Silent Complicity

The more we learn about Omar Khadr, the more it becomes apparent just how badly Canada has messed this one up. Now this morning we learn that our government knew that Khadr was being mistreated but that Stephen Harper isn't going to do anything about it. I guess he wants to look "tough" in front of his Washington pals. Or something. This is the man that came to power on the slogan "stand up for Canada" and yet once again he'll sit on his hands when real courage is required. Even Australia and the UK, often considered the two most steadfast US partners in the war on terror, have brought their citizens home from Guantanamo. Now it's our turn. Bring Khadr home. If the evidence warrants it, give him a fair trial in the Canadian justice system. No torture, no kangaroo courts, no legal limbo, no bullshit.

Beijing's Downward Spiral

British PM Gordon Brown is now saying that he will stay away from the opening ceremonies. The reality is that it appears that this event will be a public-relations fiasco for the Chinese government.

Lately one or two have fully paid their due...

...for working for the clampdown.

Iraq-invadin', climate change denin' John Howard is done down under. And for those who don't see a way to defeat Harper here any time soon, it should be noted that the CBC reports:

"The win marked a humiliating end to the career of outgoing Prime Minister John Howard, who became Australia's second-longest serving leader - and who had appeared almost unassailable as little as a year ago."

As recently as earlier this year, people like Mark Steyn loved to speak of the "anglosphere" as a cohesive unit - to them it must have seemed that now that a Conservative was running Canada it could join the US, UK, and Australia (though curiously New Zealand never gets mentioned) in making the world safe, for democracy or at least whatever the hell Bush thinks it is that Musharraf is doing in Pakistan.

Today one wonders if there was ever such a cohesive thing as a unified anglosphere as conservatives might have imagined it - rather than just coinciding right-wing governments.

The Word "Hero" is Now Meaningless

If you didn't already know this, there is further proof on the Sun's website (the UK Sun). There is a caption that reads "Hero sailors free!" This is perilously close to the way in which Stephen Colbert routinely refers to his audience as heroes.

While I'm sure that the last two weeks have not been terribly pleasant for said sailors, I'm not sure if getting your ass caught makes you a "hero" either. Granted, this is not as bad as calling everyone who showed up to work on time on September 11th, 2001 at the trade towers a hero, it's still a misuse of the word.

Am I being callous? I don't think so. One might endure misfortune or tragedy and one might do so very well, but that is more rightly called fortitude or courage even, but not heroism. I don't want to diminish how frightening such an ordeal might be, but being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not heroism.

You Read it Here First

It looks like the Iranians are going to release those British sailors and marines after all. No giant military invasion was required, no commando assault, no airstrikes. On March 24th I said:

"Either way I suspect there will be a week of intense negotiations, followed by
the release of the British soldiers."

I was slightly off on the timing (it was more like two weeks) but that seems to be the gist of what has happened. All you warmongers are going to have to find a better pretext next time.

Drawing Really Stupid Conclusions

Those crazy folks over at Brain Dead Animals have concluded that the Iranian capture of 15 British sailors and marines is causing Argentina to think that this is an opportune time to have another go at the Falkland Islands. (This is all of course reading into a comment from Argentina about pursuing the issue with "more firmness")

Gee, I suppose it could be that, or maybe it's the fact that the British military is now tied up in Bush and Blair's war in Iraq.

What do you think? Would Argentina talk tough because of the 15 Brits in Iran or the 7100 Brits in Iraq?

Showdown of the Under-Qualified Premillenialists

This is what seems to be happening now between Ahmadinejad and Bush, or at least Bush's proxy, Tony Blair. Or not.

The office of president in Iran is rather unlike the office that goes by the same name in the United States. Ahmadinejad is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and he therefore may not have a whole lot of say in the fate of the British sailors held in Iran. Ahmadinejad may be a terrible person, but at least his power is limited under the Iranian constitution.

Moreover, it appears in an article that Juan Cole linked to that Iran is simply looking for the British to admit wrongdoing in the affair, i.e.: admit that they were in Iranian waters. It is also worth remembering that the waters in question have been subject to boundary disputes, and that makes me wonder whether the maps that are constantly put in the newspapers and on TV are of the Iraq territorial claims, or of the Iranian territorial claims. Are they some melange of both sets of territorial claims?

Of course, it may be that the British were indisputably in Iraqi waters, but the question of where the boundary is has been cast aside - perhaps in the hope that we'll just start assuming that the British were correct. The Iranian offer to free the soldiers may be a ploy, but regardless, it's interesting that that element of the story has been far less reported than images of Tony Blair looking indignant on TV.

What Were They Doing There?

Juan Cole has linked to an article by Craig Murray that points out that the British sailors and Marines were looking for smuggled automobiles(!) Murray's article is worth reading for a review of why this boundary is disputed. Additionally, he wonders why on earth the Royal Navy was checking for car smugglers (not the same as interdicting, say, arms smugglers).

War with Iran? What War with Iran?

So it appears that Jason Cherniak has now clarified his original post. He says that it was just a simple question that has since been clarified for him by Michelle Oliel in his comments section. A quote from Ms. Oliel's comment:

"I doubt that the British can make a claim that attacking the nuclear reactor is imminent or proportionate to what the Iranians did."

Indeed. I think why so many of us were concerned about Jason's question was that we took such an assertion for granted. It was that taking for granted that caused me at least to question what exactly Jason was trying to say here.

More on Cherniak's War

Erik Abbink has a great post on the topic breaking down the rhetoric used in the original. Erik (like me but with better articulation) is aghast that Jason seems to be looking for a war.

The Canadian Observer suggests that Jason sign-up for such a reprisal on Iran himself. This is perhaps a bridge too far. Like I said in my prior post, I'm not sure how bellicose Jason is being here. He hasn't posted any clarification, so let's give him at least some benefit of the doubt. Besides, there are plenty of others who should strap on boots ahead of Cherniak, Ezra Levant, I'm looking at your sorry ass.

Oh! What a Lovely War!

It's really very difficult to grasp tone online. I hope I am wrong here, but I fear that I detected a note of excitement in Jason Cherniak's reporting of this incident as being an act of war. When he adds in the comments section of the post that maybe the British will respond with a strike against nuclear targets, it sounds again like he's hoping that will - or ought to be - the solution.

As others point out, the waterway where this all happened is disputed territory. Additionally, if you read the original CTV posting, you'll find that a similar incident had happened in the past. I suppose I should add that the US-led coalition in Iraq has no problem with arresting members of the Iranian diplomatic corps. Nor does the IDF - since we're talking about the middle east - have a problem with murdering sort of inadvertently yet somehow deliberately firing missiles at Canadian soldiers. Iran's actions, unpleasant as they may be, are more or less par for the course in this region and hardly a reason to touch off widespread airstrikes. Why would anyone want them to be a reason to do that?

I had thought that we had learned our lesson about finding flimsy pretexts for military attacks. Either way I suspect there will be a week of intense negotiations, followed by the release of the British soldiers. So I like I said, I hope I misread Jason's tone, if not that of some of those in his comments section. Iran wouldn't be any more of a pleasant place to attack than Iraq.

Edit: I'm not sure why the comments don't work on this post.
Edit: Fixed it!