SHOOTING THE MESSANGER
Missouri gov slams paper for uncovering data security flaw

By SUMMER BALLENTINE and JIM SALTER

FILE - In this Tuesday, July 13, 2021, file photo, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson answers media's questions in Kansas City, Mo. Parson on Thursday, Oct, 14, 2021 condemned the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper for exposing a flaw in a state database that allowed public access to thousands of teachers' Social Security numbers, even though the paper held off from reporting about the flaw until after the state could fix it. 

(Shelly Yang/The Kansas City Star via AP, File)

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Republican Gov. Mike Parson on Thursday condemned one of Missouri’s largest newspapers for exposing a flaw in a state database that allowed public access to thousands of teachers’ Social Security numbers, even though the paper held off from reporting about the flaw until after the state could fix it.

Parson told reporters outside his Capitol office that the Missouri State Highway Patrol’s digital forensic unit will be conducting an investigation “of all of those involved” and that his administration had spoken to the prosecutor in Cole County, which includes the state capital, Jefferson City. He didn’t elaborate as to what he meant by “involved” or whether investigators would be looking into whether the St. Louis Post-Dispatch broke the law during the course of its reporting on the data vulnerability.

The Post-Dispatch broke the news about the security flaw on Wednesday. The newspaper said it discovered the vulnerability in a web application that allowed the public to search teacher certifications and credentials.

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education removed the pages from its website on Tuesday after being told about the issue by the Post-Dispatch, which said it gave the state time to fix the problem before it published its story.

The Post-Dispatch estimated that more than 100,000 Social Security numbers were vulnerable, based on pay records and other data. It found that the school workers’ Social Security numbers were in the HTML source code of the pages involved.

“The state is unaware of any misuse of individual information or even whether information was accessed inappropriately outside of this isolated incident,” the DESE said in a news release.

Though the Post-Dispatch alerted the agency to the problem and held off on the story, the agency’s news release called the person who discovered the vulnerability a “hacker” — an apparent reference to the reporter — who “took the records of at least three educators.” The agency didn’t elaborate as to what it meant by “took the records” and it declined to discuss the issue further than what it said in its news release when reached by The Associated Press.

Source codes are accessible by right-clicking on public webpages.

The newspaper’s president and publisher, Ian Caso, said in a statement that the Post-Dispatch stands by the story and the reporter, who he said “did everything right.”

“It’s regrettable the governor has chosen to deflect blame onto the journalists who uncovered the website’s problem and brought it to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s attention,” Caso said.

Parson also suggested that the reporter somehow broke the law.

“This individual is not a victim,” Parson told reporters. “They were acting against a state agency to compromise teachers’ personal information in an attempt to embarrass the state and sell headlines for their news outlet. We will not let this crime against Missouri teachers go unpunished.”

Peter Swire, a cyber law expert and professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Cybersecurity and Privacy, said flagging security vulnerabilities on publicly accessible websites is a “public service” and is “clearly not criminal under federal law.”

“Right clicking does not count as criminal hacking,” Swire said.

Joseph Martineau, an attorney for the Post-Dispatch, said in a statement that the reporter “did the responsible thing by reporting his findings to DESE so that the state could act to prevent disclosure and misuse. A hacker is someone who subverts computer security with malicious or criminal intent. Here, there was no breach of any firewall or security and certainly no malicious intent.”

“For DESE to deflect its failures by referring to this as ‘hacking’ is unfounded,” Martineau said.

Jean Maneke, an attorney for the Missouri Press Association, said she doubted any judge “would allow this to proceed very far.”

“Clearly the Post-Dispatch warned the state of this issue,” Maneke said. “There’s no evidence of any criminal or malicious intent in the act. There’s no attempt to steal information. There’s no basis for him (Parson) to say there’s any kind of illegal act from the Post-Dispatch.”

Byron Clemens, a spokesman for AFT St. Louis, Local 420, said the teachers union isn’t aware of any educators’ information being misused.

“But we are concerned over the attempt to deflect responsibility and politicize what is very obviously a security breach by the state,” Clemens said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Parson said the state will address security issues raised by the newspaper’s reporting.

“We are working to strengthen our security to prevent this incident from happening again,” Parson said. “The state is owning its part, and we are addressing areas in which we need to do better than we have done before.”

___

Salter reported from O’Fallon, Missouri.

 

A Framework for Peace in Israel and Palestine

by Jeffrey D. Sachs Posted onNovember 30, 2023

It is urgent to free the hostages in Gaza; stop the bloodshed in Israel and Palestine; establish lasting security for both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples; achieve the aspiration of the Palestinian people for a sovereign state; and establish a process of true sustainable development in the Eastern Mediterranean – Middle East (EMME) region.  This can be set in motion by immediately welcoming Palestine as a UN member state.

Palestine already has broad recognition as a sovereign state, recognized (as of June 2023) by 139 of the 193 UN member states, though not by the US or most of the European Union (Sweden recognized Palestine in 2014, and Spain has recently signaled a possible move to recognition).  Yet crucially for its diplomacy and participation in global affairs that decide its fate, it is not yet a member of the UN.  On September 23, 2011, the Palestinian Authority applied for UN membership in line with decades of UN Security Council resolutions calling for a two-state solution, based on the pre-1967 borders.  The letter was duly forwarded to the Security Council’s Committee on the Admission of New Members.

As the President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas noted in the application letter:

“The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and independence and the vision of a two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been firmly established by General Assembly in numerous resolutions, including, inter alia, resolutions 181 (II) (1947), 3236 (XXIX) (1974), 2649 (XXV) (1970), 2672 (XXV) (1970), 65/16 (2010) and 65/202 (2010) as well as by United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 1397 (2002) and by the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 (on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory). Furthermore, the vast majority of the international community has stood in support of our inalienable rights as a people, including to statehood, by according bilateral recognition to the State of Palestine on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the number of such recognitions continues to rise with each passing day.”

After the submission to the UN Security Council the US worked behind the scenes in the membership committee to stop the application, even though there was overwhelming support for it in the committee, the UN Security Council itself, and across the UN General Assembly.  The UN Security Council never even voted on Palestine’s application because of the US opposition, and Palestine settled at the time for observer (non-voting) status.  The UN Security Council should approve Palestine’s application now, a dozen years later, but this time with the US publicly recognizing what it has claimed all along, but never really supported: full statehood and UN membership for Palestine.

Netanyahu’s war is obviously not in pursuit of a just peace. Netanyahu and his cabinet explicitly reject the two-state solution, aim to subdue the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and propose more Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine and permanent Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem. Their policies amount to apartheid and ethnic cleansing.  Precisely because of these injustices, the war is likely to escalate into a regional war, drawing in Hezbollah, Iran, and others, unless a just political solution is established.

Before October 7, Netanyahu sought to “normalize” relations with Arab states without also addressing the need for a Palestinian state, yet this cynical approach was doomed to fail. A real and lasting peace can only be achieved together with political rights for the people of Palestine.

True leaders for peace on both sides have repeatedly been martyred, including the great Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat and the brave Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, both of whom were killed because they preached peaceful co-existence. Countless more Palestinians and Israelis, whose names we don’t even know, have also died in the quest for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, victims of terrorism often by extremists within their own communities.

Despite these serious obstacles, there is a clear way forward to peace through the UN because the Arab and Islamic nations have long called for peace with Israel based on the two-state solution, as called for by the Palestinian Authority. In the Extraordinary Joint Arab-Islamic Summit in Riyadh on November 11, the Arab and Islamic leaders made the following declaration in favor of a two-state solution:

“As soon as possible, a credible peace process should be launched on the basis of international law, legitimate international resolutions and the principle of land for peace. It says this should be within a specific time frame and based on the implementation of the two-state solution with international guarantees, leading to an end to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, the occupied Syrian Golan, the Shebaa Farms, the Kafr Hills, Shoba and the outskirts of the Lebanese town of Al-Mari.” (English translation of Arabic original)

Importantly, the Arab and Islamic leaders drew specific attention to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, that already twenty-one years ago affirmed that:

“a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government… [and] Further calls upon Israel to affirm (inter alia) [t]he acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.”

The Arab countries stated clearly already back in 2002 that such an outcome would lead to peace between the Arab nations and Israel, specifically that the Arab nations would “Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.” Alas, Netanyahu has been in power most of the period since 2009 and has done what he could to ignore the Arab Peace Initiative and keep it out of the view of the Israeli public.

The UN Security Council, including all permanent (P5) members, should immediately admit Palestine to the UN and commit to provide operational and financial support to the implementation of the two-state solution, including peacekeepers welcomed by Palestine. In particular, the UN SC resolution should commit the UN and neighboring states to support both Israel and the new UN member state of Palestine to establish mutual security, and the demilitarization of militia forces.

The UN Security Council resolution would usefully include the following points:

• The immediate establishment of Palestine as the 194th UN member state, with the 4 June 1967 borders, with the capital in East Jerusalem and control over the Islamic Holy Sites;
• An immediate release of all hostages, permanent ceasefire by all parties, and flow of humanitarian aid under UN supervision;
• A peace-keeping force in Palestine, drawn largely from Arab nations and operating under the mandate of the UN Security Council;
• The immediate disarmament and demobilization of Hamas and other militias by the peacekeeping forces as part of the peace;
• Diplomatic relations established between Israel and all Arab league states in conjunction with UN membership of State of Palestine;

A new UN Peace and Development Fund, as I recently advocated in the UN Security Council, to help finance, among other goals, a long-term sustainable development program in the Eastern Mediterranean region, including Palestine, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and other neighbors.

Of course, there would remain much to negotiate, including mutually agreed border adjustments, but these negotiations would take place in peace, between two sovereign UN member states, and under the auspices of the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, and crucially, the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. He has been advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism (2020). Other books include: Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable (2017), and The Age of Sustainable Development, (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.

Israel's no-state solution and the endurance of Palestine

Analysis: Palestinian sovereignty has always been out of the question for Israel, as have equal rights under one binational state.

Amal Ahmad
12 March, 2024

To understand Hamas’s attack on 7 October and Israel’s subsequent onslaught on the Palestinian population of Gaza, it is necessary to accurately evaluate the underlying historical strategic interests of the Israeli state.

In this sense, the ongoing crisis reflects both opposition to, as well as the unsustainability of, Israel’s longstanding strategy of a ‘no-state solution’ for the Palestinian people.
Salient narratives

To understand this strategy, it is informative to first turn to salient arguments about why past peace treaties, most notably the Oslo Accords, have failed to achieve a resolution.

Brokered by the US, the agreement of 1993 promised a sovereign Palestinian state within five years, with Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories in exchange for Palestinians meeting Israeli security demands - also known as the ‘land-for-peace’ paradigm.

As the accords could only succeed via self-enforcement, the key premise was that Israel and the Palestinians were strategically interested in withdrawal and in meeting security conditions, respectively.

"Israel as an occupying power has consistently pursued not two states, operationalised through withdrawal and land-for-peace, but no state (for Palestinians)"

For Israel, the assumption was that improved security relations with the Palestinian population made withdrawal more valuable than indefinite occupation and settlement.

The failure of negotiations to generate land-for-peace signifies that at least one of the party’s strategic interests is not aligned with this setup, and a pervasive narrative in the West has been that it is Palestinian interests which are incompatible with land-for-peace.

The logic is that conflict persists because of Palestinian violence and that Israel would otherwise be interested in withdrawal.

Israel's no-state solution

This narrative fails to explain why Palestinians would resort to violence when a state would otherwise be on offer, when they were already struggling to secure sovereignty five years into the accords despite limited militant action during that period.

It also fails to explain why Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, where militancy is largely suppressed, have seen only deteriorations in prospects for sovereignty and rapid Israeli settler expansion, not withdrawal.

To seriously evaluate Israel’s strategic priorities, pointing to non-binding treaties around withdrawal is insufficient. By contrast, Israel’s historical efforts to construct expensive and difficult-to-remove illegal settlements are a credible indicator of where the interests of the Zionist national project lie.

RELATED

The future of Palestinian politics after the Gaza war

Analysis

Qassam Muaddi

The Jewish settlement project that culminated in Israel’s establishment in 1948 continued in the Palestinian territories it occupied in 1967. Israel immediately began demolishing Palestinian homes and rebuilding them for Jewish settlement, and the “Allon Plan” was put forth to create separate and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians while annexing the remaining lands. By 1978, the government had spent 2.3% of its GDP on settlement construction and was incentivising Jewish settler inflow through financial assistance.

Throughout this period, Israeli leaders from an array of factions united in viewing settler expansion, not withdrawal, as a national strategic priority. Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister in the 1970s and later again during the Oslo Accords, declared that settlements increase Israel’s security and that it is imperative to “renew” and “expand” them.

Ariel Sharon, also later prime minister, put forth massively expansionary plans for belts of settlements, efforts meant explicitly to create “facts on the ground” to prevent future withdrawal and a Palestinian state.

When Israel signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, it refused to commit to a clear settlement withdrawal plan, and Rabin remained frank internally that Israel “wants a Palestinian entity which is less than a state,” that it “will not return to the lines of 1967”, and that it will build further settlements.

From 1993 to 1996, Israel had - instead of retrenching even one settlement - expanded the number of settlers from 250,000 to 305,000.

Disagreements between Israeli policymakers have centred around the desirability and form of limited Palestinian self-administration over segregated enclaves. 

Since then and under the cover of a dragging peace process, Israel has continued nonstop settlement expansion, with 850,000 Jewish Israelis today settling 40% of the occupied territory. In Gaza, the evacuation of 8,000 settlers in 2005 was not part of a general retrenchment in the expansionist project nor of any end to the occupation, as it was accompanied by an ongoing military blockade which tightened Israeli control over the borders, airspace, and water of Gaza.

By continuously settling Jewish Israelis in the occupied Palestinian territories and thereby ruling out a geographic entity that can become a Palestinian state, while also ruling out that these segregated Palestinians under its control receive equal citizenship rights, Israel has long pursued a no-state solution toward the occupied population.

Palestinian sovereignty, which can only emerge from settlement evacuation and relinquishment of Israeli control over borders, has always been out of the question, as have equal rights under one binational state.

Disagreements between Israeli policymakers have instead centred around the desirability and form of limited Palestinian self-administration over these segregated enclaves.


"From an Israeli perspective - up until 7 October - Israel had been able to pursue expansionism while keeping a tight grip on security matters within its borders"
Top strategic priority and 'peace-for-peace'

As Israel’s erection of settlements - and with it the no-state solution for Palestinians - has been continuous and not conditional on Palestinian actions, it cannot be understood as a tactical “reaction”. Rather, it must be viewed in light of its strategic value to the Zionist project.

The Achilles heel of the peace process was assuming that Israel views Palestinian statehood as necessary to its security, so that the benefits of withdrawal would outweigh Israel’s interest in expansionism.

In fact, from an Israeli perspective - up until 7 October - Israel had been able to pursue expansionism while keeping a tight grip on security matters within its borders. This has happened partly through security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority but largely through massive retaliatory attacks on population centres from where militants emerge.

The notion that asymmetric warfare on civilian populations acts as deterrence – codified in the “Dahiya doctrine” of the IDF - implied that Israel does not have to cede any occupied lands or rights to the Palestinian population to be secure.

RELATED

How Israel is automating the occupation of Palestine

In-depth

Sahar Amer

For Israel, not only did the no-state solution not endanger physical security to the extent which would make withdrawal imperative, but it may have also contributed to a more insidious type of demographic security.

A Palestinian state would reduce the number of non-Jewish people in areas directly controlled by Israel but would not necessarily help uphold the system of preferential rights for Jews versus non-Jews in Israel, which is integral to the Zionist project.

Palestinians in Israel and diaspora refugees are unlikely to accept transfers to a state in the occupied territories; they may even be emboldened to demand equal rights of citizenship and to return to their homelands if such a state were to emerge.

In this case, preferential rights for Jews in Israel cannot be guaranteed and may even be undermined through concessions of rights to pockets of Palestinians, and the Palestinian “problem” for Israel would have no solution except permanent containment.

Israeli leaders from an array of factions have viewed settler expansion, not withdrawal, as a national strategic priority. [Getty]


In sum, Israel as an occupying power has consistently pursued not two states, operationalised through withdrawal and land-for-peace, but no state (for Palestinians), operationalised through settlement expansion and “peace-for-peace”.

In the latter - despite its innocuous name - Palestinians are offered neither withdrawal nor equal rights in exchange for Israel’s peace, but rather a “peace” in which they are spared from massive Israeli bombing (and, now, starvation) campaigns.

This threat of hugely asymmetric attacks on civilian populations is used to guarantee Israel’s security as it maintains its occupation and system of preferential rights, and as it enacts the “lower intensity” everyday violence of occupation and segregation on the Palestinians.

"The Achilles heel of the peace process was assuming that Israel views Palestinian statehood as necessary to its security, so that the benefits of withdrawal would outweigh Israel's interest in expansionism"

An untenable strategy

In this context, the 7 October attack can be understood as a violent strategy to challenge Israel’s no-state strategy and peace-for-peace doctrine to perhaps the greatest extent since 1948, with the backdrop that prior negotiations - based on land-for-peace - had proven ill-suited for such a challenge.

The attack signified gruesomely that the threat and exercise of Israeli military power may no longer be sufficient to keep Israel secure if the latter is unwilling to cede a political solution, the no-state solution being unacceptable to Palestinians.

Similarly, given one of its likely objectives was to halt Israeli-Saudi normalisation, the attack was meant to signal that side-lining the demands of the Palestinians does not guarantee peace, not for Israel nor the region.

RELATED

The Israeli resettlement of Gaza is no longer a fringe idea

In-depth

Jessica Buxbaum

On the Israeli side, it is precisely because 7 October challenged the foundational assumption under which the state has operated - that it can contain Palestinians in perpetuity without impacting its own security - that the attack was viewed as a strategic threat of the highest order.


Israel’s unprecedented levels of retaliation against the civilian Palestinian population come as a brutal attempt to reinforce the prevailing security doctrine. At the same time, because 7 October demonstrated that Israeli bombing campaigns on population centres (à la 2008, 2014, and 2021 on Gaza) may not be sufficient to deter opposition to Israeli strategy, Israel now also views ‘eliminating Hamas’ as necessary.

Israel's unprecedented levels of retaliation against the civilian Palestinian population come as a brutal attempt to reinforce the prevailing security doctrine. [Getty]

This is even though it seems increasingly unlikely that eliminating Hamas is achievable even with vast US military support.

If Israel refuses to acknowledge and address the political roots of 7 October - Palestinian opposition to Israel’s no-state solution - then the options amount to further Israeli war crimes involving ethnic cleansing and annihilation of Palestinian communities, while in the long-term Palestinian endurance and resistance are unlikely to cease without an end to the repression.

Israel’s allies, meanwhile, would be wise to understand that their trusted ally has failed to ensure - even after 75 years of leeway and military might - that the Palestinian “problem” can be managed without a just political resolution, and to realise that Israel’s insistence on preferential rights for the populations under its control is a recipe for continued disaster.

Amal Ahmad is a Palestinian academic economist based in the Netherlands and a member of Al-Shabaka, an independent Palestinian policy think tank

Comes Back And Bites You

Is this why the highest ranking officer of the ISI abruptly decided not to travel to India after the Mubai attack. Do ya think?

The war in Kashmir like America's secret wars, is a ghost war, with Pakistan funding armed struggle groups who they don't really control. The ISI learned its lessons from the CIA unfortunately like the CIA they failed to learn the most important lesson about black ops and secret wars by client organizations, they come back to haunt you.

All Terorism is State Terrorism it is the result of the Cold War. The use of fascists and military coup detat's were post-war CIA policy. The attack on civilians in post war Europe has a been the result of small fascist groups funded or aided by the CIA. This political strategy of a shadow war is used by the State to promote authoritarian policies through the politics of fear. Unknown, shadowy groups end up being exposed as funded and fronted by state security apparatuses. This shadow world gets exposed to the light of day when the client organizations act autnomously and with their own agenda.

The fallacy about these movements is that they are nationalist or anti-imperialist, when in fact they are anything but. They are agents of the State used to justify its authoritarian existence. They are not terrorists they are fascists, and as such are the creatures of the Security State. The Security State promotes global insecurity to justify its existence. There is no such thing as an 'unknown' terrorist organization, they are all pawns in the game of the intelligence networks that created them.



Pakistan’s Spies Aided Group Tied to Mumbai Siege

American officials say there is no hard evidence to link the spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, to the Mumbai attacks. But the ISI has shared intelligence with Lashkar and provided protection for it, the officials said, and investigators are focusing on one Lashkar leader they believe is a main liaison with the spy service and a mastermind of the attacks. Lashkar-e-Taiba, which means “army of the pure,” was founded more than 20 years ago with the help of Pakistani intelligence officers as a proxy force to challenge Indian control of Muslim-dominated Kashmir. Indian officials have publicly implicated Lashkar operatives in a July 2006 attack on commuter trains in Mumbai and in a December 2001 attack against the Indian Parliament. But in recent years, Lashkar fighters have turned up in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting and killing Americans, senior American military officials have said.Lashkar commanders have been able to operate more or less in the open, behind the public face of a popular charity, with the implicit support of official Pakistani patrons, American officials said. Lashkar also has a history of using local extremist groups for knowledge and tactics in its operations. Investigators in Mumbai are following leads suggesting that Lashkar used the Students’ Islamic Movement of India, a fundamentalist group that advocates establishing an Islamic state in India, for early reconnaissance and logistical help. Although Pakistan’s government officially banned Lashkar in 2002, American officials said that the group had maintained close ties since then to the Pakistani intelligence service. American spy agencies have documented regular meetings between the ISI and Lashkar operatives, in which the two organizations have shared intelligence about Indian operations in Kashmir. “It goes beyond information sharing to include some funding and training,” said an American official who follows the group closely. “And these are not rogue ISI elements. What’s going on is done in a fairly disciplined way.” Lashkar strives for the creation of a pan-Islamic state across South Asia,



Gul was director-general of the ISI from 1987 to 1989, at the end of a mujahideen war, covertly funded by the United States and Saudi Arabia, to drive the Soviet army out of Afghanistan. It was at the tail-end of this period that Pakistani support began for a separatist movement in Indian Kashmir. Lashkar-e-Taiba, a group whose leader hails from Sargodha, the same city as Gul, was founded in 1990.Gul says he supports the Afghan resistance to Western forces at a moral and academic level, but no more than that.Speculation among analysts and Western media has bubbled for years that the ISI either secretly supports the Taliban, or there are rogue or retired officers helping the insurgents. Gul was ISI chief during Bhutto's first government in 1988-1990.



New Delhi's past complaints about Pakistan — shared by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and some in Washington — have centered on its Inter Services Intelligence agency. Kashmiri militants as well as the Taliban have served as proxies for Pakistan to exert influence in India and Afghanistan in the past, and there are doubts that Pakistan's military, which controls the ISI, has fully abandoned that policy.Pakistani leaders have vigorously defended the agency, and complained that their country is being scape-goated for Western failures in Afghanistan. Still, they have also made moves to reform the ISI, including appointing a new chief in September.





SEE:

Chickens Come Home

Worth Reading After Mubai

Pakistan: Feudalism Not Democracy

Back In the USSA

Saddam and the CIA

CIA Conspiracies Are Real

Irans Nuclear Program Is A CIA Oops

State Sponsored Terrorism

State Security Is A Secure State

Paranoia and the Security State

ECHELON Spies on Greenpeace

Statist Anti-Terrorism Act

Weapons of Mass Deception





Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:

India, Mubai, fascism, anti-fascism, terrorism, Al-Qaeda, Spectacle, Debord, Situationist, War, Bush, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Terrorism,Middle East, globalization, terrorism,Government,Musharaff, Pakistan, ISI, intelligence, counter-intelligence, spying, Mujahedin, MI6, UK, Britain, Al-Quaeda, Bin-Laden, terrorism, India, terrorists, Kashmir, Taliban, book, autobiography, Afghanistan, kidnapping,Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan Peoples Party,

PAKISTAN

Old wine in new bottles

Aqdas Afzal

RECENTLY, Pakistan’s first-ever national security policy was unfurled to much fanfare. The new policy, we are told, seeks to go beyond the guns-versus-butter trade-off model by connecting the attainment of security objectives to first enlarging the economic pie. In a sense, the national security policy en­­­d­­orses continued reliance on the Washington Con­sensus, or neoliberal policies on economic growth, so that the resulting increase in available resources can assist in strengthening security.

Not only is this idea not new, Pakistan’s reliance on neoliberal economic policies has largely failed in bringing about economic growth. Moreover, in addition to the failure to grow economically, almost all gains from stop-and-go growth have accrued to a small coterie in this country. While a sound economy is certainly important, the foundations of a secure and prosperous Pakistan can only be laid by strengthening political institutions like democracy.

The new security policy tells us that an inclusive economic growth model is the need of the hour. A cursory examination of previous vision statements released by different governments shows that this purported new focus on inclusive economic growth is not new. For instance, Pakistan 2025, a vision relea­sed in 2014, talked specifically about sustained, indi­g­­­enous and inclusive growth. As a matter of fact, Pakistan 2025 specifically traced the connection bet­w­­een per capita economic growth and defence agai­nst non-traditional threats like poverty and disease.

And, like the previous national visions in Pakistan, the new security policy borrows economic growth prescriptions out of the now defunct neoliberal playbook. The new security policy recommends standard neoliberal prescriptions of free markets, fiscal austerity, mobilising savings to increase investment, as well as finding ways to spur exports. The problem is that these neoliberal prescriptions have not worked in the past as Pakistan has not been able to see any meaningful increase in employment or exports. In a sense, Pakistan’s experience with growth has not been sustainable and instead of improving the standard of living, following neoliberal policies has only led to pernicious declines in the exchange rate thereby making everything expensive.

Following neoliberal policies has only led to pernicious declines in the exchange rate thereby making everything expensive.

The ideology of neoliberalism is the foundation of the Washington Consensus, which, in turn, encouraged IMF to impose rigorous conditions on borrower nations. One of the core precepts of neoliberalism focuses on keeping the state out of economic management. However, Covid-19 has brought the efficacy of using the state as an optimal tool for economic and social turnarounds into stark relief. Developed nations, in particular, have channelled massive support through state institutions in the wake of Covid-19. As of July 2021, total global fiscal support stood at $16 trillion.

At the same time, a very strong political challenge to the already crumbling neoliberal order is underway in South America. Chile, the veritable birth place of neoliberal policies, recently elected a leftist former student leader, thereby driving another nail in neoliberalism’s coffin. Some have argued that the sun is now finally setting on neoliberalism and the world is now moving into an era of neo-statism, where the state will play a significant and permanent role in economic and social policy for some time to come.

Given the failure of neoliberal policies in bringing about real inclusive economic growth and the advent of neo-statism necessitates a rethink with respect to the new security policy. It is clear that the state would need to play an important role in a re-examined security policy in order to provide direction and guidance towards inclusive economic growth. Moreover, a thorough, concerted and long-term programme of strengthening key state institutions needs to be undertaken. Some key state institutions besides the State Bank like the Higher Education Commission and Planning Commission will have to be given required technical resources and complete autonomy so that they can chart out an education and industrial policy for an inclusive economic transformation.

Read more: Why economists believe the SBP Act is not as bad as opposition parties perceive

A blind reliance on the state to address all issues is also problematic since states can be captured by vested interests. For this reason, where the state needs to take a driving seat in the economic and social transformation, the state must exhibit democratic hues working under and being accountable to Pakistani democracy.

In a sense, a democratic state must be placed at the centre of any new security policy in order to bring about the required social and economic transformation in Pakistan. Dani Rodrik, a leading development expert, has highlighted the institution of democracy as a ‘meta-institution’ that assists with the building of other good institutions. Rodrik cites a range of evidence to show that democracies enable high-quality growth — sustainable growth that improves living standards.

What this points out is that democracy must be the foundation or the starting point for a secure and prosperous Pakistan. For this reason, in order to improve various dimensions of the Pakistani democratic process, a new reform agenda needs to be launched so that democracy can become more representative, responsive, transparent and accountable. These reforms could entail moving from a plurality basis to a proptional representation basis. Perhaps, in order to safeguard minorities, the efficacy of quadratic voting needs to be assessed given that it allows for how strongly voters feel about particular issues. And, the feasibility of wholescale campaign finance legislation needs to be evaluated so that better leaders can be encouraged and incentivised to participate in the democratic process. Finally, it goes without saying that improving the quality of democracy will also prove salubrious for countering various ethnic and linguistic conflicts that exhibit centrifugal tendencies.

The new security policy seeks to address traditional and non-traditional threats facing Pakistan through neoliberal economic growth policies. It is old wine in a new bottle. Not only have these policies failed to deliver in the past, the world is now moving towards neo-statism where democratic states will become the engines of social and economic transformation. The journey to a secure and prosperous Pakistan must start with giving democracy the pride of place.

The writer completed his doctorate in economics on a Fulbright scholarship.

aqdas.afzal@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, February 10th, 2022

Death toll from Pakistan mosque suicide bombing rises to at least 100, 150 wounded

Death toll from Pakistan mosque suicide bombing rises to at least 100
Euronews

Mon, 30 January 2023 

The death toll from the Monday's suicide bombing at a mosque in northwestern Pakistan rose to 100 on Tuesday, officials said.

The assault on a Sunni mosque inside a major police facility was one of the deadliest attacks on Pakistani security forces in recent years. Current and former officials say the attack reflects reflects “security lapses".

More than 300 worshippers were praying in the mosque in the city of Peshawar, with more approaching, when the bomber set off his explosives vest on Monday morning.

The blast ripped through the mosque, killing and injuring scores of people, and also blew off part of the roof.

What was left of the roof then caved in, injuring many more, according to Zafar Khan, a police officer. Rescuers had to remove mounds of debris to reach worshippers still trapped under the rubble.

More bodies were retrieved from the rubble of the mosque overnight and throughout the day on Tuesday, according to Mohammad Asim, a government hospital spokesman in Peshawar, and several of those critically injured died in hospital.

“Most of them were policemen,” Asim said of the victims.

Bilal Faizi, the chief rescue official, said rescue teams were still working Tuesday at the site of the mosque — located inside a police compound in a high security zone of the city — as more people are believed trapped inside after the roof caved in.

He said the bombing also wounded more than 150 people.

Counter-terrorism police are investigating how the bomber was able to reach the mosque, which is in a walled compound, inside a high security zone with other government buildings.

“Yes, it was a security lapse,” said Ghulam Ali, the provincial governor in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, of which Peshawar is the capital.

Abbasi, the official who gave the latest casualty tolls, concurred. “There was a security lapse and the inspector-general of the police has set up an inquiry committee, which will look into all aspects of the bombing,” he said.

“Action will be taken against those whose negligence” enabled the attack.

Authorities have not yet determined exactly who was behind the bombing. Shortly after the explosion on Monday, Sarbakaf Mohmand, a commander for the Pakistani Taliban, also known as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan or TTP, claimed responsibility for the attack in a post on Twitter.

But hours later, TTP spokesperson Mohammad Khurasani distanced the group from the bombing, saying it was not its policy to target mosques, seminaries and religious places, adding that those taking part in such acts could face punitive action under TTP’s policy.

His statement did not address why a TTP commander had claimed responsibility for the bombing.

Suicide bomber kills 59 in Pakistan mosque used by police

Mon, January 30, 2023
By Jibran Ahmad and Asif Shahzad

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) -A suicide bomber blew himself up inside a crowded mosque in a highly fortified security compound in Pakistan on Monday, killing 59 people, including 27 police officials, the latest in a string of attacks targeting police.

The attacker appeared to have passed through several barricades manned by security forces to get into the "Red Zone" compound that houses police and counter-terrorism offices in the volatile northwestern city of Peshawar, police said.

"It was a suicide bombing," Peshawar Police Chief Ijaz Khan told Reuters. He said the mosque hall was packed with up to 400 worshippers at the time and many of the 170 wounded were in critical condition.

The death toll rose to 59 after several people succumbed to their wounds, hospital official Mohammad Asim said in a statement. Police said 27 of the dead were police officials.

Local Taliban known as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, an umbrella group of Sunni and sectarian militant groups, denied responsibility.

The bomber detonated his load at the moment hundreds of people lined up to say their prayers, officials said.

"We have found traces of explosives," Khan told reporters, adding that a security lapse had clearly occurred as the bomber had slipped through the most secure area of the compound.

An inquiry was under way into how the attacker breached such an elite security cordon and whether there was any inside help.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, the worst in Peshawar since March 2022 when an Islamic State suicide bombing killed at least 58 people in a Shi'ite Muslim mosque during Friday prayers.

Peshawar, which straddles the edge of Pakistan's tribal districts bordering Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, is frequently targeted by Islamist militant groups including Islamic State and the Pakistani Taliban.

"Tehreek-e-Taliban has nothing to do with this attack," the TTP said in a statement.

The bombing happened a day before an International Monetary Fund mission to Islamabad to initiate talks on unlocking funding for the South Asian country's economy, which is enduring a balance of payments crisis.

'ALLAH IS THE GREATEST'

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told Geo TV that the bomber was standing in the first row of worshippers.

"As the prayer leader said 'Allah is the greatest', there was a big bang," Mushtaq Khan, a policeman with a head wound, told reporters from his hospital bed.

"We couldn't figure out what happened as the bang was deafening. It threw me out of the veranda. The walls and roof fell on me."

The explosion brought down the upper storey of the mosque, trapping dozens of worshippers in the rubble. TV footage showed rescuers cutting through the collapsed rooftop to make their way down and tend to victims caught in the wreckage.

"We can't say how many are still under it," said provincial governor Haji Ghulam Ali.

Witnesses described chaotic scenes as the police and the rescuers scrambled to rush the wounded to hospitals.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned the attack.

"The sheer scale of the human tragedy is unimaginable," Sharif said. "This is no less than an attack on Pakistan. The nation is overwhelmed by a deep sense of grief. I have no doubt terrorism is our foremost national security challenge."

Sharif, who appealed to employees of his party to donate blood at the hospitals, said anyone targeting Muslims during prayer had nothing to do with Islam.

(Reporting by Jibran Ahmad in Peshawar and Asif Shahzad in Islamabad; Additional reporting by Saud Mehsud in Dera Ismail Khan; Writing by Shilpa Jamkhandikar and Asif Shahzad; Editing by Grant McCool and Rosalba O'Brien)

Police Lines bombing

Editorial 

Published January 31, 2023

Monday’s savage bombing targeting a mosque in Peshawar’s Police Lines is a disturbing reminder of the havoc the proscribed TTP is capable of, as well as a tragic illustration of the failed policy of suing for peace with the terrorist group.

In the TTP’s worldview, either the state accepts their unreasonable demands, or gets ready to face murderous rampages like the mosque bombing. It is also a fatal security lapse in what is supposed to be one of the most well-protected parts of the KP capital, bringing back memories of last year’s Koocha Risaldar bombing in the same city. That atrocity was carried out by IS-K.

Monday’s bloodbath has reportedly been claimed by the Mohmand faction of the TTP, apparently as ‘revenge’ for the killing of Omar Khalid Khorasani in Afghanistan last August. That notorious militant had at different times been associated with IS-K, Jamaatul Ahrar, as well as the TTP.

KP has been bearing the brunt of the terrorist onslaught ever since the TTP renounced their truce with the state late last year. While attacks mainly targeting law-enforcement personnel have been occurring with regular frequency, the Police Lines bombing is surely a major escalation, considering the high body count, specifically targeting the policemen and army troops that were offering prayers in the mosque. Sadly, the needed response from the political leadership, treasury and opposition included, as well as the security establishment to the TTP threat, has been lacking.

Politically, the nation has been witnessing paralysis over the past several months, with the PDM and PTI gunning for each other in a destructive battle of nerves. Meanwhile, there exist caretaker governments in KP and Punjab, while policymaking is largely frozen, mainly due to questions about when general elections will be held, as the economy nosedives. This ‘perfect storm’ presents an ideal opportunity for the TTP and others of their ilk to strike at the state.

It is welcome that the prime minister and the interior minister rushed to Peshawar following the tragedy, while the outrage was condemned across the political spectrum. However, more than ‘thoughts and prayers’, what is required now is action. At least where the menace of terrorism is concerned, the government and opposition need to close ranks and put up a united front, working with the security forces to plan and execute a result-oriented counterterrorism strategy.

The foreign minister has said the National Action Plan is the only solution to neutralise the terrorist threat. There can be little disagreement with this, which is why political forces and the establishment need to put all their energies into implementing NAP. Intelligence-based operations should be launched to uproot the terrorist infrastructure, particularly their sympathisers and support system. Too much precious blood of our security men and civilians has been shed to let the ogre of terrorism reanimate itself.

Published in Dawn, January 31st, 2023

Road to perdition

Editorial 

DAWN

Published February 1, 2023

A RECKONING is called for, a reckoning unlike that which this nation has ever seen. It must happen now — or, as surely as night follows day, more bestial acts of violence like that which took place in Peshawar on Monday will continue to claim the lives of innocent Pakistanis. And it must come from those who sowed the seeds of a disastrous policy that is once again reaping a harvest of blood.

There is not much to be gained in pointing the finger of blame at particular individuals, though some are indeed more culpable than others. The security establishment as a whole has since decades persisted with a myopic approach to militancy, one that could only lead to perdition.

Its disregard, bordering on contempt, for any input from the civilian leadership — which had to face the public’s wrath as the body count rose — kept it insulated from what might have been wiser counsel.

Following the horrific APS attack in 2014, it seemed for a time that the state had seen the folly in its ‘good Taliban, bad Taliban’ strategy. The National Action Plan that was a response to that tragedy stipulated 20 steps towards eradicating extremism in society.

But while the civilians faltered in taking the measures they were responsible for, the establishment’s inconsistent policy towards militants remained in play and negated whatever steps the government did take.

When the civilian leadership in 2016 warned that Pakistan risked international isolation unless it cracked down on militants of all stripe, it was ruthlessly — and very publicly — cut down to size, leaving no doubt as to who was calling the shots.

Some action against the ‘good Taliban’ was only initiated when Pakistan was about to be placed on the FATF grey list. As a result, ‘charitable entities’ that had earned an international reputation as fronts for extremist propaganda and militancy were forced to suspend their activities.

Nevertheless, some extremist groups continued to find space to hold press conferences and rallies, even field candidates in elections.

Contrast that with the persecution of individuals like Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement leaders Manzoor Pashteen and Ali Wazir, who were warning that militants were once again gaining a foothold in the tribal districts, some of them with the blessing of the state.

After the military-led ‘peace talks’ with the TTP failed and the terrorist outfit began to carry out countrywide attacks, it became clear who had gained from the exercise. In the fullness of time, the state’s missteps are plain to see. The glib platitudes, the doublespeak about ‘zero tolerance’ for militancy have been shown up for what they are.

A break from the past is needed, but for that the establishment must come clean so that we can start working to put behind us the confusion created by its dangerously muddled policy.

Published in Dawn, February 1st, 2023

A treacherous deal

Zahid Hussain

Published February 1, 2023 

TERROR has struck with renewed ferocity, reminding us yet again of the wages of appeasement. The suicide bombing that killed and wounded scores of worshippers inside a mosque in Peshawar raises questions about our flawed counterterrorism strategy.

The bombing that occurred inside a high-security zone demonstrates the rising capacity of the militants to carry out high-profile terrorist actions with deadly effects.

A faction of the outlawed Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) with links to the so-called Islamic State’s Khorasan chapter has claimed responsibility for the bombing. The emerging nexus of transnational militant groups has rendered the situation more alarming. Militant groups now seem to have regrouped and appear better equipped with the help of their patrons on the other side of the border. The return of Taliban rule in Afghanistan has certainly given a boost to violent militancy here.

But it is the weakness of the Pakistani state and the absence of a clear policy direction that has allowed the militants to regain their space. Monday’s Police Lines mosque attack in an area that houses the offices of various civilian law-enforcement agencies has exposed the failure of our entire security apparatus.

Most alarming are the reports about the possible involvement of some insiders in the attack. It is apparent that such massive terrorist action requires a strong support network.

There has been a marked escalation in terrorist attacks in the troubled province over the past several months following a reportedly dubious deal with the banned outfit that allowed the militants who had fled to Afghanistan to escape the military operation to return home.

According to some media reports, thousands of armed militants have crossed the border and re-established their bases in the region.

The so-called peace negotiations were just used as a cover by the militants to gain time.

Former prime minister Imran Khan, in a recent statement, revealed that his government had planned to resettle TTP fighters in Pakistan’s tribal districts with the help of the Afghan Taliban. He has blamed the latest resurgence of terrorism in the country on the “unwillingness of the current government to abide by the commitments made by the previous regime”.

“When the militants came, they were not rehabilitated or given any proper attention, and no money was spent on them. We were afraid that if we did not pay attention to them, then terrorism would start in different places, which [is what] has happened,” the former prime minister is reported to have said at a seminar recently.

Khan’s revelation gives credence to reports of a deal with the terrorist group that is responsible for the killing of thousands of Pakistani civilians and security personnel. Under that deal, several militant leaders who had declared war on the Pakistani state were also released.

It was yet another act of surrender by the state to the militants who have refused to lay down their arms and accept the state’s authority. The nation is now paying the cost of appeasement with the blood of its citizens.

It’s apparent that the deal had been done with the full approval of the security establishment. There was a public uproar when the state decided to start so-called peace negotiations with the TTP facilitated by the Afghan Taliban regime.

But the protests didn’t stop the then ISI chief from going to Kabul and sitting across the table with the outlawed group. Instead of surrendering, the TTP leaders set out their own conditions for talks that virtually asked the state to hand over its control of the former tribal areas to them.

Despite the fact that the negotiations were going nowhere, the state continued to engage in talks with the globally declared terrorist group. The militants used the negotiations to reorganise themselves.

The so-called peace negotiations and the ceasefire were just used as a cover by the militants to gain time. Meanwhile, the state allowed thousands of militants to return with their arms. Parliament and the nation were kept in the dark on the deal that Imran Khan has confirmed.

Not surprisingly, the TTP called off the ceasefire after regrouping and unleashed a deadly wave of terrorist attacks. The end of a tenuous ceasefire has further intensified the militant violence.

Targeted killings, suicide bombings and other forms of attack on security installations have returned to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with lethal force, taking a huge toll on lives, after years of relative calm. The former tribal regions of Bajaur, North and South Waziristan and adjoining districts have been the worst hit.

The attacks have been getting more brazen in recent weeks, with the TTP extending its lethal activities to other parts of the country. In the past three months, the outlawed terror group has claimed more than 150 attacks in KP alone. The police and other security agencies have been the main target of the terrorist group amid worsening political instability that has crippled the provincial administration.

The civilian law-enforcement agencies seem to have collapsed in the face of the militant assault. The Peshawar mosque attack has been the deadliest in recent years and has shaken the country. It raises serious questions about the state of our preparedness to deal with the renewed terrorist threat. Meanwhile, the worsening political and economic crisis has pushed the country close to anarchy.

It has also led to the weakening of the state authority, providing a favourable environment to outlawed groups with a strong ally across the border. The threat to national security has become more serious with the reported tactical alliance between the TTP and some Baloch separatist groups. Consequently, there has been a tangible escalation in terrorist attacks in Balochistan in recent months.

The National Security Committee last month vowed to deal with the terrorist violence with “the full force of the state”. But there is still no clear strategy in place to deal with this existential threat.

Solemn declarations cannot be a substitute for actions. It is most important that the nation be told about the controversial deal with the militants that the former prime minister referred to. Such underhand dealings have earned the country the dubious distinction of being the epicentre of militancy, undermining not only its own national security but also that of the region.

The writer is an author and journalist.
zhussain100@yahoo.com
Twitter:@hidhussain

Published in Dawn, February 1st, 2023

Statist Anti-Terrorism Act

The extension of the Anti-Terrorism Act being discussed in parliament hoists the Liberals on their own petard, for now they speak out in favour of 'liberalism' defending civil liberties as paramount, while the Conservatives speak in favour of totalitarianism; ie. law and order.

Once upon a time five years ago the Liberals too spoke in favour of totalitarianism, they embraced law and order and to hell with civil liberties.

Former Liberal justice minister Anne McLellan defended them this way: "And that's why preventive arrest is in this package. We have to look at stopping these people before they get on those planes and put them through the World Trade Centre."

Of course the Liberals have a history of defending statist totalitarianism squashing civil liberties in Canada with the War Measures Act. Today they find themselves opposing the extension of their own terrorism act only because they are Her Majesty's Official Opposition, and it is the Gnu Conservative Government that wants to extend the act.

The Liberal shift surprised national-security experts, who were expecting an extension to sail through Parliament. "I'm shocked," said Craig Forcese, an expert in national-security law at the University of Ottawa. "They were pretty enthused about it while in government."

Only the NDP has been principled and consistent on this issue since WWII, taking the unpopular stance of opposing the War as the CCF. Opposing the War Measures Act in 1970 and opposing the Liberals Anti-Terrorism Act. Because they are civil libertarians, and because they do not and have not held state power.

The State can never be truly liberal, for once it is threatened it reveals itself to be what it is armed force in defense of property and the propertied classes. Hence the Law and Order State which is what the Harpocrites are advocating.

Whether crime is really on the increase, it isn't, or whether there really is a terrorist threat in Canada, there isn't. But there is the appearance of crime being out of control, thanks to the government saying so. There is an appearance of a terrorist threat, thanks to the government saying so. That does NOT make it so.

The rule of law, which emanates from the state, has the right then to declare when to pass an “exception” violating the rights of a given number of individuals. And it is at this specific moment that politicians call “practical exception,” when the link and resemblance between totalitarianism and liberalism gets clearer as to develop into the same nature: liberalism becomes totalitarianism.

That the Liberals are hypocrites is a given, for they oppose the very act they introduced, and their actions resulted in the detention and torture of Canadians abroad, the building of the secret prison in Kingston which currently holds three detainees without right to habeas corpus. And when they invoked the War Measures Act in 1970, they claimed it was because 'of an apprehended insurrection', that is the State thought it was facing an insurrection. It wasn't.

Given the armed powers and nature of the State it becomes totalitarian when it feels threatened. Not because it is actually threatened. And it has nothing to do with defending our rights, our property or person, it has to do with the fact that the State itself feels threatened. It is the State which acts to curtail our rights for the good of the State, claiming that this also for the 'public' good for the good for its citizens. It isn't.


while the law wants to prevent and prescribe, security wants to intervene in ongoing processes to direct them. In a word, discipline wants to produce order, while security wants to guide disorder…security imposes itself as the basic principle of state activity. What used to be one among several decisive measures of public administration until the first half of the twentieth century, now becomes the sole criterion of political legitimation.

A state which has security as its only task and source of legitimacy is a fragile organism; it can always be provoked by terrorism to turn itself terroristic…the difference between state and terrorism threatens to disappear…In the end it may lead to security and terrorism forming a single deadly system in which they mutually justify and legitimate each others' actions

See

Arar

Crime

Terrorism



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, anti-terrorism act, Government, Liberals, NDP, Conservatives, War Measures Act, 1970, Arar, terrorism, crime, liberalism, state, statism, libertarian, civil liberties