RSS FeedWikileaks considered a “threat” by US Army
WikiLeaks logo (via Wikipedia)
WikiLeaks, the whistle-blowing website that provides confidential and sensitive documents for free to the media, human rights groups and the public, has been deemed a threat by the US Army.
WikiLeaks has been responsible in the past for providing a copy of the Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta, the contents of Sarah Palin’s Yahoo account, and a membership list of the far-right British National Party which got at least one police officer dismissed, among many other significant stories.
A 2008 document recently posted there, entitled U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks, states,
The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing
sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out.
Plans included trying to shut down the website using a variety of techniques, including exposing their sources to embarrass and intimidate them, and even litigation.
Considering that this document was considered “secret,” and presumably came from someone who had access to confidential files, the concerns may be valid. But the appropriateness of the response by the military towards a media channel providing a significant and overwhelmingly positive contribution to issues of public interest is also suspect.
The editors of WikiLeaks note that 2 years have passed without any exposure of their sources, indicating that this response may also be particularly ineffectual. They also point to inaccuracies regarding the editorial control of the site.
Even if the Army was able to shut down WikiLeaks, they concede that the problem is not limited to a single site,
Web sites similar to Wikileaks.org will continue to proliferate and will continue to represent a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army for the foreseeable future.
Although security interests are pressing and substantial, when a democratic government administration is known to participate in systematic abuses of human rights and widespread violations of international norms, the balance of favour should continue to support sites like WikiLeaks.
Government Ignores “Tough on Crime” Statistics
A great article just came off the Canadian Press wire. The upshot is that the Canadian government is ignoring the results of social science studies about crime and punishment. Here are some quoteable quotes:
Federal spending estimates indicate capital expenditures on prisons in Canada will increase by more than 40 per cent in 2010-11 to $329.4 million from $230.8 million this year, although the Conservative government has refused to publicly detail the costs of its criminal justice agenda.
…
“The great appeal of mandatory minimum sentences is that they give politicians the appearance of doing something, of being seen to be doing something,” Craig Jones, the executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada, said in a recent interview. “You must never underestimate the need for politicians to be seen to be doing something — even if, in some cases, it’s the wrong thing.”
…
In a 2008 speech, Harper flatly denounced research-based justice policies, accusing the pedlars of such policies of trying to “pacify Canadians with statistics.” “Your personal experiences and impressions are wrong, they say; crime is really not a problem. These apologists remind me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz when the wizard says, ‘Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
…
More recently, Harper’s former chief of staff Ian Brodie told a McGill University forum last spring that informed criticism of the government’s justice agenda is a political gift: “It helped us tremendously to be attacked by this coalition of university types.”
Iacobucci to Investigate on Detainee Documents
Former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci was enlisted Friday to investigate whether the release of documents relating to Afghan detainee torture would cause an “injurious” effect.
The release of these documents – which could prove damning if they show government complicity in torture – was widely cited as being the underlying reason for PM Stephen Harper’s most recent prorogue of Parliament.
The unsettled issues here seem to be the following:
- Is this, as critics allege, simply a transparent effort to hide from opposition pressure to release the documents?
- Will Iacobucci actually be given all of the relevant documents?
- Should Iacobucci fear personal reprisal – à la Richard Colvin – if his findings do not please the Conservative government?
- How binding will his decision be, given that it’s not a Supreme Court reference?
- If Iacobucci decides that releasing the documents would be injurious, is a Parliament majority vote to release them nonetheless binding on the executive?
Iacobucci previously led an independent commission from 2006 to 2008 investigating Canadian government involvement in the torture of three Arab-Canadian men in Syria and Egypt. He found that CSIS and the RCMP indirectly contributed to wrongful detainment and torture of the individuals.
Speaking of getting “tough on crime”, how about “hate”?
When a local Georgian Township man, Trevor Middleton, was convicted of assault and criminal negligence in December, 2009, friends and family of the victims were hopeful that justice was served.
The Toronto Star
During the case, the jury had heard how Middleton and his friends had engaged in the practice of “nip-tipping” – that is, they would push into the water individuals who were fishing and who were of visibly Asian descent. This would be on the pretense that such people were fishing illegally, without licenses, or catching more fish than they were allowed to.
As well, the jury had heard how, after this altercation, Middleton had pursued the victims in his F-150 pick-up, how he had rammed their Civic with his truck, and how the victims were forced off the road and into a tree. The jury also had heard how one of the occupants, Shayne Berwick, suffered severe brain injury and is now confined to a wheelchair.
As a result, the jury had taken all of three hours to find Middleton guilty.
Register Before Revolution
Before attempting to overthrow the government in South Carolina, you must register your organization, for a $5 fee.
You have to name the organization, identify where you are based, describe your beliefs, and list your revolutionary members.
The state’s Subversive Activities Registration Act says,
SECTION 23-29-50. Registration by subversive and foreign-controlled organizations.
Every subversive organization and organization subject to foreign control shall register with the Secretary of State on forms prescribed by him within thirty days after coming into existence in this State.
SECTION 23-29-60. Registration of members of subversive and foreign-controlled organizations.
Every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means, who resides, transacts any business or attempts to influence political action in this State, shall register with the Secretary of State on the forms and at the times prescribed by him.
Although it’s reported that the law was first passed last year, Sen. Larry Martin claims it dates to 1951 and was meant to deter communists by charging those who obviously would not register with a $25,000 fine and 10 years in prison.
A copy of the form can be found here. Just don’t tell us that you’re filling it out.
Parliament Set to Fight over Crime
Before Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament, before he made sure to be televised hobnobbing with athletes at every possible turn at the Olympics, he had filled the Lower House with a slate of crime bills, which all died upon prorogation. Now they’re back, and Harper is ready to be “tougher on crime” than ever before.
But the Liberals aren’t so ready to let the Conservatives push through their “tough on crime” agenda. Dominic LeBlanc, a former (and, hopefully, future) contender for the Liberal helm, now justice critic, was quoted in today’s National Post:
“This is the first government to politicize the Criminal Code,” said Mr. LeBlanc.
He accused the Conservatives of bringing forward “gimmicky” bills with “silly names” such as the “Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murderers Act.”
The politicization of justice reform has been a topic for concern since Harper’s ascent. In any event, we’re bound to hear the terms “soft on crime” and “tough on crime” thrown around a lot as our legislators return to work after their vacation.
Nicholson Ends 2-for-1 Special
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has ended the discretionary practice of giving criminals double credit on time served awaiting trial. Previously, for example, a convict who had waited two years for trial could take four years off their sentence (or in the case of the deplorable Don Jail, six years at three-for-one).
In a National Post editorial, Nicholson wrote:
Of course he did not offer any evidence as to why these criminals had been released too soon.
Nor did he mention the justification that had led to the two-for-one option in the first place – reasons such as the “terrible conditions” that exist in correctional facilities. Reasons such as that the prison system is grossly overcrowded. Reasons such as that time served before a trial is psychologically harsher than time served after conviction/acquittal.
Nicholson did not explain how the new law will substantively prevent crime, or relieve the conditions that inmates awaiting trial endure. One can only conclude that the new law will lead to even more overcrowding in correctional facilities.
The reason for the new law is optics. As I wrote recently, political dialogue has become locked in a false “tough on crime” or “soft on crime” dichotomy. Nicholson is determined to show that his party is tough on crime (not to vindicate the other parties, all of whom supported the bill, especially the Liberals). Nicholson in the Post editorial:
And Nicholson to the CBC:
This will bring more truth in sentencing and give Canadians confidence that justice is being served
Let’s remember that the criminal law is not about public perception, and it’s not designed to compensate victims (for that we have tort law), rather the criminal law is designed to keep society safe and functional. I fail to see how this bill adds to that goal, and neither Nicholson nor anyone else has indicated that the bill does anything but play off of fear and misconception.
Would-Be Undead Governor Seduces Youth?
Authorities in Minnesota report that sixteen-year-old Paige Brewster is missing and believed to be residing with once-and-future Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Jonathon Sharkey. Sharkey, 44, is purportedly helping Brewer obtain legal emancipation from her mother. News of their relationship has prompted a slew of outraged comments on local news websites.
A description of Sharkey found on his MySpace page sheds some light on the public’s ire:
Jonathon “The Impaler” Sharkey is one of the most known and infamous Vampyres in the world. He gained national and international attention in 2006 when he announced his candidacy for Governor of Minnesota. Jonathon is running for Governor of Minnesota in 2010. Governor Pewlenty [sic] withdrew from the race the day after Jonathon made his unofficially [sic] announcement on 1 Jun 09. Jonathon will officially announce his candidacy on the IDES OF MARCH in Rochester, MN.
Unlike most politicians, Jonathon was bringing a “New Deal” to not only Minnesota, but America as well. Jonathon’s hard stance on crime is an understatement. Jonathon feels that those who prey upon and attack the elderly, rape women, molest children, commit acts of terrorism, sell drugs , abuse their authority and violate Americans Constitutional Rights shouldn’t be jailed, they should be brutally IMPALED! Hence, Jonathon’s nickname – “The Impaler.”
Sharkey The Impaler, according to his Wikipedia page, is a boxer and wrestler, a convicted felon, and a perennial candidate for public office. In 2004 and 2008 he filed to run for president of the United States under the banner of the Vampyres, Witches and Pagans Party, which he founded.
Brewster, for her part, has been active on local news blogs covering her saga. She denies that she is a runaway and that The Impaler is a pedophile. She claims that she was abused by her mother. Brewer’s mother claims that her daughter has been brainwashed by The Impaler. (The claim has some credibility: vampires possess powers of hypnosis, if Bram Stoker can be relied upon.)
Recently The Impaler posted a video online in which he proposed to Brewster. Subsequent comments indicate that she accepted the proposal. The video is SFW but not SF your dignity, or The Impaler’s.
Possibly after the requisite bat-blood-drinking ceremony, Brewster will join The Impaler as a creature of the night for all eternity, à la Twilight.
Which part of this story is most noteworthy: the grown man (perhaps thousands of years old!) shacked up with a sixteen-year-old girl? the girl’s efforts to be emancipated from her family? the fact that her paramour wears a black trench-coat and sword and subscribes to something called Luciferianism? Still, fangs and all, Jonathon Sharkey is only the second weirdest Minnesotan.
Criminal Defence Lawyers Need Not Apply
Newsflash – the Ontario Government is looking for outstanding members of the public to sit on 27 separate police services boards throughout the province. Criminal defence lawyers need not apply.
What? Did I read that right?
Strangely yes. On the Ontario Government Public Appointment Secretariat’s website found at: http://www.pas.gov.on.ca/scripts/en/upcomingVac.asp, there are nearly 200 postings for various positions on provincial agencies, boards and commissions.
But in the requirement section for the police services board postings, it states, “No judge, justice of the peace, police officer or person who practises criminal law as a defence counsel may sit as a member of a board.”
Presumably this restriction is present because of a perceived conflict of interest by the enumerated professions. But in the case of criminal defence lawyers, I don’t see it.
Is it suggesting that criminal lawyers are blindly partial to criminals and that they do not want to live in safe communities? Or perhaps they are too inclined towards Charter rights, fairness and the rule of law?
Unlike the police and members of the judiciary, the defence bar is not paid through government salaries. If they are paid government money at all, it is by piecemeal legal aid certificates. But if you think about it, it is in everyone’s best interest including defence lawyers for the police to do a good job.
Let’s be clear, police services boards exist for effective administration of police organizations. They do not, or at least should not, direct or participate in police operations. Their role is to set administrative and fiscal policy.
Accordingly, a defence lawyer serving on a police services board is not in any conflict of interest.
Neither is it a general conflict for other professions like chartered accountants, business owners, or Commedia dell’Arte clowns for that matter to serve. The question that should be asked is who best can serve in the required capacity.
To say that criminal defence lawyers are in conflict because they make their living representing “criminals” is to miss the point. Having a thorough understanding of the criminal justice system is an asset and indubitably would be a positive influence on the effectiveness of police services boards.
The Politicization of Justice Reform
This afternoon, Julian Falconer gave a talk at the Empire Club of Canada titled “The Politics of Punishment: Depoliticizing Justice Reform.” He focused primarily on the Harper government’s “tough on crime” agenda, and made some most interesting observations.
Canada spends $3.5 billion per year on crime. It costs $108,000 per year to incarcerate one inmate. Stephen Harper is proposing $5 billion in “tough on crime” spending, with none of the increase earmarked for crime prevention.
There is a systemic dilemma: in politics, proponents of judicial reform are forcibly grouped into one of two camps; Falconer referred to this division as “hug-a-thug vs. Law and Order.” If a politician questions the “tough on crime” approach, they are instantly categorized as weak, as someone who would embrace the criminal threatening your family.
Falconer compared Harper’s agenda to similar “tough on crime” agendas implemented decades ago in both California and New York State (largely part of the War on Drugs). Incarceration rates were dramatically increased, and today California houses 170,000 prisoners.
The American experiment has failed. While incarceration rates increased dramatically in the US compared to Canada, the crime rates of both countries remained similar. The US now has a financially unsustainable prison population, and nothing to show for it. Arnold Schwarzenegger has abandoned the “tough on crime” approach in favour of funding schools.
Studies have shown that incarceration raises an individual’s disposition toward crime. Incarceration disproportionately affects native communities, the poor, the mentally ill, and other disadvantaged groups. Yet instead of seeking to remedy the causes of crime, instead of seeking to ameliorate the conditions of these groups, we have the newly-minted Senator Bob Runciman crowing,
This despite the fact that crime rates have been dropping for years. This despite empirical evidence that tough-on-crime has failed in the US. The politicization of dialogue creates the false illusion of irreconcilable extremes. The reality should not be “hug-a-thug vs. Law and Order” – there is a solution that rests without the extremes.
The Unrepresented: An Update
A few weeks ago I posted a blog about the Unrepresented – those who can’t afford a lawyer and don’t qualify for legal aid. A few days ago I noticed an article in the Star about an initiative called justicenet that seeks to address this very problem. Through the efforts of Heidi Mottahedin, an internet-based service has been launched that connects people in need with socially conscious lawyers who are willing to work at a reduced rate.
I think that journalist Carol Goar is absolutely right when she suggests that this effort will be insufficient to deal with the enormous structural problem facing our legal system; however, Heidi Mottahedin deserves high praise for her efforts, as do the lawyers who are sacrificing income to be a part of justicenet.
Meanwhile, Legal Aid Ontario is planning to open a Family Law Services Centre in North York. No doubt this will be similar to the Family Law Information Centre at the London Superior Court, where those in need can get information about the law, shelters, counseling and mediation services in the area etc..
Family Law is an area where the lack of affordable legal help is particularly acute, and although the legal assistance provided at these service centres is limited, it is quite helpful nonetheless. A brief consultation will ensure that matters that don’t belong in court are redirected while matters that do belong in court are refined to exclude extraneous issues. The result is a more streamlined court system. At a lecture at Western Law a few weeks ago, Justice Harper expressed his desire for every court to have a Family Law Information Centre. He left me with the impression that he is working behind the scenes to try to make it happen.
Apparently there are people in the legal community doing the hard work to bring about change. If enough people step up to the plate, who knows? Maybe the problem of the unrepresented can be wrestled to the ground without resorting to harsher measures.
Dr. Gabor Maté of Insite
Democracy Now has an interview with Dr. Gabor Maté of Insite,
AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration’s budget proposal for the Office of National Drug Control Policy sets aside nearly twice the amount of funding for law enforcement and criminalization than for treatment and prevention of drug addiction. Out of a total of $15.5 billion, some $10 billion are used for enforcement. National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske praised the numbers as reflecting a “balanced and comprehensive drug strategy.”
Well, just last year, the newly appointed drug czar and former Seattle police chief had called for an end to the so-called “war on drugs,” raising hopes among advocates of harm-reduction approaches to curbing drug use. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last May, Kerlikowske said, “People see a war as a war on them. We’re not at war with people in this country.”
Well, I’m joined right now here in the Democracy Now! studio by a doctor who has spent the last twelve years working with one of the densest populations of drug addicts in the world. Dr. Gabor Maté is the staff physician at the Portland Hotel, a residence and harm reduction facility in Vancouver, Canada’s Downtown Eastside. Dr. Maté also treats addicts at the only safe-injection site in North America, a center that’s come under fire from Canada’s Conservative government led by Stephen Harper.
Dr. Gabor Maté is the bestselling author of four books. His latest, just out in the United States, is called In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction…
DR. GABOR MATÉ: Well, the first point to get there is that if people who become severe addicts, as shown by all the studies, were for the most part abused children, then we realize that the war on drugs is actually waged against people that were abused from the moment they were born, or from an early age on. In other words, we’re punishing people for having been abused. That’s the first point.
The second point is, is that the research clearly shows that the biggest driver of addictive relapse and addictive behavior is actually stress. In North America right now, because of the economic crisis, a lot of people are eating junk food, because junk foods release endorphins and dopamine in the brain. So that stress drives addiction.
Now imagine a situation where we’re trying to figure out how to help addicts. Would we come up with a system that stresses them to the max? Who would design a system that ostracizes, marginalizes, impoverishes and ensures the disease of the addict, and hope, through that system, to rehabilitate large numbers? It can’t be done. In other words, the so-called “war on drugs,” which, as the new drug czar points out, is a war on people, actually entrenches addiction deeply. Furthermore, it institutionalizes people in facilities where the care is very—there’s no care. We call it a “correctional” system, but it doesn’t correct anything. It’s a punitive system. So people suffer more, and then they come out, and of course they’re more entrenched in their addiction than they were when they went in.
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
