Assange Arrested - Related Story: "Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?"

So Julian Assange has met with police to discuss the almost assuredly bogus Swedish charges against him (one from a pro-imperialism in Cuba sleaze-bag), but it will be months before it's decided whether he can be extradited on those charges. And, let's remember, all you creeps (like the illiterate, Ezra Levant fan "krygnathsi-skeiruf" who trolls at Dr. Dawg's) who believe that the Australian Assange can be guilty of "treason" against the USA [!], Assange's work with Wikileaks is not illegal according to any US laws.

But I just wanted to point out AGAIN the sheer ridiculousness of this mainstream media agonizing over the possible tragic fall-out from Wikileaks' revelations. I can't really blame the BBC journalist for doing what her employer asks, but Katie Connolly's article from the "related stories" bin "Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?" is just such a monumental waste of time.

You go to the link and the first thing you see is Hillary ("Hard-workin' White Woman") Clinton, taking time off from attacking the international community to accuse Wikileaks of attacking the international community. What hypocrisy!

Then there's US Congressman Peter King trashing Assange and Wikileaks as a "terrorist organization." I guess King can be flexible though, given his evident long history of association with the Irish Republican Army?

US military leaders say the release of information could create a more dangerous environment for their troops. Whereas, supposedly, putting them there in the first place and the plans to leave them there for years and years and years, is only looking out for their best interests? (And at this point, with all the massacres, crimes, brutality, torture, etc., I'm really finding it hard to muster much outrage at US troops being endangered. Especially when the concern trolls are, as I just said, the ones who put them in danger in the first place!)




Hey Tom Flanagan! If you call for the assassination of someone because they might have blood on their hands, isn't that absolutely ridiculous? And if they do get assassinated, will you therefore have blood on your hands? And if you do Tommy boy, would you be cool if dozens of mainstream media types all called for YOUR assassination? Maybe you could share with us at your upcoming trial!

Video Evidence of Ottawa Police Association in Assault Gone Horribly Wrong

At the link is shocking footage of Ottawa Police Association president Stephen Boucher, attempting to assault 3 pedestrians. As you can see things don't turn out the way Boucher had expected.

Boucher's behaviour makes these quotes now seem less inexplicable. Here he is blubbering about the fall-out from video evidence of Ottawa cops stomping on people for no reason:

In an interview Thursday night, union leader Steve Boucher said he sent the e-mail to remind officers to keep their heads up, serve with pride and look after each other on the job.
...

Boucher wrote in the e-mail to his members that Lajoie’s comments drove a wedge between the police and the community. He wrote that the union leadership is consulting with its lawyers; it’s not clear to whom a complaint would be filed.

“Please continue to support each other and reach out to those whose names and reputations are being stomped on by opportunistic individuals with a bone to pick who are using the media to further their cause,” he wrote to the officers he represents in the Ottawa Police Service.

Here he is chiming in on acting-Ottawa Police Service chief Larochelle's claim that sometimes the public doesn't get to see the whole picture:

It's a point others picked up on, too. "To somebody who isn't in this field of work, and isn't trained in use-of-force techniques, they can look harsh," said Steve Boucher, president of the Ottawa Police Association. "But, in fact, they (police officers) are doing everything they can to minimize injuries to the prisoner or to themselves."

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/have+problem+acting+police+chief+admits/3943158/story.html#ixzz17WutJ9NW

As I said, the video footage shows a side that makes it clear why Boucher believes that sometimes brutal force is needed to control five-foot tall, one-hundred pound peaceful prisoners, or peaceful drunkards allowing themselves to be dragged into holding cells. We now know that sometimes it's necessary to lie through your fucking teeth about how violent and uncooperative the prisoners were when you're trying to press further charges against them after having brutalized them. We never know the whole story, do we?

Two Commenters at the National Post or "Someone is WRONG on the internet"

Argh. The scum-bag, money-losing, propaganda rag, the National Post has an article about Rob Ford mouthing-off about another subject he knows nothing about. It's one of the least objectionable of his utterances, except for the implications in his simple-minded recommendations. Ford states that if it's freezing outside, then homeless people should be forced into shelters. The reporter talks to two activists who point out the civil rights issue and the practical issue of overcrowding.

But I don't really want to talk much about that. Bear with me, but I decided to check out the National Post's comments section for a lark. Obviously, I read some stuff that I found objectionable. For some reason though, I found these remarks intolerably objectionable, and I'd like to share my thoughts on them.

Here are the ill-starred thoughts of these two human beings. "WELLDONESON" says:

It indeed serves the political purposes of various lefty noisemakers to keep the numbers of homeless up... that way they can blame it on the incumbent gov't or if that gov't pays them, keep quiet and line their pockets. Services for homeless/urban poor are provided by public sector employees, by those doing volunteer work, or by those working for various charities which are often gov't funded.

To which "B IN TO" replies:

I have always been against letting mentally unfit persons "live" on the street. This homeless problem was MUCH smaller back in the day when these unfortunates were in institutions where they had best live. My post would be deleted if I were totell of some of the sights and sounds I witnessed while riding the Hastings bus past Main Street. We need a central facility to house these people, and where possible rehabilitate and train them to do actual jobs for which they could be paid.

Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/12/02/fords-idea-of-forcing-homeless-into-shelters-draws-skepticism/#ixzz17C5a8mYS

Big deal right? Two right-wing ignoramuses spouting out garbage on the internet. But something made "WELLDONESON's" ravings (and "B IN TO's") stand out amongst the other stupid comments. And further reflection made me think that these two guys confidently expressed nonsense have given us a window into the intellectually bankrupt world of the right-wing. Take "WELLDONESON's" opening statement:

"It indeed serves the political purposes of various lefty noisemakers to keep the numbers of homeless up..."

I wonder if the babbling fool could explain how "lefty noisemakers" are able to do that? Yes, this person is just an idiot on the internet, but stop for a moment and ask yourself how somebody who can write in complete sentences could be so deluded as to imagine that people like John Clarke of OCAP and the members of "Homes Not Bombs" could have any effect on the numbers of people living on the streets.

...

Yeah. I got nothing.

Seriously WELLDONESON, just how do you imagine that happens? Do left-wing activists have some sort of psychic ability to compel people to give up their jobs, leave their homes and their families and live on the street? Or are their powers not as far-reaching as that and they can only convince already homeless people who were planning on going to a shelter to stay outside as part of the campaign to make neo-liberal politicians look bad? Because John Clarke, "Homes Not Bombs," etc., really don't have any impact on the economy or the supply of affordable housing, or the numbers and quality and safety of homeless shelters.

Having dispensed with "WELLDONESON's" insane belief that anti-poverty activists conspire to keep the homeless numbers up, let's look at his explanation for this non-existent behaviour:

"that way they can blame it on the incumbent gov't or if that gov't pays them, keep quiet and line their pockets. Services for homeless/urban poor are provided by public sector employees, by those doing volunteer work, or by those working for various charities which are often gov't funded."

My! That would certainly be hypocritical and evil of them were it true! John Clarke CREATED the homeless situation and then blames, say, Mike Harris for it, or quietly accepts it in return for filthy lucre showering from the Dalton McGuinty government. It's the "poverty industry" that the Fraser Institute warned us about, isn't it?

You see folks, while right-wing scum become political consultants for conservative parties and advocate tax-cuts for the wealthy and the slashing of social programs, housing departments, health care and education, and the promotion of economic problems that create unemployment, (that is, when they're not simply making money in business ripping off insurance customers, stiffing workers, killing anti-mining activists in Mexico, price-fixing, and so-on and such-forth) ... hey, wait a second! ... left-wing scum go into the "poverty industry" where they can make big bucks complaining about the dire situation of the homeless, refugees, the mentally ill, street prostitutes, etc., . Yesirree! Have YOU thought of a brilliant CAREER as a POVERTY PIMP??? Travel! (To the poor sections of town and various government buildings.) Excitement! (Rallies in the cold and getting arrested.) Make CA$H!!!! (Not really.)

Okay, maybe John Clarke isn't exactly getting rich off the backs of the homeless, but what about all those public sector jobs and charities? I suppose it might be sweet to make, say, $40,000 or more a year working with the poorest of the poor. (As opposed to say, $18,000 a year as the part-time night-staff at a variety store, or $20,000 a year as a general labourer.) I suppose the best answer to "WELLDONESON's" accusation is to straight away return to the fucking reality that neither public sector workers, charity workers, or anti-poverty activists have any impact at all over whether people are homeless or not. (So, like, maybe they're people who just want to help the poor???)

I think we're forced to come to the conclusion that "WELLDONESON" is so stupid that he (or she!) is insane. I don't think there's any connected set of bizarre thoughts that has produced "WELLDONESON's" insane belief that anti-poverty activists conspire to increase the homeless rate either to make "conservative" politicians look bad or so that they can justify their jobs and get showered with money from Liberal politicians (who don't pay them in any case). What I think is that "WELLDONESON" is such a slow, lazy thinker, that there are huge gaps in logic as well as justifying evidence that he (or she!) is unconcerned about while cobbling together his (or her) worldview. This allows "WELLDONESON" to blurt out nonsensical garbage with all the confidence of a sane person advocating sensible ideas.

We now turn to "B IN TO" who agreed with "WELLDONESON" that people who work with the homeless are actually monsters who create homelessness so that they can 1.) complain about them if the Conservatives are in power, OR 2.) Get rich looking after them in case the Liberals are in power. "B IN TO" demonstrates his (or her) commanding grasp of history by pointing to the expulsion of mental patients from provincial mental institutions and onto the streets in the 1980s (which is far from being the soul cause of the homelessness explosion) and reflects thusly:

"This homeless problem was MUCH smaller back in the day when these unfortunates were in institutions"

Yeah. Too bad those greedy anti-poverty activists and public sector workers told those 1980s governments to push the mentally ill out on to the streets so that they could .... Say! If those provincial psychiatric hospitals were, like provincially-run, wouldn't they be full of public sector workers? Why would greedy n' lazy public sector parasites want to shut-down hospitals just so they could staff homeless shelters??? UNLESS I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I'M TALKING ABOUT AND I'M A COMPLETE IDIOT?????

"B IN TO" makes some comments about how the homeless look and smell bad before concluding:

"We need a central facility to house these people, and where possible rehabilitate and train them to do actual jobs for which they could be paid."

Remember folks, "B IN TO" was specifically AGREEING with "WELLDONESON" (replying to his or her post) that people who work with the homeless are hypocrites who just use them to justify their cushy jobs. (But FIRST they had to drive them from psychiatric hospitals so that they could GET those cushy jobs in homeless shelters instead of those cushy jobs in provincial psychiatric hospitals and ... and ... whew! I'm dizzy!) And, in agreement with "WELLDONESON" about the poverty industry, "B IN TO" instead recommends that the government (I'm not sure who else "B IN TO" imagines would do it) build institutions where the homeless can live forever if they're too mentally-ill to be retrained for gainful employment.

Which, if you're paying attention (and "B IN TO" obviously wasn't) is advocating for more public sector jobs to help the homeless. Safe, permanent housing for the unemployable is actually what advocates are asking for. Along with genuine training for real jobs.

Again. I realize that these two morons are a couple of anonymous right-wing trolls who I'll never meet, tossing off comments on the intertubes. But again, ask yourself, how stupid and lazy do yo have to be to have developed a world view as insane (and contradictory) as theirs? And just remember, it's dunces like these who tend to vote for the political party that is right now making laws that govern our existence. Nothing they say makes any sense. It has no basis in reality. And yet they proudly dismiss as "leftards" people who have been trying for decades to get through to them.

Aw well. Twas just a little snippet of the sad reality of Canada's debased political culture. That's all.

Sunday Afternoon Rocking Out!!!

To tired and busy to write much today. So here's some embedded videos that other people put up on YouTube of artists other than themselves.

First up: Gumby's First Music Video!



Thank the gods for that quickly placed towel when Gumby got out of the shower. I don't even want to think about what Gumby's junk looks like.

Next up: A unique live version of Motorhead performing "Killed by Death" (one a mah faverits!)

I Guess it's Safe to Say That All Ottawa Cops are Thugs?

Via The Fifth Column: "'Circle wagons,' union boss tells officers. Colleagues being 'stomped on' need support: Boucher"

In an interview Thursday night, union leader Steve Boucher said he sent the e-mail to remind officers to keep their heads up, serve with pride and look after each other on the job.
...

Boucher wrote in the e-mail to his members that Lajoie’s comments drove a wedge between the police and the community. He wrote that the union leadership is consulting with its lawyers; it’s not clear to whom a complaint would be filed.

“Please continue to support each other and reach out to those whose names and reputations are being stomped on by opportunistic individuals with a bone to pick who are using the media to further their cause,” he wrote to the officers he represents in the Ottawa Police Service.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Circle+wagons+union+boss+tells+officers/3920412/story.html#ixzz17AsflEIW

Notice the headline writer took pains to include blubbering Boucher's attempt at low-comedy by saying his membership was being "stomped on." That takes some doing on Boucher's part don't you think? Whining about how his membership is being figuratively "stomped on" while the whole problem arose from individuals within the membership literally stomping on people, and innocent people at that.

I was a union official once. There was a training weekend for us when we started and in once exercise we were given the example of an alcoholic member with extensive attendance and work problems who refused treatment. All of us in that seminar said that if the guy wouldn't get help and kept screwing-up we'd defend him according to the letter of the law, but we wouldn't actively try to sabotage management's attempts to fire him. If they did their paperwork, and went through the proper procedures, we weren't going to damage our own integrity by keeping a drunken incompetent on the job come hell or high-water.

That's how Boucher should be behaving right now. If he had any sense of decency, or shame, or honour, or justice. He apparently doesn't. And while I think that he was deliberately trying to be provocative with that "stomped-on" nonsense, I also think there's a fair bit of genuine, self-pitying blubbering in his address. The same old maddening, blind, self-righteousness that has the architects of the death and misery of millions of people at the hands of US-American imperialism wailing and gnashing their teeth about how Wikileaks has "blood on its hands" for exposing evidence of their crimes. I think Boucher both does and does not appreciate what a sickening monster he is.

And, as the head of the Ottawa Police Association, I guess we can take Boucher's comments as representative of the people he, well, represents. Which means that unless there's a massive repudiation of his outburst, we're to assume that unlike the dream that "special" Constable Melanie Morris and Staff-Sgt. Steve Desjourdy are just a couple of "bad apples" among a barrel of shiny, fresh, crisp, delicious apples, that maybe the whole police service is rotten beyond saving. That they're a pack of twisted thugs for whom four big men sexually assaulting a five-foot tall female is nothing to get upset about.

I notice Dr. Dawg is saying that Boucher is just doing his job. As you can tell, I disagree. No matter what your job is, there comes a point where personal integrity and simple honesty and justice tell you what you must do or must not do. A lawyer charged with defending someone who they believe is guilty of some heinous crime is obligated to provide a defence for that person. But a lawyer who can feign self-righteous indignation and will use every possible trick and every possible appeal to (deceived) human sentiments, to allow a monster to go free, is going beyond the demands of our legal system and, more importantly, human decency.

Boucher isn't "fighting" for those cowardly, lying thugs, out of obligation. He's publicly threatening judges and telling the police service to "circle wagons" around those scum-bags.

Finally, as another example of someone who, for the sake of decency, should just shut the fuck up, Ottawa police chief White warbles:

“We can’t lose sight of the fact that our members respond to thousands of calls every day, and do so in a competent and highly professional manner,” White said. “I have full confidence in the abilities and professionalism of the men and women who serve this community.”

That's just it though! They answer thousands of calls everyday, and how often do they beat innocent people, sexually molest them, steal and take drugs, beat and rape sex workers, fuck the dog, bitch about how nobody respects them instead of doing their jobs, etc., etc.,?

Open Letter to Jim Judd: Do You Have Fucking Shit For Brains?

The lack of introspection is breathtaking:

Former CSIS director Jim Judd went so far as to complain that judicial rulings and public naiveté were paralyzing his spies – specifically lamenting that Canadians were prone to “knee-jerk anti-Americanism” and “paroxysms of moral outrage.”

Guarded in public and blunt in private, Mr. Judd is said to have been scathing in his frank assessments. “Director Judd ascribed an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ worldview to Canadians and their courts, whose judges have tied CSIS ‘in knots,’” the cable said.

Really Jimmy boy? Saying that the case for Iraq's WMDs was false, when it turns out it was false, is knee-jerk anti-Americanism? Saying that the invasion of Iraq was illegal when it was illegal, is knee-jerk anti-Americanism? Any fact-based, critical analysis of the USA's foreign policy is knee-jerk anti-Americanism? (But I suppose that stupid wars that kill thousands of US service men and women and maim and wound tens of thousands more, some of whom are left in filth and neglect at Walter Reed Military Hospital is principled pro-Americanism?)

Spare us from your simple-minded criticisms Mr. Judd.

Protesting the slaughter of innocent civilians? Condemning Canadian complicity in torture? Condemning spilling Canadian blood and treasure to back-up a corrupt government of rapist, drug-dealing warlords? Protesting the destruction of our Charter of Rights? I suppose we've had "paroxysms" of moral outrage, but I'd also like to think there's been a sustained anger against violations of our fundamental values. Because such anger is warranted and it is right.

I suppose for you, Mr. Judd, amoral actions, in the uninvestigated pursuit of a policy of simple-minded allegience to childish fantasies of US-American benevolence, is the best you're capable of. But there are adults in this country (and open-eyed youth) who recognize the dangers of your shit-headedness. Canada peddles asbestos around the world, supports putting poor countries through the wringer to pay-off international financiers, violates poor country environmental and human rights laws to extract their minerals out of the ground, and now corrupts its own democratic traditions handing minors over to torturers. But we're a minor player in the disgusting play of international affairs. The United States is the biggest economy in the world. It is the wealthiest country in the world. It has the most powerful military in the world. That military works to maintain a system. An economic system. A system controlled almost entirely (99.9999999%) by a tiny, narrow elite. This system benefits capitalists in Europe, Japan, and compradors (or quislings) throughout the world. The system of military bases, and death squads, and no-fly zones, is a system called "imperialism." The "War on Terror" is really a "war on blow-back" as a result of this imperialism. Whether we agree with the architects of the blow-back or not is irrelevant. It is the inevitable result of military intrusion into foreign societies. Identifying terrorism as blow-back is stating a much needed dose of reality to the childish vision of good and evil that must be playing out in your stunted mind.

And, just as US imperialism was the cause of the blow-back, the more blatant exercise of military power, of military retribution, or, perhaps more accurately, the increasingly brutal nature of a decaying empire lashing-out against rebellion, is causing further terrorism/blow-back. Almost the entire number of terrorist threats against the West have resulted not from the imbecilic argument that we are hated for our freedoms. Not from the ravings of Osama bin Laden. But from simple outrage against US-American barbarism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in Muslim countries. The slaughtering of innocents offends people. The self-pitying whining of US-Americans at the results of their rampages should be understood within the context of numerous 9-11's in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine.

Against this, Judd has his simplistic notions of US-American benevolence. No, not even that. Just their familiarity. I'm sure Judd doesn't function at any higher level than that. Most of the sitcoms that Judd enjoys come from the United States. He was brought-up in Canada, so close to the USA that we sometimes imagine we're interchangeable. But this is Canada, so a few moments thinking about the glorious procession from Winston Churchill to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, and you serve Canada and you serve the United States.

And by "serve," what do we mean? By serve, we mean to occupy a desk, and kiss-ass and toady, and rise to the top of an "intelligence" agency that in the great battle of our time (supposedly) spends all its time torturing innocent people or fomenting its own plots which it can then expose and generate arrests and trials and convictions which all add to its claims for more tax dollars. Seriously. If CSIS had any genuine accomplishments don't you think we'd have heard about them. It's particularly damning that there are no major arrests and sensational trials of actual terrorist plots isn't it? Doesn't the US-American Department of Homeland Security demand public congratulations for every demented welder plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge? Doesn't CSIS hoot and holler about the stories of ignorant teenagers talking shit about capturing Parliament Hill and beheading the prime minister?

So far, our "intelligence" services have violated the human rights of non-citizens with the aid of so-called "security certificates" that allow them to be held indefinitely on secret evidence. All of these men have been released. None of them were found to have been involved with anything.

Our "intelligence" services have told the US-Americans that Maher Arar was a dangerous threat, leading to his illegal arrest and rendition to torture in Syria.

Our "intelligence" service has built-up fabricated cases against three other Canadian citizens, stupidly spread their slanders to foreign intelligence agencies, and brought about the torture of Canadian Citizens Abdullah Almalki, Muayyed Nurredin, and Ahmad El-Maati, in Syria and Egypt. And then, while Canadian citizens were being tortured, what did CSIS do??? As it did with the minor Omar Khadr, it took part in their interrogations!!! All three men were released, the Syrian torturers being (as they were with Maher Arar) unable to beat anything out of them.

Our "intelligence" services concocted another idiotic case against Canadian citizen Abousfian Abdelrazik leading, once again, to his torture overseas, where, once again, a Canadian citizen was beaten and tortured, only for the torturers to conclude that there this Canadian knew nothing of terrorism or any terrorist plots.

Really, the biggest feather in the cap of our "intelligence" agencies is how a bunch of hot-headed Muslim teenagers in Canada, incensed at Western imperialism (with a nice Christian-fundamentalist-fascist flavour thanks to bush II and Eric Prince of Blackwater) was destroying their homelands. A police informant organized these blow-hards, or lied to them, got them their weapons, and then turned them in. A bunch of young men who most probably would never have been a danger to anyone, were deliberately stirred-up by a bunch of mentally-challenged canuck spy-masters, entrapped and arrested.

Besides that, what has Judd's commandos done? While you had teams of people working on all the non-citizens you detained sometimes for years on security certificates who have all been let go, and teams of people asking the Syrians questions about tortured Canadian citizens, where were the bombs and beheadings that you thwarted? Nothing? While you were imprisoning innocent people or feeding questions to torturers you didn't stop anything? And we didn't suffer any terrorist outrages?

That must mean that there was no terrorist threat the whole time!!! Nothing was being planned against us!!! NOTHING!!! Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are the biggest terrorist threat to the United States and his network was able to bomb some weakly defended embassies in Africa, to explode a raft beside a US ship in a harbour, and, thanks to massive US-government incompetence, carry-out the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Our "intelligence" agencies cannot be dealing with any threat greater than that and they have prevented NOTHING on the scale of anything Al Qaeda was ever remotely capable of. There simply cannot be threats that were neutralized that CSIS hasn't told us about because to do so would compromise their ongoing battle against a terrorist organization so vast and cunning that revealing CSIS's triumphs would give the whole game away. Given the lunkheadedness behind the cases that we do know about, I don't think CSIS or any of our "intelligence" branches would be capable of meeting such a threat.

There WAS NO DANGER!!! Our courts and laws and checks and balances and respect for human rights have not prevented you from doing anything you dunder-headed fool! While your thick-necked, "Wonder Bread" - eatin' donut-chompers were asking the Syrians to ask their victims questions on our behalf, NOTHING ELSE was happening.

You have invented cases against innocent people, ruined their lives AND NOTHING ELSE. Literally nothing else. There was nothing. There is blow-back against imperialism and violence. Nothing else. But for you, we should sacrifice our rights and freedoms so that, presumably, you can more easily concoct cases against more of us and imprison and torture more of us in your service to the status-quo.

Fuck you.

Now, it's of course a possibility that Judd was just kissing-up to the US-Americans. Telling them what they wanted to hear in the way they wanted to hear it. If our country has any morality left, that should be how Judd defends himself until his dying day. But it's also the case that the real face of Judd is the one he showed to the US-Americans, and not the one he presented to Amnesty International and the courts. If that's the case, then Judd is a severely demented, deluded, and dangerous individual.

Dear Hillary Clinton: STFU

Apparently, Ms. Clinton called WikiLeaks' revelation of US diplomatic shenanigans "an attack on the international community." Seriously. The USA spies on the UN Secretary General, launches illegal wars, and somebody exposing their crimes is the "aggressor"?

Go back to lying to the 'hard-working white people" you courted whilst competing with Obama for the job of Sell-out to Wall Street-in-Chief and spare us all your self-pitying, hypocritical whining.