January 15, 2002
Media Compilation #41: The Cover-up Administration
Dear journalist
Are you in the business of covering up the truth or of making it public?
That is the Question!
Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000
CONTENTS
1. Questioning the "War on Terrorism"
2. FBI Implicated in Anthrax Mailings Cover-up
3. Canada's Globalization, Militarization, Police State Agenda in anti-Terrorism laws
READ ALSO:
Enron - the Cover-up
http://www.rense.com/general19/recuses.htm
BUSH'S ENRON TIES
The Enron Corp. scandal involves millions of dollars in campaign contributions to Bush, U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm and other members of Congress.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12155
White House Reveals Enron Contacts (January 10)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020110/pl/bush_enron_8.html
Enron's bankruptcy, already the subject of criminal, civil and congressional investigations, threatens to pull the White House into a political quagmire even as Bush's approval ratings reach near-record levels because of the war against terrorism. "It is now clear the White House had knowledge that Enron was likely to collapse but did nothing to try to protect innocent employees and shareholders who ultimately lost their life savings," said Rep. Henry Waxman (news), D-Calif.
WHEN WAR DOESN'T END
Unexploded cluster bombs, like ones dropped on Afghanistan, have killed 12,000 civilians in Laos since the end of the U.S.'s "secret" war there 30 years ago.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12165
White House Thwarted FBI Probe of Al-Qeada
http://www.truthout.com/01.09B.Zahn.Butler.htm
BUSH FUELS OIL CONSPIRACY THEORY
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12205
ARGENTINA'S CRISIS, IMF'S FINGERPRINTS
Argentina's economic meltdown might seem far away from American borders, but our greedy support of short-sighted IMF policies is largely to blame.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12152
INVITING FUTURE TERRORISM
Reports from Afghanistan indicate that rising civilian deaths there and U.S. policy stubbornness may be encouraging further terrorist attacks.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12154
DynCorp Disgrace
http://insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/163052.html
DEFRAUDING AMERICA: Encyclopedia of Secret Operations by the CIA, DEA, and Other Covert Agencies
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/
Government Agents and Deep-Cover Operatives Reveal and Document Widespread Corruption In Key Judicial and Other Government Offices
Consolidation Of Pertinent Facts Relating To September 11
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/september11.html
An event such as September 11, 2001, requires a congressional investigation to determine why the common-sense hard corrective actions were not taken that would have absolutely prevented the four sets of hijackers from taking over the four airliners. Why There Won't Be An Investigation: At Most, A Cover-Up!
Questioning the "War on Terrorism"
San Francisco March To Demand Congressional Inquiry Of 911
From Carol Brouillet <cbrouillet@igc.org>
650-857-0927
Tuesday, January 8th, 2002, at noon at Justin Herman Plaza, people have gathered to march up Market Street to the office of Senator Feinstein (at Post St.) where a delegation met with the Senator's staff to raise their concerns over the "War on Terrorism." They demanded that the Senate launch an inquiry or hearings of the events of 9-11, and the U.S. government's international and domestic response.
The 9-11 disaster has been used to justify a "War on Terrorism" which endangers the lives and liberties of millions of people everywhere. The U.S. bombing of Afghanistan has killed thousands of civilians; millions of Afghans have been displaced and face starvation this winter. The administration has condoned massive Israeli assaults on Palestine, and threatens to attack Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, and other countries. Recent legislation is an attack on constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, especially those of immigrants and people of color. The laws are mirrored in other countries which are outlawing dissent and increasing political repression. The administration has institutionalized racial profiling and is secretly rounding up thousands of Arab Americans and other people of Middle Eastern background. At the same time, it is giving billions to the military, offering huge bailouts and tax incentives to corporations and the wealthy, while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of laid off workers, and cutting social services. This appears to be part of a long-range strategy to turn the clock back on the hard earned gains of the civil rights', womens', and environmental movements, to consolidate U.S. global domination, and to serve the interests of transnational corporations.
The delegates come from many organizations concerned about peace, justice, human rights, civil rights and the environment. CLIP
"The media and Congress have failed to question the most basic White House' statements concerning the events of September 11th and the Bush administration's response. While the attacks are used to justify the bombing of Afghanistan, the administration is clearly more interested in controlling the oil resources of Central Asia than in "ridding the world of terrorism or terrorists" which it has funded, trained, and used for decades through the C.I.A.. We have to hold the U.S. government accountable for its role in creating terrorists and using terrorism against other countries. "True security can't be purchased or bought with guards and weapons; it lies in healthy, equitable, social relationships and is dependent upon an intact ecosystem. War begets war, and threatens the viability of life on Earth. Renouncing a doomed foreign policy and shifting our resources towards rescuing people and planet is our hope for 'a future.'" said organizer, Carol Brouillet of Women's international League for Peace and Freedom.
The delegation has demanded that these questions (and others) be raised and answered publicly:
Who created, trained and funded the Al Qaeda Network? What is the relationship between Bin Laden, his family and the Bush family and the Carlyle Group? Why were no fighter planes dispatched to intercept the four hijacked planes on September 11h , in violation of standard procedures? Who actually was in control of the "hijacked planes"? What is the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, and especially with its intelligence service, the ISI? Why did the then director of the ISI have $100,000 transferred to the man whom the FBI now calls the ringleader of the Sept. 11th attacks, and why does the U.S. not pursue this question? Did the CIA have foreknowledge of the attack, who tried to profit with put options on American, United, Merrill Lynch stock just before the attack? Why were the FBI told to not investigate the Bin Laden family links in the US? If the CIA met with Bin Laden last July, why didn't they try to arrest him? If the US is serious about ridding the world of terrorism, why do we continue to fund and train terrorists? Why are we bombing Afghanistan, when none of the alleged bombers actually came from there, could there be another reason for our presence in that region, like oil? Is the war against Afghanistan illegal? What are Bush's, Cheney's and Rice's connections to the oil industry? What are Bush's and Cheney's connections to the drug industry? Why is the evidence being destroyed when an investigation of the World Trade Center collapse is needed? Why seal Presidential records? Why intimidate professors from speaking out against this war? Why has the U.S. military been establishing working relations with the Uzbek military for several years? What other military involvement does the U.S. have in the Central Asian Republics? Why are U.S. military personnel or material assistance going to the Philippines, Indonesia, and Colombia as well? What relationship did various U.S. agencies and their contractors have with the Taliban, either directly or through Pakistani or Saudi agencies or contractors? Why does the U.S. overlook Pakistani drug lords who refine and export half to two-thirds of the world,s heroin despite its avowed determination to rid the world of drugs? Why has the Dept. of Justice stopped its investigation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International despite its admitted heavy involvement in laundering drug money?
Some of the questions are answered in part in articles posted on the Internet, which have been compiled and printed out for Senator Feinstein and her staff, links to the questions and answers are posted at http://www.communitycurrency.org/9-11.html
CLIP
This above is an excerpt from what was also the announcement of the forthcoming publication of a new free, mass produced, biweekly, and nationally distributed tabloid to be called War Times.
For further information contact wartimes@attbi.com
Date Mailed: January 2, 2002
For Immediate Release
Contact: Elaine Zacky: 208/265-2575; 800/336-9266
FBI Implicated in Anthrax Mailings Cover-up:
Mueller Reports No Intention to Investigate Chief Suspect
Sandpoint, ID - FBI officials may be implicated in a conspiracy to impede justice in the anthrax mailings case, if not treasonous dereliction of duty, according to a growing number of scientists and consumer advocates. After officials cited the likeliest origin of the powdered anthrax was the U.S. Army's Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah, or its Ohio-based supplier and CIA-contractor, Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI), FBI Director Robert Mueller announced the bureau has no intention of investigating anyone with, or formerly with, their chief suspect: BMI.
Just weeks ago, major progress in the FBI's investigation seemed forthcoming. The New York Times and Washington Post revealed that BMI, Dugway's anthrax facility supplier and chief administrator had contracted with the CIA (in project "Clear Vision") to produce, albeit illegally, the 1 trillion spore-per-gram strain of anthrax under investigation. BMI, while heading the U.S. military's "Joint Vaccine Acquisitions Program" worth more than $1 billion in vaccine contracts, commissioned America's top anthrax expert, William C. Patrick, III, to deliver a report on the powdered anthrax's prospects for being spread through the mail.
Thus, by mid-December, the public, including health scientists urged to help federal officials identify suspects, realized that someone with high level security clearance, a "black-op budget," access to the BMI/Dugway anthrax labs, and vaccine sales incentive, most likely took BMI's powdered anthrax, and prepared it for mailing from Trenton, NJ; St. Petersburg, FL; Atlanta, GA; and Malaysia.
For the first time since the 1975 Frank Church congressional investigation of the CIA for illegally stockpiling anthrax and other biological weapons, the public learned that the CIA had been violating the international Geneva Accord moratorium on biological weapons development - a revelation somewhat embarrassing to American diplomats engaged in the global "War on Terrorism."
The day before Christmas, an Op Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal additionally implicated BMI, and potentially the FBI, along with rogue elements within the CIA, in an international conspiracy to commit and cover-up the anthrax mailings crime. BMI and Bioport, a Michigan-based offshoot of Britain's leading biological weapons organization at Porton Down, were previously reported to be collaborating on the manufacture and supply of America's only anthrax vaccine. Dr. Robert C. Myers, Chief Operating Officer of BioPort, told a Senate Appropriations Committee in 1996 that he "was part of a team of organizations, led by Battelle Memorial Institute..." The Journal writer Edward Jay Epstein cited the testimony of U.S. Army bioweapons official David Franz concerning America's reliance on British intelligence provided by Porton Down officials regarding the development and use of the powdered Ames strain of anthrax. Thus, the FBI's disregard of foreign suspects, especially Porton Down, with direct links to Bioport and BMI's anthrax vaccine, vaccine contracts, and BMI's and Dugway's anthrax experiments, was criticized by Epstein as it was days earlier in the Washington Post.
More evidence of the FBI's intentional ineptitude came from the Columbus Dispatch. Though the Washington Post reported that the FBI was allegedly pursuing the possibility that financial gain was the motive behind the anthrax mailings, and that "two laboratories" were especially implicated, that is, BMI and Dugway, a contradictory announcement was relayed the same day (Dec. 21, 2001) by Ohio Senator Mike DeWine. Based on an ABC News report concerning a BMI employee who had been under FBI investigation for an anthrax threat, FBI Director Robert Mueller had, according to The Dispatch, assured Senator DeWine that the bureau was not investigating, nor intending to investigate, anyone with, or formerly with, BMI.
Currently then, the FBI has no intention of investigating its chief suspect, despite the grave likelihood that the remaining mystery will continue to exact massive economic and sociopolitical tolls. These proceedings have bewildered and even outraged many scientists and public health professionals from whom the FBI requested assistance.
"If Senator DeWine's statements accurately reflect director Mueller's intention to disregard all of the most damning evidence concerning Battelle and allied vaccine makers," said Dr. Leonard Horowitz, "then the American people should demand a new FBI director, and Congress should demand the General Accounting Office investigate the bureau's misconduct."
Dr. Horowitz, among a handful of infectious disease authorities who openly criticized the CIA's illegal biological weapons program involving anthrax in his national best-selling book, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola- Nature, Accident or Intentional?, was the first to develop the theory that BMI and the CIA may be acting on behalf of British profiteers in what he says amounts to "military-industrial sabotage approaching American economic genocide." His lengthy report on the case, initially submitted to the FBI, is available from his publisher's website at http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/anthrax/anthrax_espionage.html
In defending the FBI's position, the Washington Post reported that the bureau only learned of a BMI-administered CIA "defensive" biowarfare contract involving the Ames-strain of anthrax in recent weeks. "The CIA program was [allegedly] designed to develop defenses to a vaccine-resistant strain of anthrax reportedly created by the former Soviet Union," officials defended. CIA spokespersons expressed certainty that "the anthrax used in the mailings did not come from their work."
Taking the agency on its word, the powdered anthrax may not have "come from their work," but their contractor's work, that is, BMI.
Critics claim this CIA defense is deceptive for at least two other reasons: 1) the Soviet Union's most potent anthrax was only half as concentrated as this new CIA/Battelle creation; and 2) it is an American/British-Ames, Iowa-strain prototype, not a Soviet creation, and not resembling anything available to Iraq or other countries favored by terrorists. This spoils the excuse the powdered anthrax was produced for any form of "defense," including vaccines.
"Vaccines are developed to help guard against pre-existing threats," said Ingri Cassel, director of the national Vaccination Liberation association - a consumer education and advocacy group. "This anthrax powder was illegally prepared, apparently for offensive military uses, sabotage, and even terrorism. You simply don't develop a new hyper-weaponized strain of anthrax powder for military defense, which implies preventive vaccinations against old Soviet threats, and then commission the top U.S. anthrax expert [William C. Patrick, III] to report on this new weapon's capability and lethality from mailed delivery, unless that's how you foresee it being used," Ms. Cassel reasoned.
Many people are pondering the suspicious "Machiavellian-like" targeting of the mass media and congressional Democrats (liberals) befitting the phrase "the ends justifies the means." Multi-million dollar vaccine contracts, fast-tracked drug approvals, and frenzied consumer and legislative demand for costly, risky, and largely ineffective vaccines, antibiotics, and other high-priced preventives are the most obvious results of the anthrax mailings.
Referring to the unprecedented silica-based, electrostatically charged, dry powdered form of hyper-concentrated anthrax sent through the mail to members of the media and Senators Daschle and Leahy, Dr. Horowitz concluded, "It was the only form of anthrax that could be effectively spread, as it was, through the U.S. mail with such far reaching effects. Therefore, the primary suspects have been identified, their dubious histories are well known, and their motives are clear. Any further effort to impede this investigation places FBI director Mueller in the position of an "enemy national" or a traitor to the American people he is sworn to protect."
-end -
Note to journalists: For more information about Dr. Horowitz's investigation, to schedule an interview, or for review copies of his books Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola-Nature, Accident or Intentional? (1998) and/or Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare, (June, 2001) please call Elaine Zacky at 1-888-508-4787, visit http://www.tetrahedron.org, or e-mail: pr@tetrahedron.org
SINCE THE SO-CALLED ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS ADOPTED IN MOST CORPOCRACIES ALL COME FROM THE SAME BLUEPRINT IMPOSED BY THE PLANETARY COVERTMENT, YOU CAN BET THE FOLLOWING MORE OR LESS ALSO APPLIES TO THE U.S., UK AND MOST OF THE REST OF EUROPE -- WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002
From: Connie Fogal <conniefogal@telus.net>
Subject: Rocco Galati on Canada's Globalization, Militarization, Police State Agenda in anti-Terrorism laws
Canada's Anti-Terrorism Laws - Bills C36, C22, C35, C42
Presentation by Rocco Galati at a forum sponsored by the Scientists For Peace Toronto, December 2001
(Canada's Globalization, Militarization, Police State Agenda)
My name is Rocco Galati. I am a constitutional lawyer. I was a lawyer for the Crown for a few years before I went into private practice cases against the government. I was the counsel who brought the MAI case up through the courts to the Supreme Court of Canada, and argued the Quebec city injunction perimeter fence case up to the Supreme Court of Canada. I have been doing CSIS terrorist certificate cases under the Immigration Act, the so called secret trials that are now going to be part of C36 secret trial mechanism.
In a nutshell, what is in Bill C 36, and is undoubtedly not open for debate, what Bill C36 does is as follows. It has very little to do with terrorism. Terrorism is very easy to define. I have defined it for clients of mine appearing before parliamentary and senate committees.
Terrorism is a very simply definition. It is the application of terrorism that is all the problem. I define terrorism as the threat of or use of violence and arms by an armed group or individual against an unarmed group or individual for political, racial, religious, social, or economic reasons including state terrorism. You can take any other armed conflict whether it is two people dueling at dawn over a woman 200 years ago, or two groups in an insurrection or civil war, or war, or somebody doing it for profit, or drug running. We have laws to cover that, but that is not terrorism.
The only problem with a definition of that sort is that you have to apply it equally, and that's where we get into problems, because certain states want to be able to support terrorism when it suits their needs. My only point is that this bill has very little to do with terrorism in the sense that the first speaker was speaking about.
1. What this bill does is really codify militarization and a police state, and further globalization interests. You see it right in the bill. The Bill is overly broad. Even though they took out the "lawful", the Bill still catches dissent. It still catches protest. Protests that interrupt public facilities are acts of terrorism under this bill. No question about it, whether they are "lawful" or not, if they endanger life. Any protest that is going to cut off a part of the city from essential services like ambulances by definition endangers life. That is the price we pay in democracy. That is a terrorist act under this Bill.
2.The other thing the Bill does is that it can convict you of facilitating terrorism without any knowledge or intent. The government pretended that they changed the definition, but they didn't. They changed it in one section and they took ir away in another. Even if you don't know you are facilitating, you are going to get caught. So the guy who sells the envelopes and the stamps at the corner store in my view is facilitating terrorism when the purchaser puts anthrax in them and mails them off, whether he knows it or not.
3. Then there is the 72 hour arrest on suspicion. The only test here is you can be held here for 72 hours without being charged on suspicion. That is not a test. That is not even a smell test. What is the suspicion going to be based on? It will be based on another portion of the Bill which allows the Court and police "in determining whether an accused participates in or contributes to any activity of a terrorist group the court may consider among other factors whether the accused uses a name, word, symbol, or other representation that identifies or is associated with the terrorist group".
Now if I look around this room, I can probably pick out five or six women here who I find suspicious because the legislation allows it. So if you use the same religious or codeful symbols that some terrorist group has misappropriated for their own purpose, even though they are valid religious or cultural symbols of Islam or being Arab or being Tamil or being Sikh, then the legislation grants the police and the Courts the right to use that as the basis of suspicion. In my language that is just racist profiling. Racism, that is all it is.
So the 72 hour detentions are also problematic because there is no stop to the revolving door. One police officer on suspicion will arrest you for the 72 hours. You are released. That is not to say they can't come back in 12 hours or 12 minutes and re-arrest you on another suspicion. So you can go around the revolving door this way. And they can put conditions on you similar to bail conditions even though you are not charged or arrested with anything, for a year at least without charging.
4. Investigative hearings are nothing short of Roman Catholic Inquisitions. That is all they are, maybe without the torture, maybe not. But who knows what people get tortured. Every group in this country has suffered torture at police hands. That's documented.
So you are hauled in, and you have to answer questions. If you don't answer questions, you are subject to criminal charge. They say they can't use the answers against you in a court. Well, that's not true because (1) they can use the answers to go engage in further investigation outside the answers, and that evidence can be used in court. (2) If you ever take the stand to defend yourself, the case law is clear they can use your answers to say that you are lying. So it is not true that they can haul you in and anything you say will never be used against you in court.
5. Really nasty provisions that no one seems to be talking about, quite frankly because they are so foreign to our law and our experience, are the secret trial provisions. Right now in Canada, there is only one instance where you get secret trials - that is on CSIS terrorist cases under the Immigration Act. That is where someone is accused of being a terrorist or associated with terrorism. What happens when they allege that you are a terrorist is that you never get to see the evidence. Your lawyer never gets to see the evidence. All you get is a summary of the allegations against you. And then the lawyer for the government sits with the judge and they review the evidence. And then you go into open court, and the judge says, "What do you have to say in response to the fact that we say you are a terrorist?"
And so the game goes something like this: "I was born in a little village" somewhere, wherever. "I knew all these people", and you literally have to ransack through a person's life and hope that in doing so that you are addressing whatever evidence, distorted rumor or hearsay evidence that is before the judge.
So these secret trials are really foreign. They've been around since 1990 in Canada (under Immigration cases, not the Criminal Law) . There has only been one case where it was fought and won. That was a case I fought and won two years ago. It was called Jibala. A case from Egypt. But lo and behold they re-arrested him again even though the federal court said there is nothing to the allegation. They re-arrested him this August and we are back on the merry go round.
So now under, C36 at various stages, if the police or the CSIS or RCMP say, "I can't answer that question, I can't divulge that evidence because it's "national security" (they usually lower their voice to say that) then you don't get to see it. That's very dangerous because our whole system is based on testing the evidence against you.
6. That also goes for the confiscation of property. These secret trials allow for the confiscation of property as well. So your daughter has a friend who is Muslim who has a brother who may be associated with a group that is on the list. Let's say there is any money that transfers. Let's say your daughter is helping you with the mortgage, but she gets some help from her brother to pay the mortgage. They can and will confiscate your house. You will never know why.
Because that money is coming indirectly from a terrorist source, even though you don't know that your daughter is getting money from her brother, and he's associated with somebody, that property can and will be confiscated, and you will never know why. You will never see the evidence, and nobody will know why your property is getting confiscated, except for a bald allegation that is tied to terrorism.
7. Lastly, I want to say I personally find all this legislation C36, C35, C22, C 42 offensive:
C35 which broadens state immunity to state terrorists or dignitaries from abroad from international organization. If they are terrorists its OK. They are immune from our law; C22 that makes lawyers spies for the government. They have to report suspicious activity and not tell their client; and C42 that's just been introduced which allows ministers to delegate authority to their officers to declare military security zones on the spot, issue orders on the spot, and nobody can discuss the orders, even the subject of the order, because if you discuss it or publicize it, that's a separate criminal offence;
If you take all these bills together, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that what we have here is a road map for, essentially, I am not exaggerating, a military junta, really in the hands of four cabinet ministers who can delegate right down to the ground. That what's happening. If you look at, and there's no argument against this if you look at the legislation, it is so offensive.
8. The last point I want to make about this globalization and the militarization of that agenda is that if you look at the definition of terrorism, what they have done is very reptilian, very slivery, so nasty. They have included in the definition of terrorism "threats to and including its economic security". So if you do anything that threatens the economic security of Canada, you are engaging in a terrorist act. Now, in addition to all the problems of protest, there is something even more insidious than this than just what is found in the definition of terrorism. Another part of this omnibus bill (Bill C 36) is that they‚ve re-defined the Official Secrets Act and renamed it the State Security Act. Under that legislation, S3 of that act (Official Secrets Act) which is S.27 of this Bill C36, it says "for the purpose of this act a purpose is prejudicial to the safety or interest of the state if a person..." Then there are various thing that a person can do to endanger the security of the state: (a) "interferes with the service facility or system or computer program" (b) "damages property" (c) (really offensive) "adversely affects the stability of the Canadian economy, a financial system, or any financial market in Canada without reasonable economic or financial justification" So boycotts of the markets or the banks on ethical or environmental grounds are now an act of terrorism. When you grasp that that's "the economic security of the country" via the Official Secrets Act, now the State Security Act, you can't even have financial dissent.
And then, here are the ones that are really nice. (d) "impairs or threatens the capability of the government or the Bank of Canada to protect against or respond to economic or financial threats or instability
(e) "impairs or threatens the capability of the government of Canada to conduct diplomatic or consular relations or conduct and manage international negotiation. So, no more Quebec city protests. They are all an act of terrorism. No protesting any stock marke,t any financial market, or ethical or environment laws. So that's how broad this bill is, and that's how broad the net has been cast.
Answers to questions:
1.Q; Charter Rights: A: There is not one single right in the Charter that has been developed from the Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights, to the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, to the U.S. Bill of Rights, to the U.N. Charter, to the Canadian Bill of Rights, and to our Charter that has not been urinated upon and buried. There is not one right that it does not completely undo. You name me the right and I will tell you how it does it.
2. Q; A: CSIS secret trials: CSIS secret trials in our Immigration law resulted from pressure from the USA against the Muslim and Arab communities. The Mulroney government put in the secret trial provisions back in the 80's.
3. Q: Can these Bills be overruled? A: Once you get handcuffed, and you get a lawyer, and you spend so much time in pre-hearing custody in the Metro West Detention Center where they put you in a hole for 18 out of 24 , you get 5 minutes in the yard if you are lucky. You do not get to phone your family or your lawyer. That is what is happening now with an immigration hold. Then you go in front of judge and you can make a Charter challenge. Then the court may or may not strike it. But you know, charter challenges and judicial court review are no substitutes for proper political debate and social economic balance in a society.
We were in front of the Senate the other day, and they sighed in relief that of course we were going to challenge it in the Courts and we said, "That is not a proper substitute. Do not be going to sleep hoping that we challenge it. It is your job to put in a proper bill." This is where it is offensive.
4. A: I was an ex Crown Attorney. I read this bill as if I were prosecuting.
5. A: C42 is even worse than C36 .
6. Q: What motivated our government to put in these Bills? A: I am not shy in saying this given my work on the MAI case and the Quebec city case. Anyone in tune with globalization protests and the agenda of the government (whether or not globalization is a good or bad thing, I am not going to reveal my true beliefs cause I don't want to get fired by my clients but ) it became clear to the government of Canada that they were losing the handle on the globalization issue and I think they stomped on us. In fact, I know from friends of friends from the Justice Department in Ottawa that they were just foaming at the mouth when they got this opportunity, (hundreds of justice lawyers working on this). This thing has to do with giving globalization a military and police state so that nobody can protest. They can bash our heads now legally. They‚ve been doing it anyway. So that's what motivated the government.
If you read the Bill, this Bill (C36) should be 10 pages thick. You go to the Criminal Code. You enact terrorism, and you're done.
---
SEE ALSO:
Canada may declare G-8 summit site a militarized zone (12 January 2002)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/cana-j12.shtml
Lots more at
BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE