Potentially Dangerous Legislation Coming to the US?

The US Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department are examining ways to delay the US elections in the fall should a terrorist attack occur just before or during election day. The following is from Newsweek:

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. (click here for the full article)

While some may think it is prudent to have a new mechanism available to delay US federal elections in the event of a terrorist attack, I think it is the height of stupidity.

If interference in US federal elections were of such concern, why hasn't this issue been addressed earlier with regards to natural disasters. November is hurricane season.

Passing any kind of legislation that puts the decision of when to stop or hold an election into the hands of an appointed governmental body, like the Department of Homeland Security, is exceptionally dangerous.

Given the recent history of the US in the 2000 election: Where thousands of black voters were disenfranchised due to voter list rigging in the state of Florida, whose govenor was Jeb Bush, the President's brother. Where GOP activists prevented a proper Florida vote recount, which on subsequent independent investigation it was found that had the recount taken place Gore would have taken Florida. Where George W. Bush was subsequently appointed to the Presidency by Republican appointed judges on the US Supreme Court. It would seem idiotic to place trust in an unelected institution whose head is appointed by the current US President.

At worst any delay of an election should only be something that can be approved by a super-majority of Congress, the Senate and the Presidency, with a clear date set for reholding the election. Enacting legislation that formalizes a delay process is unnecessary. There are already emergency procedures should the US government need to declare a national emergency.

Taking the example of Spain; they suffered a terrible terrorist attack a few days prior to their federal election, yet they still held their election.

To be honest, this tactic looks like yet another attempt to erode the powers of the US Congress. It is another way of taking rights away from Americans under the guise of security, as the Bush Administration has already been doing with the Patriot Act, and Patriot Act 2.

It is simply a terrible and blatantly undemocratic idea, particularly when placed in context with the difficulties of the last Presidential election.

Cowardice in the US House of Representatives

Late Thursday the US House of Representatives defeated a motion to limit the powers of the Patriot Act. While it is likely President Bush would have vetoed the amendment, it would have sent a powerful message that the Patriot Act was enroaching too much on the rights of Americans. Ten Republican representatives who originally supported the amendment switched sides at the last moment.

The amendment would have blocked a section of the act that requires libraries, booksellers and others to release information about the reading habits of people under government investigation using a lesser standard of probable cause than is required under a normal criminal investigation. (click here for the full article)

After all this time, and after all the information about the poorly structured and abusive nature of the Patriot Act, it is truly a wonder that Republican House representatives would still continue to back a horrible set of laws, pushed through by an incompetent Bush Administration.

An Iraqi Interm Deception

Last week during our election day the US conducted a paper transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government appointed by Americans. The "hand-over" was conducted two days early to avoid disruption by insurgent violence against the occupation forces.

What bothered me then, and continues to bother me now is how the illusion of power being given to Iraqis was covered in much of the western broadcast press I've been exposed to.

Reporters from the BBC, the CBC and all the American networks have framed the hand-over as a return of sovereignty to Iraqis, when that could not be further from the truth.

American forces are still present in large numbers, and after the hand-over, they bombed what they claimed were insurgent targets within civilian areas of Falluja, killing an unidentified number of civilians.

Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 130,000 US troops remain in their Iraqi bunkers, hunkered down behind concrete blocks and razor wire. They aren't there to provide safety, or security for Iraqis. They are simply there to ensure that Iraq remains an American conquered territory, whose puppet government will continue to do the Bush Administration's bidding.

So why all the fanfare and spin over the transfer of power? Well there are a number of reasons.

The most important reason is that the George W. Bush is up for re-election, and his team knew he needed at least one straw to grasp, given the debacle that Iraq has become.

None of Bush Administration's reasons for the war turned out to be true, and none of the projected outcomes of the reconstruction have been realized, so the illusion of returning Iraq to Iraqis had to be made if only for the politics of perception. Preventing the actual truth of increasing American isolation in dealing with Iraq from becoming common belief among Americans was paramount.

By creating a paper illusion of a "hand-over" rubber stamped by the United Nations, the Bush Administration can claim some small measure of legitimacy, and a fictional appearance of international solidarity. In reality, the Americans and to a far lesser extent the British still control Iraq, if continuing descent in to anarchy can be called control.

The other reason the illusory hand-over was so important was because it will enable the Bush Administration to put on an Iraqi costume, and pretend to be a legitimate Iraqi authority. This will allow the Bush Administration to take actions that would otherwise be perceived as direct American aggression, or would be considered unacceptable to the American public.

The whole point of this move isn't to convince Iraqis they have their country back. They know full well the Americans are still in charge. It is instead directed at convincing American voters that the Bush Administration is on its way to disentangling itself from Iraq.

Examples of how the Bush Administration plan to use this tilt in perception already abound, after barely a week of the so-called hand-over having taken place.

After the bombing conducted yesterday by American forces in Falluja, the Iraqi puppet government claimed joint responsibility:

Allawi's government wants to enlist Iraqi opinion against Zarqawi and his ilk, but taking joint responsibility for U.S. air strikes is a risky strategy -- many Iraqis are angered by Zarqawi's tactics, but few are convinced that U.S. raids kill only foreign militants, rather than Iraqi civilians. "A family of 10 killed in their homes -- what's the reason for this? What are they looking for here? What kind of policy is this?" a neighbour at the scene of the Falluja raid said. Pools of congealed blood, piles of clothing and a muddied child's doll lay by a crater gouged by the U.S. bombs. Allawi said in a statement that his government and U.S.-led multinational forces had consulted before the bombing. "Iraqi security forces provided clear and compelling intelligence to conduct a precision strike this evening on a known Zarqawi safe house in southeastern Falluja," he added. (click here for the full article)

Clearly, this is not an effort to win Iraqi hearts and minds, but instead a way to divert US domestic attention from the murder of Iraqi civilians by American forces, by giving it the illusion of official Iraqi participation.

Another example of an action, made behind the mask of the Iraqi puppet government, that would be unacceptable to much of the American public, were it to be made directly by the Bush Administration, is the offer of amnesty for the insurgents.

In an effort to curb the insurgency, Iraq's interim government is planning to announce a package of measures to include a revised public safety law, restoration of the death penalty and a limited amnesty for insurgents, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Monday.(click here for the full article)

While I doubt many, if any, insurgents will take up the offer, the Bush Administration would look weak offering an amnesty to poorly equipped guerrilla forces that have killed American troops. It also wouldn't be good for American forces' morale.

On top of that, any offer of amnesty is unlikely to be taken seriously by insurgents, and instead rightly perceived to be a trap used to identify them should they come forward, and make them targets of the Americans or their Iraqi proxies.

But putting all these maneuverings aside for the moment, because they are simply Machiavellian attempts at public manipulation on the part of the Bush Administration, it is important to come back to the role of the press.

Other than a few centre-left columnists in the mainstream Canadian and British press, such as the Globe and Mail's Rick Salutin, and the Independent's Robert Fisk, and the alternative internet press such as Warblogging.com, the lack of analysis from the mainstream press, particularly the broadcast press, is appalling.

While I expect little from neo-conservative rags like the National Post, who's rah, rah editorial in Saturday's July 3rd Post was laughable in its misrepresentation of the facts on the ground in Iraq; I expect far better from public broadcasters like the BBC, and the CBC.

But it would seem that the desire to create a positive perception of the situation in Iraq, no matter how at odds it is with reality, is something the western press and even western powers seem intent on manufacturing.

How long before reality comes back to bite them in the ass? How long before the fiction of the Iraqi interm government begins to collapse under the repeated hammering of the insurgency? Well, the Bush Administration is hoping their band-aids and bailing wire hold things together at least until after the November elections. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Microsoft Wants Your Body

Here's another unusual tidbit from the Guardian. Apparently Microsoft has been granted a patent to use the human body as a computer network:

Call it the ultimate wireless network. From the ends of your fingers to the tips of your toes, the human body is a moving, throbbing collection of tubes and tunnels, filled with salty water and all capable of transmitting the lifeblood of the 21st century: information.

In what may seem a move too far to some, the computer software giant Microsoft has been granted exclusive rights to this ability of the body to act as a computer network. Two weeks ago the company was awarded US Patent 6,754,472, which bears the title: Method and apparatus for transmitting power and data using the human body. (click here for the full article)

Let's avoid the sci-fi fascination with the idea of using your body to power and operate a computer and related devices. What I want to know is why on Earth would Microsoft be granted so vague a patent, and one that utilizes the human body. We're not talking about a drug, or a well designed widget. We're talking about something all of us have, a body.

Legalistic spin and byzantine arguments may come up with a tissue of justifications for a patent like this, but do the people who grant these things have any common sense? Allowing a giant corporation to corner the market on something for which no product, market or even any real application exists, will only serve to close off research and innovation.

More importantly we're talking about the human body. Unlike a brand of car or toothpaste, you can't simply switch to a different model. What if I don't like Microsoft's future human body network, because its implementation, like much of Microsoft's software today, is shoddy, cumbersome and prone to failure? Will all companies have to pay a tithe to Microsoft, because they managed to convince some rubber-stamping patent office fools that a particular application of the human body should be Microsoft's corporate property? How about using the human body to play basketball, or wear clothes; are those applications perhaps not novel enough or will we see patents on other kinds of behaviour as well?

Blood and Guts Blogs

Have you ever watched ER, or better the reality versions of ER where they actually show someone with a real knife embedded in his skull, or an actual tree stuck up his ass? Well if you like that kind of stuff you may be interested in a Guardian article I came across about an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) in the UK who has his own blog:

Since he started blogging a year ago, Reynolds has built up a dedicated audience who have been absorbed by his accounts of dealing with knife fights, spurious call-outs and little old ladies grabbing his testicles.

In March this year, a man with Aids coughed vomit and blood into Reynolds' mouth, sentencing him to three months of nagging worry that he could be HIV positive. Reynolds' concerned readers waited with him as he detailed the hideous side-effects of the cocktail of antiretroviral drugs he had to take following the incident. On June 25 he discovered that his blood tests had come back negative. (click here for the full article)

Reynolds, the subject of the Guardian article, is a member of the EmergiBlogs, a blog ring of emergency medical professionals.

Fair warning, however, if you're not into blood and guts, you may want to avoid the subject matter. But those considering a career or career change into some form of emergency medicine may want to take a look at some of the real life experiences of some of those involved in the professions.

I've always had a deep interest in medicine, especially emergency medicine. Having to deal with the immediate visceral nature of high stress dangerous situations has a bizarre appeal. Combine that with medicine, where you're helping to save lives and you've got yourself an exciting job to say the least.

Emergency medicine professionals, however, tend to be paid far less than the value of the service they provide. ER physicians, in fact, are among the lowest paid doctors. But even ER physicians are intimidated by the situations that EMTs regularly face. And EMTs make far, far less while taking on considerably greater risks with far less support than a hospital ER setting provides.

In my opinion, after public health measures and infrastructure, emergency medicine is the most valuable healthcare service, because unlike so much other medicine, immediate emergency medical attention after serious injury really does save lives.

Israelis in Abu Ghraib?

According to Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, at least one Israeli was in Abu Ghraib when the Americans were torturing Iraqis imprisoned there:

"I saw an individual there that I hadn't had the opportunity to meet before, and I asked him what did he do there, was he an interpreter - he was clearly from the Middle East," Karpinski told British Broadcasting Corp. radio in an interview broadcast yesterday. "He said, 'Well, I do some of the interrogation here. I speak Arabic, but I'm not an Arab; I'm from Israel.'

"I was really kind of surprised by that. ... He didn't elaborate any more than to say he was working with them, and there were people from lots of different places that were involved in the operation," Karpinski added. (click here for the full article)

I'm highlighting this story because a few months back, I wrote about the National Post attacking the CBC for interviewing Eugene Bird, president the Council for the National Interest, who claimed Israelis were at Abu Ghraib (click here for my earlier article).

I felt at the time that the neo-conservative National Post was attacking the CBC for ideological reasons, which the Post disguised as defending Israel.

We now have a first person account from the officer formerly in charge of Abu Ghraib that at least one Israeli was involved in the interrogation of prisoners at the prison when the torture was taking place there.

I think what the National Post did to the CBC, the CBC reporters the National Post singled out, and Eugene Bird borders on defamation. It would appear they deserve an apology.

Wanna bet one is forthcoming? Nah, I didn't think so.

UN Observers Requested for 2004 US Election

Given the results of the last US Presidential election in 2000, when George W. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court, and close to a million black voters were disenfranchised by fraudulent Republican party voter list purges in the state of Florida; the decision by nine bipartisan lawmakers in the US to request UN Observers for the upcoming 2004 Presidential election is an excellent move. This from Agence France Presse:

Recalling the long, drawn out process in the southern state, nine lawmakers, including four blacks and one Hispanic, sent a letter Thursday to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asking that the international body "ensure free and fair elections in America," according to a statement issued by Texas representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who spearheaded the effort.

"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," she said in the letter.

"This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself," she added after requesting that the UN "deploy election observers across the United States" to monitor the November, 2004 election. (click here for the full article)

If the 2004 elections are not conducted in an open and fair manner, and Bush is yet again placed in power in a quasi-legal and unethical manner, I fear for the state of the American Union. I do not think Americans will yet again sit idly by while their nation dominated by a select elite who flout even the appearance of democracy.

Happy Canada Day!

Ok it's a little late on Canada Day for this, but better late then never. Other than working out, I've been relaxing and reading as much as possible.

Over at the BlogsCanada E-Group, where I'm a regular contributor, the site owner Jim Elve asked people to make a positive comment about Canada, seeing as we've been doing some fairly intense political article writing in the E-Group over the past few weeks. Click here to read the series of comments. I've also included my comment about Canada below:

For me, ever since I was little, multiculturalism has always been something that drew me in. I love difference: the initial strangeness of it. The revelation of its many layered complexity, followed by the sometimes surprising and reflective nature of shared similarty, but a similarity that is always refracted in a slightly or vastly different hue of ideas and experiences. Even the later occasional oneness of being at ease with difference that is no longer alien, but a time worn part of my environment, perhaps even of my identity, is a thrill.

I always find it funny when people worry over Canadian identity, because they have such a hard time pinning down exactly what it is. How do you fix a moving kaleidoscope? Why would you want to?

Canada is a paradox: A tiny big country, of polite peaceful ruffians, from no fixed address, who are always at home in a sea of change.

For me, there's little better than that.