BEWARE OF A WOLF DRESSED IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING - THE BARACH ADMINISTRATION

Need for change, transparency, accountability, checks and balances were a fresh breath of air leading up to the race for the presidency in 2008.  Sadly, the Obama presidency is just as secretive and sneaky as the former Bush administration.

Extension to three parts of the Patriot Act which were to expire on February 28^th was pushed through the House as part of the Senate amendment to the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act.  The extension was introduced as only an amendment to the Medicare Physician Payment Reform act, not a stand-alone bill.   The House Democratic leadership camouflaged the extension averting any debate or any roll call vote.  This allows Congress to hide their vote on this (as no roll call vote is taken) and avoid the anger of their constituents. 

What is most surprised is that more Democrats voted for the extension than Republicans and the majority of Congress were voted favour (22% against, 4% no vote, 74% for) of this extension without any change or reform to the Patriot Act.  Whatever happened to the draft reforms of the judicial committees of the Senate and the House?  It seems although Decision 2008 led to a party change in the United States Government, obviously the players are still the same. 

With the Bush administration it didn’t take long for one to see what was behind their subterfuge, the emperor was quickly seen as having no clothes.  The Obama government is considerably more dangerous than the Bush administration as it cloaks itself as a wolf in sheep’s clothing utilizing the prodigious oratorical skills of Barach Obama.  .  The Obama campaign promises “I will make our government open, and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people’s  business”  and “when a bill lands up on my desk, you, the public,  will have five days to view it online” are diametric, polar opposites on how the extension of the Patriot Act was handled. 

After the Bush administration was exposed as misleading, stirring the pot and downright lying to the American public, the Obama government, which ran on a platform of change, accountability and transparency, is guilty of concealing the true intentions and actions of the Obama government.  This should be a wake-up call to the American public as they are witnessing just more of the same.

JOHN YOO, JOHN WHO? ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR CRIMES

The Justice Department of the United States has found that the Bush administration lawyers, notably John Yoo, are not guilty of professional disbarment over their involvement writing legal opinions (aka the torture memos) concerning enhanced interrogation techniques. John Yoo should not only face disbarment for role in assisting the Bush administration to subvert not only the constitution, but also International and Military Law, he should also be held criminally and civically liable.

Is it the Office of Legal Counsel’s role to twist domestic, international and military law to serve the President and his Administration’s illegal agenda, or is it to uphold the law? According to the White House website, the Department of Justice mission is “to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. “[1] The OLC holds a responsibility to counsel the President on the legality of an issue, not to find legal maneuvering and distortion of language to assist implementing criminal action which is exactly what Mr. Yoo did.

Under the Command of Responsibility, the doctrine of hierarchical accountability in cases of war crimes established under the Hague Convention (1907) makes John Yoo criminally responsible in his complicity in crimes against humanity, namely torture which is deemed illegal under domestic, military and international law. International Law also commands that any person involved in ordering, allowing and even insufficiently preventing and prosecuting war crimes is criminally liable under the command responsibility doctrine.

In 2006, a complaint against John Yoo and thirteen others under command responsibility was filed with German Federal Attorney by Wolfgang Kaleck on half of eleven detainees and 30 human rights groups. Scott Horton, a human rights activist and lawyer stated “the possibility that the authors of these memoranda counseled the use of lethal and unlawful techniques, and therefore face criminal culpability themselves”[2]. As to General Mukasey’s refusal to investigate or prosecute anyone involved with these legal opinions, Jordan Paust of the University of Houston’s Legal Centre stated “it is legally and morally impossible for any member of the executive branch to be acting lawfully or within the scope of his or her authority while following OLC opinions that are manifestly inconsistent with or violative of the law. General Mukasey, just following orders is no defense”[3]

The most disturbing aspects of John Yoo’s actions are reflected in his debate with University of Notre Dame’s law professor, Doug Cassel. Yoo was asked a hypothetical “"If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?", John Yoo replied "No treaty." The amount of gall and complete disrespect to all law, domestic, military and international, shown here is frightening as this was stated by a man who was advising the President of the United States on how to avoid accountability regarding subversion of the law.

Obama’s recent defense of John Yoo and the Justice Department’s legal team stating they "had used flawed legal reasoning but were not guilty of professional misconduct"[4] is shameful. I distinctly recall hearing “we are the change we are waiting for” and “change you can believe during Obama’s campaign, but have not seen any evidence by this administration.

Obama has now granted immunity to the CIA officials who relied on the “torture memos” to justify their actions. Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture stated that Obama’s grant of immunity is most likely a breach of international law. Obama’s mantra of not dwelling on the past, but move onto the future ideology is a slap in the face to the human rights movement. Where would the world be if we had moved to the future and not tried, convicted and punished the perpetrators of the Holocaust? I guess if Obama wants to play amnesia, we can all imagine a United States not sown in the fabric of democracy and no longer a nation of human rights and civil freedoms and liberties. 

---

[1] The White House, the Executive Branch, http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch (February 20, 2010).

[2] Balkanization, The Return of Carl Schmitt, http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/11/return-of-carl-schmitt.html

[3] Just Following Orders? DOJ Opinions and War Crimes Liability by Jordan Paust, Jurist, February 18, 2008

[4] Obama Justice Department Ruling: A Day to Live in Infamy, www.politicalcortex.com/story/2010/2/20/141214/688

A QUESTION OF COMPLACENCY - THE CASE OF MAHER ARAR

We as Canadian citizens feel safe and far removed from America's War on Terrorism, detention and torture in Guatonamo's Cuban prison and the American new policies on the judicial process.  We all feel that this basically does not impact us and as long as we aren't doing anything wrong, we will be safe. How many of us actually have heard of Maher Arar, a Canadian software engineer who was falsely accused of having ties to Al Queda.  He was deported from the United States in September of 2002 to Syria and held for 10 months and 10 days before being moved to a "better cell" in a different prison only to be tortured  which resulted in a false confession. After relentless campaigning and pressure by his wife,  he was finally released after almost one year.

By pressure borne on the Candian government by its citizens and Human Rights Organizations the Canadian Commision of Inquiry was established to investigate the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Mr. Arar.  On September 18, 2006, the Canadian Commission of Inquiry issued its report to the public.  Their findings cleared Maher of links to terrorism and believed that he was a victim of torture during his incarceration in Syria.  Syria also acknowleged that Mr. Arar has no links to terrorists or terrorism.  

Even after Mr. Arar was cleared, the United States continued to to make state that Mr Arar was "affiliated with members of organizations they describe as terrorist"[1]    Mr. "Arar's name remains on watch lists that forbid his entry into the United States".^[2]  As at October 18, 2007, the Bush administration still hadn't apologized to Mr. Arar even though they were called on by lawmakers from both political parties to so.

To add insult to injury, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case after Mr. Arar's suit against the United States, naming former Attorney General John Ashcroft as defendant; was dismissed first in 2006, reheard in 2008 and affirmed in 2009.  It concluded "that Arar could not sue the officials involved in his rendition, namely former Attorney General John Ashcroft"^[3]  Mr. Arar has now petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissal.

When I look suffering Mr. Arar underwent through America's illegal actions, Canada's failure to protect and demand his release to Canada and the torture he experience at the hand of the Syrians,  I am appalled.  These violations include the lack of due process as afforded by the US Constitution, torture contrary to International law provided by the Geneva convention and the compliance of the Canadian government and providing false information to the United States officials by the RCMP.  I wonder why we as Canadian citizens are not in a complete uproar.  To allow the deportation of Mr. Arar to Syria, of which he holds dual citizenship, is such a gross violation of what we as Canadian's stand for.  By not fighting Mr. Arar's deportation to Syria, a country which is known for its "systematic torture and ill-treatment"[4], we are co-conspirators along with the broken and corrupt American government and justice systems.  Naively, I believed in  my country and its imageput forth as the champion of protecting and defending of human rights not only of Canadian citizens, but also of all humankind.  I guess I was wrong.



1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
2 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21458003/
3 http://rollback.typepad.com/campaign/2009/11/protect-the-victim-not-the-aggressor.html
3 http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/62S6.htm

THE END OF AMERICA

This is an amazing, enlightening documentary about George W. Bush's post 9/11 policy changes which threaten the civil liberties of American citizens.  It is a comparison between Hitler's Nazi Germany uprising and what is presently occurring in the United States and Ms. Wolf is very effective in proving her case. 

Based on the ten conditions required under which an open society becomes a closed society through subversion of the constitution, this documentary backs up its claim with factual news coverage. Even if you do not buy into the basic premise of the film, it leaves you wondering where is America going.  Considering the initial false premise of war on Iraq, this film paints very disturbing picture of political America and leaves one question the motives and methods of the War Against Terror.

As a Canadian,this disturbs me greatly as America is our greatest ally and we have supported their efforts in the occupation of Iraq and Afganistan.  Since 9/11, the public has learned that Iraq has no ties to Al Queda making the War on Iraq questionable, if not illegal.  What surprises me the most, is that it seems that most Americans do not seem to question why they were directly lied to by their government.  I do not think that American public is complacent, I believe the news media is not reporting the true discontent of the American public as they did with the reporting of the 9/11 events themselves.  I also truly believe that the news media is influenced by those in power and it is difficult for the American public to protest something they are not aware of.

Those who independently pursue the truth behind the 9/11 terror attacks in the mildest manner, not suggesting any involvement by the government in the attacks, but only attempting to reconcile the differences between the official story and the physical evidence, are immediately referred to as "kooks' and "conspiracy theorists".When we live in a world where mainstream news media is represented by Bill O'Reilly and Shepard Smith,  we have to wonder how much influence they have on the views of the America public and who the "kooks" actually are.

A public opinion study, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, questioned Americans on their belief of statements made which have been proven false.  Not surprisingly,  a significant number of viewers of the Fox News Network as their primary news source believed these falsehoods and held a great number of misconceptions regarding the War on Iraq.  Stephen Kull, director of Program on International Policy (PIPA), concluded  “While we cannot assert that these misconceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions.”^[1]

To watch this film is certainly a worthwhile effort.  I recommend it to all.


1 http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102

OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICES - SLOW AS MOLASSES

I had to go to the Superior Courthouse today to pick up a photocopy of my custody order.  I decided to leave work a little early (3:00 pm) to arrive well before the closing time at 4:30 pm.  After being thoroughly searched upon my arrival (my laptop bag, purse, coat pockets) I was told to ask at the second door on the left on where to go.  I went there, stated my request and was told to pull a number outside, have a seat and wait until my number was called.  It didn't look too busy, just a handful of people were seated waiting their turn. 

I asked the man who was seated next to me (he was number 36) how long he had was and was told 1 1/2 hours.  After about ten minutes, he was called in.  I still was optimistic though.  A lady then came out and asked who was single filing and she would take them to move along the process.  Most of the people between 36 and my number 45 had left, so I figured I would be up soon.  At 4:20 pm the same civil servant came out and said that they would only take people up to 5:00 pm.  I was sure that I would be called soon, but to make sure I was in the right place told her I was not filing anything, only getting a copy of my custody order.

The same civil servant came out at 4:40 pm to tell us we may not get served.  I explained that I had left work to do this.  I called prior to coming to do this and was not told that it would take forever to get a photocopy.  She suggested that I come back tomorrow as there was still a number prior to mine being called and they would be next.  I probably would not be served as they lock the office at 5:00 pm.


I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how inefficient this is.  Why would you put people with simple requests, such as a copy of something with people who are filing court cases which might be time consuming.  Even if I had wanted to ask a simple question, I would be out there waiting prior to being able to ask someone my question.

Now I have to go back tomorrow and do this again.  I will lose time from work again.  At least, I will be smarter this time and go in prior to work.  I figure that I will be served before 5:00 pm if I show up at 8:30 am.

SEMESTERING IN ONTARIO'S SECONDARY SCHOOLS

After an extremely frustrating experience attempting to help my child complete her math homework, I decided to research block scheduling or more commonly referred to as semestering. I was not semestered in high school and was able to take up to 8 subjects throughout the school year. The choice for most schools to move towards semestering, where students take four, 75 minutes blocks for the first semester followed by another four, 75 minutes blocks by the second semester, was implement in 1986.

The move to the semestered secondary school model worries my greatly. My greatest subject concern lies with Mathematics. I feel that the Ontario Curriculum is already watered down significantly with Ontario’s move have to four secondary school years opposed to the previous OAC five secondary school structure.

Supporters of Block Scheduling claim that students get better grades, there are fewer failures, less time lost between classes, less discipline problems, less stress and variety in extended classrooms. The opposite of this is actually the reality.

Students get better grades

“GPA’s are not a reliable indicator of achievement since each school or individual teacher controls the outcome of any given test.”¹ It has been proven that semestered students consistently fare poorer in standardized testing that students participating in a traditionally all-year model.

Lower Student Failure Rate

In the block scheduling model, students should be covering twice as much material as they do in one semester in the traditional, full year model. If this is the case, the students should be assigned twice as much homework each day than the year-long student. If they are not doing twice as much homework (of which I am pretty certain of), either the standards are being lowered or work which was traditionally assigned to do at home is being completed during class time. Either way, the students are not getting the full curriculum they received in full-year scheduling.

Less lost time between classes

Students need a break from class time to refresh. They no longer get this with 75 minute courses. Any benefit gained from loss class time is loss due to inattention, boredom, etc.

Less discipline problems

This may hold true, but are we willing to sell our children’s education over decreased discipline. Students who misbehave, will misbehave and students who don’t, won’t. Also students do need a certain amount of socialization which is already limited.

Less Stress

Also may be true, but are you willing to trade stress for academic cost?

The biggest problem I find with Block Scheduling is one of retention. Since a student can take mathematics in first semester of one grade, he/she may not take this subject again until the second semester of the next year. Thus, it may be a full year since the student has been exposed to mathematics. I firmly believe that math has to be continually practiced in order to become proficient and gain a full understanding of the material. Since students do forget some of what was covered in the past math course taken, review is necessary. Therefore, my high school freshmen daughter will receive review of the last material covered leaving less time in the semester to move onto new subject material. Dr. David J Bateson’s, (University of British Columba) study of 30,000 grade 10 students implies “first semester students had forgotten a significant amount of class material by the time they took the test at the end of the year, contrary to the popular myth that retention is not a problem.”²

I also feel that math needs time to take hold in order to gain full understanding of a mathematical concept. Remember the light bulb turning on feeling of understanding and successfully solving a mathematical problem. Math needs to be taught in small increments with time to practice each step between. “The students just do not have the same kind of gestation period to let things percolate and let them sort of fit together on their own. It is much more forced and I think they believe on faith much more than because they know it to be true.”3

The Raphael study of Mathematics appeared in the Canadian Journal of Education, 1986 authored by Drs. Dennis Raphael, Merlin W. Wahlstrom and L.D. Mclean. The article “Debunking the Semestering Myth” showed that students participating in the year-long class system scored higher on average than the students who were semestered. They found that “academic achievement was significantly lower under block scheduling and found either adverse effects or no benefit in students' attitudes about mathematics (contrary to the common claim that block scheduling improves attitudinal scores). Further, he states “block scheduling detrimental to student achievement⁴.

This same study also supported the belief that students enrolled in full-year math courses scored higher than their counterparts. “Students were tested on several different mathematical areas: number systems, algebraic computation and skills, equations and inequalities, analytical geometry, trigonometry, function, probability and statistics. In every area, the year-long class average scores are higher than the semester-long class average scores, whether math is there are of specialization or not.” ⁵

I believe that we as parents or educators have a duty to express our concerns to the Ontario Ministry of Education, the School Boards and the schools themselves. Our students deserve better.

---

¹ Bennett, Karen J. “BLOCK SCHEDULING: With a Mathematics Perspective”, CTER Program at University of Illinois (online), http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/bennett/block_scheduling.htm

² Bateson, David J. “Science Achievement in Semester and All-year Courses,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3): 233-240 (1990)].

³ Lyngard, Lynn. “Research in Ontario Secondary Schools, Scheduling and the New Ontario Curriculum: Teachers’ Perceptions”, Vol.9, No.2, http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/field-centres/TVC/RossReports/vol9no2.htm, [2005]

⁴ Raphael, Dennis, Wahlstrom, Merlin W., McLean, L.D., “Debunking the Semestering Myth”, Canadian Journal of Education, 11(1): 36 – 52, [1986].

⁵ Bennett, Karen J. “BLOCK SCHEDULING: With a Mathematics Perspective”, CTER Program at University of Illinois (online), http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/bennett/block_scheduling.htm