Been M.I.A lately!

I thought I’d update my readers as to my absence lately as I’ve been Missing In Action (M.I.A). My glasses finally gave in on me after seven years of faithful service, and for the best part of two weeks I’ve been unable to see much at all.

I had to zoom in on my Google Chrome web browser so much, wearing only reading glasses, that I could not see the page where I write my posts clearly enough to post anything at all.

But today I got contact lenses, so I’ll be back to posting as usual. Keep checking in for new articles! Including a two-part article collection – the first is an update on the Boston Bombing. It details what happened, the aftermath of it, and tells how the city of Boston, and the country as a whole pulled together and grew in the face of adversity. The second part will compare the country’s response and reaction to the Boston Bombings, compared to that of 9/11. Asking the question whether the change of leadership was the reason that the two events caused such a different reaction.

And “Ding Dong, Free Speech is Dead.” An analysis of censorship by the BBC – paying particular attention to the death of Margaret Thatcher and the reaction surrounding the release of, “Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead.”, a track celebrating the death of the Iron Lady.

Make sure you keep reading! As I know I’ve got a lot to catch up on!

N.Y. school teacher suspended over ‘Nazi assignment’.

Having read two articles on the CNN and BBC websites, I am flummoxed. They were both written about an Albany teacher who has been suspended because of an English assignment with regard to Nazi Germany.

According to the BBC article, “A New York state teacher is facing disciplinary action for assigning students to argue Jews were to blame for the problems of Nazi Germany.”

When you first read that headline, you may be shocked. Thinking that it’s totally outrageous, however, the article goes on to explain, “The Albany High School teacher asked students to assume they were convincing a Nazi official of their loyalty.”

Outrage promptly followed, the teacher was suspended, and a third of the class refused to complete the assignment.

The BBC article states that the teacher, “asked students to pick a method of argument and review a packet of Nazi propaganda in order to make a persuasive argument that “Jews are evil and the source of our problems.”

There was outcry – and for what, I ask. The teacher wasn’t promoting Nazism, nor was she promoting hatred towards Jews, she simply assigned the students something that was out of their comfort zone.

This was in all probability to make them think critically and be able to analyse and view a certain scenario or idea from ‘both sides of the fence’ as it were.

It is a great skill to be able to look at any particular issue from both sides. But, speaking historically, history is written by the victor. In the case of World War Two, that was us, and ever since then we’ve bashed Nazism and Hitler’s ideology. Rightly so, it was appalling and a time in human history that we’d all sooner forget.

I believe that the school board has done the students a disservice by suspending the teacher.

As mentioned, over a third of the class refused to complete the assignment – then they should lose marks. It was a touchy subject, the worst thing that’s ever happened, but that’s what makes it such a great topic for an assignment.

It pushes the envelope and teaches the students to look at things differently, to put themselves in someone else’s shoes. A lesson which will serve them well in later life.

Having been a student of history, and debate, and taking a World Issues class during my last year of high school, I’ve always been one for controversial topics, discussion, debate and critical thinking.

I think it’s essential for today’s students to obtain the critical thinking skills as early as possible, and be able to analyse and examine different points of view, then decide which one they agree with freely.

That is what this teacher was offering her students, purely an opportunity that nobody else was willing to – because history is written by the victor and we don’t talk about the Nazis or look at things from a different perspective, ever.

I’m not condoning what Hitler and the Nazi Party did in any way, shape or form, however I feel that it is utmost important that students are taught to view subjects – be it The Holocaust, terrorism, the political spectrum, whatever it may be, from both sides. In order to give them a ‘complete’ education – not one that the victors of history have told us we should give them.

Military Justice, just isn’t.

According to the Washington Post, a United States Air Force Lt. General, Craig A. Franklin, Commander of the Third Air Force in Europe, has overturned a guilty ruling by a jury regarding sexual assault charges brought against fighter pilot Lt. Col. James Wilkerson.

In a six-page memo to Secretary of the Air Force, Michael B. Donley, Franklin defended his decision to order the release of Lt. Col. Wilkerson from prison on February 26th. “Wilkerson has since returned to active duty.” writes the Washington Post.

The General’s decision to throw out the guilty verdict of the jury has received much criticism, mainly from female lawyers and advocacy groups. In this case, I believe that such authority over proceedings in cases of military justice is archaic. There was once a time when the King could order almost anything to happen, be it execution, imprisonment, or an overruling of legal proceedings.

That type of authority reigned for the best part of 1600 years – it was called ‘absolute monarchy’, and it ended, certainly in England, with the English Civil War in 1651.

Of course, there is a need for certain authority in a military environment, but the upper-echelons should not have the power to overrule and undermine the authority and trust placed in the military justice system by the people and country whom it serves.

Alas, such power exists, under Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

(C) (1) “The authority under this section to modify the findings and sentence of a court-martial is a matter of command prerogative involving the sole discretion of the convening authority.” (The convening authority in this case being Lt. Gen. Franklin).

So, under United States military law, General Franklin had the authority to overturn the decision. Despite, according to a Washington Post article published on March 9th, not being a judge nor overseeing the trial of Lt. Col. Wilkerson.

It is my opinion that no commanding officer, or “convening authority” should have any power over the military justice system. They certainly should not have the authority to overrule and overturn decisions made by a jury – otherwise, what’s the point of having a jury, judge or any judicial proceeding whatsoever if the Commanding Officer has the authority to overturn any decision made by said jury or judge.

The fact that Lt. General Franklin ordered the release of the Officer and reinstated his rank and pay, and allowed him back to active duty displays a flaw in the justice system, and the woman that the Officer allegedly committed the sexual assault against will never be able to forget it, nor will justice ever be served.

It’s time to do away with Article 60 and let justice run it’s course.

Prime Minister’s Office orders review of Forces’ cuts

The Office of the Prime Minister has ordered the Department of Defense to review proposed cuts’ to soldier’s ‘danger pay’ while serving overseas.

‘Danger pay’, or to give it the Canadian Armed Forces’ official term: “Hardship and Risk” allowances, is an extra payment made to Canadian Forces members serving on deployment overseas.

This cut in payment was scheduled to take effect in mid-April, and would have reduced soldiers’ earnings by about $500 a month.

According to a CBC News article, which quotes a Department of National Defence (DND) spokeswoman, “A panel meets four times a year to evaluate deployed missions and can decide to cut danger pay, officially known as “Hardship and Risk” allowances, if conditions on the ground improve.”

She added in an e-mail, “The panel had decided that conditions had improved in Afghanistan, since soldiers were no longer going on combat missions.”

Canadian Forces officially ceased combat operations in the summer of 2011, and switched to a non-combat role, training the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) as part of the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan (NTM-A).

The proposed cut didn’t sit well with an unnamed soldier, according to a Toronto Star article. “The bean counters are saying it’s not Kandahar. We’re outside the wire and we risk getting hit by suicide bombers or shot at or rocket fire.”

Members of the public reacted angrily to the proposed pay cut. The comments section was filled with support for the troops, and messages to bring them home. Messages such as this one, “This is a disgrace. If Afghanistan is so safe, then our CAF [Canadian Armed Forces] should be replaced with Diplomats. Bring our soldiers home.”

“Home” is less than twelve months away for those serving, as all Canadian troops are set to withdraw from Afghanistan completely, by March 2014.

 

A grocer’s daughter, to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. What have you done?

Yesterday morning, the news broke that former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher had died of a stroke, while staying at the Ritz Hotel in London.

As the hours and minutes passed since the BBC announced her death, tributes began to pour in from British Prime Minister David Cameron, to the White House and Barack Obama, to the many countries of Europe and their respective leaders.

Many politicians and even Geri Halliwell of the Spice Girls tweeted about Thatcher’s death. British Prime Minister David Cameron leading the way with this, “It was with great sadness that I learned about Lady Thatcher’s death. We’ve lost a great leader, a great Prime Minister, and a great Briton.”

Geri Halliwell, who later removed the tweet due to negative feedback from her followers, spoke of Thatcher’s influence on her own life: “Thinking of our 1st Lady of girl power, Margaret Thatcher, a grocer’s daughter who taught me that anything is possible… x (sic)”

Margaret Thatcher transformed a nation, and strengthened the “Special Relationship” with the United States. US President Barack Obama tweeted this of Lady Thatcher’s influence, “She stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered.”

Lady Thatcher was certainly influential, the first female Prime Minister, although when asked by a journalist of the Finchley Press in 1970 whether she thought that there would ever be a female Prime Minister, she staunchly said, “No. There will not be a female prime minister in my lifetime – the male population is too prejudiced.”

Nine years later, she became Prime Minister. She’d done what she herself said would never happen. And so began an eleven year term as Prime Minister.

Some loved her, some hated her (and still do, but more of that later). Although I was not alive during her tenure as PM, and was three when she resigned from office, I have conducted my research, and even watched “The Iron Lady” – a docu-drama-type-film about her life in politics.

She transformed British – and even European politics. Having seen clips of her in Parliament on Youtube, what caught my eye was the determination and defiance, bravery and decisiveness with which she handled each parliamentary meeting, and indeed each decision that she had to make in her political career. Some, were more difficult than others.

THE IRANIAN EMBASSY SIEGE

It is that same decisiveness which saved the lives of 26 hostages in 1980 – just a year after arriving on the scene as Prime Minister.

On the morning of April 30th, the Iranian Embassy in London is taken over by six terrorists, armed with assault rifles, and grenades. Their goal is to secure the release of political prisoners in Iran, and to ensure safe passage for themselves out of the United Kingdom.

The British government, spearheaded by their new Prime Minister denies the terrorists safe passage, and opens lines of communications to Iran, in an attempt to negotiate the release of prisoners. The Iranian government refuses to release the prisoners, and a long, drawn out period of negotiations with the terrorists inside the embassy begins.

There are meetings during the first few days of the siege of the British Government’s emergency crisis committee – Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). During those meetings, orders are given to mobilise Special Forces for a possible, but at that time highly unlikely assault on the embassy.

Britain’s elite Special Forces unit – the SAS arrive in London and move to a holding area at Regent’s Park barracks, awaiting orders. They expect to go home to Hereford within a day or so, however negotiations with the terrorists, are not looking positive.

At 13:45PM, on the sixth day of the siege, three gunshots are heard from inside the embassy. Minutes later, the body of Abbas Lavasani is pushed out of the front door.

That’s it. As far as Margaret Thatcher is concerned, the terrorists have crossed the line. The police commander on the ground signed over operational control to the British Army at 19:07PM.

Sixteen minutes later, the words, “Go, go, go!” ring in the ears of SAS troopers, those words are the order to assault the embassy, and Operation Nimrod, is on. Seventeen minutes later, the operation is over, all but one of the terrorists is dead and 25 hostages are released from captivity.

Thatcher received great criticism for using military force in what normally have remained a matter for the police, but, as per usual, stood resolutely by the decisions that she had made. Which in this case, turned out to be the right decision.

THE FALKLANDS WAR

On April 2nd, 1982, Argentine forces landed on the Falkland Islands – a British Overseas Territory in the South Atlantic. Within two days, they’d overcome the small garrison of Royal Marines who attempted to resist. The Argentinians had invaded British territory, Prime Minister Thatcher would not stand for that.

In response to the Argentine invasion, the Royal Navy nuclear submarine, HMS Conqueror, set sail for the Falklands from France on April 4th. A day later, aircraft carriers HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible left from Portsmouth. They were joined by SS Canberra, aboard which were 3 Commando Brigade of Her Majesty’s Royal Marines.

After two months of fighting, and over 250 British casualties, the war was over and Margaret Thatcher had won yet another battle.

SURVIVING ASSASSINATION

In true Thatcher-like defiance, she would survive the Brighton Hotel bombing, carried out by Irish Republican Army member Patrick Magee with the intention to assassinate the Prime Minister and her cabinet. The bombing claimed the lives of five people, including two of her Party members, but the ‘Iron Lady’ survived. Hours later, she spoke at the annual Conservative Party conference and sent out this message: “All attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail”. Determination, grit, and an unwavering defiance of the IRA.

“THIS GOVERNMENT WILL NEVER SURRENDER TO THE IRA. NEVER.”

That bit of text is taken from her speech at the 1984 Conservative Party conference. Four years after the IRA tried to assassinate her and her Cabinet, and yet she still had the balls to say that the IRA would be beaten. She remained resolutely against the IRA’s war on Britain, and didn’t hesitate to use the tools at her disposal – particularly the SAS, with whom she had forged quite a relationship with since the Iranian Embassy Siege.

STANDING DOWN…

Maggie Thatcher tearfully resigned from her Prime Ministerial duties in 1990 after eleven years at the helm.

Her death signifies the death of one of the greatest Prime Ministers ever to have lived. Some people hated her because of the way that she handled the Miners’ Strike, etc. Some blame her for the current financial mess that is the United Kingdom and some European countries. How can that be? How can something that she did twenty years ago, possibly have an affect on how things are today?

The worst thing, however, is the amount of abuse that has been hurled her way following her death.

Yesterday, there was a “celebration” of her death in Bristol, some 200 people gathered to “celebrate” her death… That’s disgraceful behaviour. She is dead, if you did not like what she did, then why elect her in? She can’t have been that bad, she won three general elections and was Prime Minister for eleven years.

What does such behaviour say about Great Britain as a country, as a society? Yet more disturbing, there’s even a website – www.dingdongdead.org.uk, which   appears to have been set up purely to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher. That’s abhorrent. The woman was just like the rest of us, she has family too and they, just like our families, would hate to see such vehemency toward her, barely twenty-four hours after her death.

She’ll be given a Ceremonial Funeral, with full military honours on Monday, April 17th. I’ll probably tune in at some point to pay my respects to the Iron Lady.

To those people who still hate her for what she did twenty-something years ago, to those who callously “celebrated” her death, I say this:

She was the daughter of a grocer, who became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, lead the country through a war, winning it in the process, survived assassination, defied terrorism, and invented Popular Capitalism. What have you done?

From “Terrorists” to Political Party: WikiLeaks to become a registered political party

According to a CBC News article, WikiLeaks is to become a ‘registered political party’, and founder Julian Assange will be a state senate candidate in Victoria.

Although the WikiLeaks founder has been in the Ecuadorean embassy for the better part of a year. Should he leave the sovereign protection of the Ecuadorean embassy, he will be immediately arrested and extradited to Sweden to face allegations of sex crimes.

According to the article, which quotes WikiLeaks campaign director Greg Barns as saying, “It would be up to the government to secure the opportunity for Mr. Assange to return to Australia.”

So, the Australian government would have to facilitate his route back to Australia, and, making the assumption that the Australian Consulate would be able to protect him from the European Arrest Warrant that the American Government has out for him.

The man is in the eyes of many, a hero. A symbol of justice and freedom of information in a world where secrecy and lies are ripe.

However, in the eyes of the US Government especially, his actions are viewed as terrorism. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is quoted by The Hill – a politics website, which at the time was detailing the US 2012 Elections, “Information warfare is warfare. And Assange is engaged in warfare. Information terrorism is terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism, and Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant.”

The man is now an “enemy combatant”? The United States Department of Defense defines an enemy combatant as: “In general, a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or it’s coalition partners during an armed conflict.”

Let’s see… “A person engaged in hostilities against the United States…”

Is Julian Assange really a person engaged in hostilities against the United States. The US Government says that the information that Assange and WikiLeaks releases puts American lives in danger. Does it really, the thousands of diplomatic cables, and logs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that putting lives in danger?

Tell me this, how many people have died as a direct result of the actions of WikiLeaks? Not that you would expect to hear about such things, what with everything being kept under wraps, but if WikiLeaks had directly caused the deaths of civilian, intelligence operatives, or soldiers, you’d expect to hear about it sooner or later.

Labeling WikiLeaks and Assange “enemy combatants” is not all that’s been done, according to the website “Arstechnica”, a Canadian political scientist – one Tom Flanagan, said in a 2010 interview with CBC, “Well, I think Assange should be assassinated, actually.”

Seriously? A Canadian political scientist, and former advisor to Canadian PM Stephen Harper publicly called for the assassination of Julian Assange. Surely that’s incitement and punishable by law?

What if WikiLeaks did get onto the political scene? If Assange was elected and did become an MP, would he have diplomatic immunity from prosecution by the British, American and Swedish governments?

What if was elected the Australian Prime Minister!? What types of changes would there be in Australia? What effect would it have on their relationships with other countries? How would it affect their trade partnerships with countries like the United States?

Your thoughts, readers!

James Holmes’ psychiatrist ‘warned’ police of danger

July 20th, 2012, James Holmes walks into a Colorado movie theatre during a screening of the new Batman film, he’s armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun, tear gas, smoke grenades and a bullet-proof vest.

He opens fire, killing twelve and wounding seventy before being arrested by Colorado police. Until yesterday,Colorado police had sealed a number of documents pertaining to the shooting, including an affidavit from Holmes’ psychiatrist.

The new District Judge overseeing the case, Carlos Samour, ordered that the files be unsealed and made available to the media and public.

But one month before that awful night in Colorado, according to an article in The Guardian newspaper, University police were warned by Holmes’s psychiatrist, Lynne Fenton, “that James Holmes had homicidal thoughts and was a danger to the public.”

So, University campus police were told one whole month before the attack that Holmes was potentially homicidal and, “a danger to the public.” And they did absolutely nothing?

According to campus police, in the same Guardian article, “In the days after the shooting, campus police said they had never had contact with Holmes, a graduate student at the university.”

Really? Not one policeman went to check on him? Not after being told by his psychiatrist, who was legally obligated to report genuine concerns about students to campus police. Wow.

According to Dr. Fenton, Holmes’ sent her threatening text messages, and even sent her a package dated 12 July, eight days before the shooting. According to the documents released by the court, “this package contained a journal, which included a note, an infinity sign, and burned twenty dollar bills.”

Presumably, Dr. Fenton would have passed on what she received from Holmes to the campus police within a few hours, if not minutes of receiving it. Whom, having received that package, would have presumably woken up and realised that Holmes’ was a serious threat and not just messing about.

I realise that an arrest warrant takes time, but surely they could have arrested him, and held him in custody, while they gathered the necessary evidence.

Someone dropped the ball, big time.

According to the Guardian, “Prosecutors have suggested Holmes was angry at the failure of a once-promising academic career and stockpiled weapons, ammunition, teargas grenades and body armour as his research deteriorated and professors urged him to get into another profession.”

So, he had already stockpiled weaponry, ammunition, grenades and body armour… that’s a recipe for death and destruction if ever I’ve seen one. But, if the police had acted when they first received notice from his psychiatrist, then maybe all of this would never have happened.

Heads should roll over this. Anything less is a travesty, and an injustice to the memories of the twelve dead in one of America’s deadliest massacres.

The Korean Peninsula: Is war looming?

North and South Korea, two vast opposing states – one Communist, the other Capitalist, still officially at war after 70-plus years of an Armistice. One country’s populous living in near poverty while it’s leader sits in palatial surroundings, and then you have the South, almost the complete opposite of the North.

Two vastly different countries, sharing one land mass, separated by a demilitarized zone, or DMZ since its establishment in 1953 as part of the Korean Armistice Agreement.

Since that armistice was signed, the two Korea’s couldn’t have been more different, one has seen Prime Ministers and Capitalism, the other, “Dear Leaders” and mass poverty. You didn’t generally see or hear much about North Korea… it’s government sought to keep almost everything about the country secret. But, since the passing of Kim Jong-il and the introduction of his son, Kim Jong-un as the new leader, things have changed. And the North in particular, has been in the spotlight.

There have been multiple, provocative incidents in the Korean Peninsula over the last few years: the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan, although the North denies any involvement, and was not identified as a perpetrator in a Presidential Statement by the UN Security Council. The Southern half of Korea probably firmly believes that the North had something to do with it.

Further provocation from the North came when they conducted missile testing against UN regulations, the actions of the North were later condemned by the Security Council, though no action was taken.

Yesterday, North Korea’s primary news agency declared that the country was now in a “state of war” with the South. This declaration comes after several cuts made to communication lines between the two countries, including a military hotline, the Red Cross hotline, and one used to communicate with UN Command.

Many people have written off the North’s threats as “empty”, and the South Koreans are used to hearing this kind of rhetoric from the North Korean regime. However, no matter how many times Kim Jong-il  denounced the West and threatened to use missiles against them, he never followed through with such threats.

His son, Kim Jong-un however, appears to be far more boisterous about his threats. Ordering military manoeuvres left, right and centre, authorising missile tests, it seems that there are messages here of intent.

But that is the issue. Are these purely empty threats, or should we take him seriously? If we are to perceive these threats as serious, then what action should be taken?

The United States is at the forefront of any conflict in the Korean Peninsula, as it supports South Korea. On the other side, you have the Chinese. They have been there to rein in North Korea when things have gotten out of hand. North Korea relies on a heavy trade dependency with China, and because of that link, China has always been able to quell the North from taking any affirmative action.

Kim Jong-un has long boasted of his nuclear capability, as well as having Inter-Continental-Ballistic-Missiles with the capability of striking the US mainland.

However, an image from the Centre for Foreign Relations, here shown in this BBC News article, details the maximum range of a North Korean Taepodong missile as 6,000KM. It also shows that at maximum, a Taepodong missile would only be capable of reaching the Eastern-most states of Alaska and Hawaii, although the effects of such a strike on the US mainland, are unclear.

So, what to do about the situation? Some will say, “He wouldn’t be stupid enough to actually attack South Korea, or the United States…” Or would he? The whole thing is incredibly unpredictable, and it is the unpredictability of Kim Jong-un which makes the thought of a North Korean attack on either the United States or South Korea, all the more troubling.