anti-Chinese rhetoric over the past few weeks to reassure Hong Kong's middle classes that there would not be a confrontation with Beijing.

The moderate tactics appeared to pay off as organizers from the Civil Human Rights Front announced that more than 530,000 people attended the march, exceeding last year's tally. Police counted barely half that number ? partway through the march ? but most major media remained skeptical of the official figures.

Michael Davis, a professor of law and public affairs at Chinese University of Hong Kong, said that based on his recent visit to Beijing, word of the march on Thursday would spread on the mainland despite the government's efforts to prevent it. "I lectured a room full of prosecutors on the mainland, and they were all cheering democracy in Hong Kong," he said.

As of today the Beijing government says it's rejecting Hong Kong's demands.

"The National People's Congress had made a final decision," said Li Gang, deputy head of Beijing's liaison office in Hong Kong. "As the top judicial authority, its decisions cannot be changed, so to try to attempt something that's impossible is irrational."

I suspect this is a situation worth watching.

Cross-posted to the E-Group.

After a pretty wild week, I'm almost caught up on the media reports and the blog coverage of the election results. You folks sure have a lot on your minds. I'm still way behind on my laundry but that's another story.

My own streak remains unbroken: the guy I supported lost. It happens every time. But I'm not bitter. Not me.

I've seen a lot of pounding of tables and gnashing of teeth in the last few days. People are angry about the results and looking for somone to blame. It's politics, folks. You rarely, if ever, get everything you want in politics. It really is the art of the possible. But the nice thing about a democracy is that there'll be another election along eventually. Just like the cross-town bus.

So rather than pointing fingers and ranting at the folks in another province, or on the other side of the partisan divide, take a deep breath. In the cold, clear light of day take responsibility for the results. Own them. Dig into the numbers and the breakdowns and see what they mean. Reassess your goals and review your platform. Hone your message and your media strategy. (And on that subject, consider how you might use the internet to more advantage next time. I hear it's the coming thing.)

And there's one more thing. Anyone out there who didn't vote the way I wanted you to is a big poopiehead. There, I feel much better now. I guess I'll put a load of laundry in.

Ont. health tax kicks in

Taxpayers in Ontario may have forgotten about the sting of the province's tax-raising budget long enough to vote for the federal Liberals, but they're about to get a pointed reminder - right in the pocketbook.

The new Ontario health premium - essentially a new tax totalling between $60 and $900 annually for taxpayers earning $20,000 or more a year - starts coming off paycheques on Canada Day.

Regular readers will know that I've normally been addressing geeky subjects on Monday nights. But my schedule is completely bolloxed these days so yours is too. On with the show.

Internet Explorer Is Just Too Risky

In late June, network security experts saw one of their worst fears realized. Attackers exploited a pair of known but unpatched flaws in Microsoft's Web server software and Internet Explorer browser to compromise seemingly safe Web sites. People who browsed there on Windows computers got infected with malicious code without downloading anything (see BW Online, 6/29/04, "What's the New IE Flaw All About?"). I've been growing increasingly concerned about IE's endless security problems, and this episode has convinced me that the program is simply too dangerous for routine use.

The article discusses alternatives to IE, how to change your default browser and upcoming developments from MS that may improve the situation. If you want some serious, technical lowdown on this latest problem with IE and what you can do about it, try this Vulnerability Note from US-CERT (the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team). Here's the money quote complete with links:

Disabling Active scripting and ActiveX controls in the Internet Zone (or any zone used by an attacker) appears to prevent exploitation of this vulnerability. Disabling Active scripting and ActiveX controls in the Local Machine Zone will prevent widely used payload delivery techniques from functioning. Instructions for disabling Active scripting in the Internet Zone can be found in the CERT/CC Malicious Web Scripts FAQ. See Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 833633 for information about securing the Local Machine Zone. Also, Service Pack 2 for Windows XP (currently in beta release) includes these and other security enhancements for IE.

There's more at the US-CERT link, including advice concerning Outlook as well as more general suggestions. There's also a suggestion that you could just use a different browser, which is where we came in.

This has been Wednesday night geek blogging because on Monday night I was miles away and at the mercy of the worst dialup service I've ever seen. Besides, I couldn't remember the URL to log in to Movable Type.

Update: You can go here to test your browser for vulnerabilities. (Via Suburban Guerrilla.)