I am reluctantly changing my mind

I hate conspiracy theories. Especially big conspiracy theories. I rarely give them the time of day. I don't read about them, I avoid conversations about them, and listen with glassy-eyed politeness when such conversations are imposed on me. Nutbars see conspiracies everywhere and some of them are pretty persuasive. I have better things to do with my time than to even try to debunk them.

At the repeated urging of a family member or two, I have finally taken the time to consider the evidence presented by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is a group of professionals who have made a scientific analysis of the collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and found the official explanations not only wanting, but impossible.

These are not wild-eyed ranters and ravers, but bespectacled, balding men in business suits with Power Point presentations and a lot of hard evidence, the kind of thing I can respect. This is not the sort of presentation that normally brings me close to tears, but in this case I found myself struggling a time or two. The implications are horrific.

Here is Richard Gage, founder of the organization, giving one of his recent public presentations. Be forewarned, this is lengthy. Explore their website if you prefer. You will find no political theorizing, no demonization, but a great deal of skepticism toward official explanations, and a lot of science. The basic thesis? That the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, not in a spontaneous collapse. They present ten characteristics of controlled demolitions that were demonstrably present, and none of which can be explained by official theories.

There are now well over 500 architects and engineers publicly demanding a new, independent inquiry. What do you think?


Technorati tags: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, World Trade Center

The Amish go to court

The Amish have generated an enormous amount of good will in recent weeks by their immensely dignified and Christ-like response to the massacre of their daughters by a neighbour, Charles Carl Roberts. I personally was enormously impressed by the sacrificial courage of some of the girls themselves and was obliged to revise my admittedly superficial impressions of the Amish as a sect hopelessly mired in legalism at the expense of the greater principles of the Christian faith.

Legalism, for those unfamiliar with the word, is a religious term used to describe the mindset of those who get caught up in the letter of the law as opposed to its spirit, and whose pursuit of holiness and the knowledge of the Holy One gets sidetracked into the pursuit of infractions and endless wrangling about the petty details of what constitutes holiness. The Taliban are probably the most vicious modern examples of this kind of mindset. The Pharisees were the incarnation of legalism in Jesus' time.

So I was greatly heartened to see that the Amish, in their retreat from modern society, had managed to keep the core principles of their faith alive and well, even robustly vigorous,despite the weight of detail of their "thou shalt nots."

But now another Amish man, "John Doe," is intent on demonstrating that though the foundations are solid, some of the construction above ground is shoddy and silly. He is a Canadian who has married an American, "Jane Doe," and is suing the American government over its insistence that he pose for a photograph as part of his application for American citizenship.

"Interpreting the Bible literally, they ... believe that photographs are 'graven images,' the making of which is forbidden by the Second Commandment," reads the lawsuit. Now it is not up to the courts to determine the theological validity of the argument, and I earnestly hope they stay away from that entire aspect, but I am not a court, so I am free to make my pronouncements.

This is not a literal interpretation of the Bible at all. It is an extrapolation, precisely the kind of thing that legalists delight in. Let's take a simple, straightforward law, interpret it widely and spin off a host of regulations based on that interpretation, with which to burden the hapless followers who trust our "wisdom."

The whole point of the second commandment is to avoid the worshipping of material objects, not to avoid the making of images. God himself, subsequent to giving the Ten Commandments to Moses, commanded the making of a bronze serpent, which was destroyed by Gideon generations later, precisely because it had become the object of worship. If the thrust of the Second Commandment had been the sinfulness of making images, he never would have commanded Moses to do such a thing.

So I honestly don't believe they have a theological leg to stand on. And I really wish that John Doe had not undertaken this lawsuit. The court is going to be obliged to either rule on the validity of their theology, or infringe directly on their freedom of religion, both very negative outcomes, in my mind. The other alternative - ruling in their favour - would also be a negative, because it would provide a loophole in national security that could be exploited by various groups who do not possess the gentleness of spirit of the Amish.

Technorati tags: Amish, Immigration

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 2

Armstrong Williams at Town Hall is lamenting the dangers of a culture obsessed with celebrity and entertainment.

It is only when we as a nation recognize that every pre-eminent nation that succeeded us fell when they became enamored with sports, entertainment, and thus became consumed with lifestyles of the rich and famous. We must recognize that we can learn quickly from their mistakes and misplaced values so that we can avoid the same decline.

Unlike most commentators, he doesn't wallow in gloom and doom though; he sings the praises of a program designed to point children toward academic excellence - the Carson Scholarship program. Hat tip to Booker Rising.


Cicero at Winds of Change, shares a bleak and realistic assessment of America's options in a new world of nuclear proliferation. Nonetheless, he seems some small cause for hope. The preamble is a bit lengthy; skip the first four paragraphs if you're not in a leisurely mood.


On a more optimistic note, the Strategy Page outlines the reasons to believe that Al-Qaeda's influence and strength are waning.


Technorati tags: Al-Qaeda

RCMP apologizes to Arar [Updated]

The head of the RCMP has stayed mum on the Arar affair, promising to speak to the matter today before a House of Commons committee. He came through.

RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli apologized on Thursday to Maher Arar, and said he accepts all the recommendations of a report criticizing the Mounties for their role in the Canadian's deportation to Syria, where he was tortured.

"Mr. Arar, I wish to take this opportunity to express publicly to you and to your wife and to your children how truly sorry I am for whatever part the actions of the RCMP may have contributed to the terrible injustices that you experienced and the pain that you and your family endured," Zaccardelli said.

The RCMP commissioner made the statement at the House of Commons committee on public safety and national security, which is looking at Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Arar case.

This is his first public statement about the report, which was released on Sept. 18.

"I accept the recommendations of the report without exception," Zaccardelli told the committee.

But he said he personally wasn't aware of Arar's case until after Arar was already in jail in Syria.

The agency has learned "valuable lessons" since Arar's ordeal and "some of them we learned painfully," the commissioner added.

Good for Zaccardelli. Since the O'Connor report, the RCMP has been consistently pleading inexperience in their handling of the Arar case. Zaccardelli is now pleading personal ignorance as well, which could very well be true.

I get a few things out of this, mostly in the RCMP's favour. Seeing as they were abruptly thrown back into the national security business after 9/11 and had lost all savvy in the field after 20 years' absence, their plea of inexperience is more than plausible. They messed up, big time. At least they are willing to admit it. No weaseling out, no finger-pointing at others, no lame justifications.

This is where the Canadian police force is outshining the authorities on the American side of the border, who have issued no apologies, allowed no investigations or court challenges, and who still have not removed Arar and his wife from their no-fly list.

I also like that they aren't arguing with the report recommendations, following in the footsteps of the government. It's a great start. Following through with actual implementation will be more impressive.

Now if Zaccardelli would do something about the RCMP's consistent and chronic stonewalling of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, the national police force could again become a source of national pride, instead of fueling our cynicism. It is one thing to make an apology before a House committee, quite another to bring about a sea change in the culture of the RCMP, which has been to stall, deny and stonewall whenever there are allegations of wrong-doing. If Zaccardelli could effect this kind of change, he would deserve a place in history as one of the all-time great commissioners. Unfortunately, he's had several years to start work on it and to date has done nothing. Today's apology might be nothing more than political smarts and unfortunately, the bulk of the evidence is in favour of this conclusion.

[Update]

Other major points from Zaccardelli's testimony:

He has no intention of offering his resignation over the Arar affair.
There is no ongoing investigation into Arar or his wife.
He also flatly denies that the Conservative government has muzzled him in any way.

Maclean's characterizes him as "fighting to keep his job", which I think is yet another example of journalists taking themselves way too seriously. Just because the occasional journalist or back bench politician might have uttered the opinion that Zack should step down, the man isn't fighting to keep his job until the people who can fire him are starting to emit opinions like that. Get over yourselves, people. You don't run the country.

Technorati tags: Giuliano Zaccardelli, Maher Arar

Excellent commentary on the detainee bill

Finally! I feel like I've seen the light at the end of the tunnel! This is the absolute best commentary on the detainee bill and the issues surrounding it that I have seen yet. Not just commentary either, but a practical roadmap for the future. I wish Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal Group were in power. (My thanks to Pat of Stubborn Facts for drawing this article to my attention.)

In "The Right Approach to Rough Treatment," he grapples with the moral, legislative, and practical aspects of the detainee bill and offers some common sense solutions whereby virtually everybody on every side of this debate could come away reasonably satisfied. And all in a relatively short article in wonderfully clear and lucid language. A sample:

In any case, if a law bans the use of "alternative methods" even in the direst circumstances, it will succeed only in driving those methods underground. "Any president, Democrat or Republican, faced with really frightening, bone-chilling threat reports and credible claims that he can stop bad things from happening, is going to be very hard-pressed not to push his powers to the full extent of the law," says Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School and a former official in the Bush Justice Department. Responsible law-making respects not just human rights but also human realities.

My view is worth no more than yours or anyone else's, but here it is: The law should leave room for exceptional recourse to "alternative" interrogation techniques, while making sure that their use is genuinely exceptional. On that score, both the Bush bill and the Senate alternative improved on the post-9/11 Bush regime, under which the president made up the law as he went along and no one could say boo about it; and both improved on the Supreme Court's Hamdan regime, under which almost any sort of rough interrogation, however necessary, might be judged a war crime.

Both bills, though, made the same mistake: While concerning themselves quite properly with legality, they omitted accountability.

Read the entire article, as this excerpt taken out of context doesn't really do it justice. If I were an American citizen, I would be contacting my Congressman and Senators to promote Rauch's solutions.

As a normal rule, I don't comment much on internal American affairs, for the simple reason that I'm not an American. I've made an exception for the whole question of torture for several reasons. First, the moral issues are so profound and could have such a major impact on the rest of the world in so many ways, that I felt it would be irresponsible to just look the other way. Secondly, foreign nationals, including Canadians, are directly impacted by American legislation and practices. Lacking a vote and a representative to affect the issue directly, I have to hope that my discussion of it will, in some small way, contribute to the best possible outcome.

Technorati tags: Detainee Bill, Jonathan Rauch, National Journal Group

The National Intelligence Estimate and what it means [Updated]

Leaked reports by unnamed sources of the National Intelligence Estimate that came out a few days ago have been generating an enormous amount of media buzz.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

Needless to say, the Democrats are all over it, saying that this justifies withdrawing from Iraq as soon as possible.

The blogosphere is all over it too. Being committed to the idea that examining different viewpoints is essential to coming to any intelligent conclusion, I offer you some of the varying viewpoints.

Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Territory adamantly opposes the war in Iraq, and sees the report as providing the ultimate justification for that position. He didn't actually call for immediate withdrawal, mind you, at least not in this post.

So, a recap of the Iraq war: there were never any WMDs. The proliferation of government death squads and militias in Iraq means that, compared to the Saddam era, human rights have worsened and torture has increased to record levels. Iranian influence has massively increased, as a result of a Shiite fundamentalist government loyal to Tehran replacing the former anti-Iranian regime. We've squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. And we have -- according to the consensus of our own intelligence community -- directly worsened the terrorist problem with our invasion, and continue to worsen it with our ongoing occupation.

Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters approaches the issue from the other side and dismisses even the basic premise of the report.

It's a fascinating article, and one CQ readers should read in its entirety. It makes the classic logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation, and the basic premise can easily be dismissed with a reminder of some basic facts.

First and foremost, Islamist radicalism didn't just start expanding in 2003. The most massive expansion of Islamist radicalism came after the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when the Islamists defeated one of the world's superpowers. Shortly afterwards, the staging of American forces in Saudi Arabia to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait created the most significant impulse for the expansion of organized Islamist radicalism and led directly to the formation of al-Qaeda. It put the US in Wahhabi jihadist crosshairs for the first time.

Finally, Bobby at Stubborn Facts approaches the whole issue from a military background and provides a rather sophisticated analysis that is not as overtly partisan. His basic argument is that while the war in Iraq may have started as a war of choice, it has now become a war of necessity, and an immediate withdrawal could have disastrous consequences.

On the other hand, it does not logically follow that our security interests would be any better served by handing over control of the country to those radical Islamists who would likely come to power in a premature American withdrawal. In fact, in the event of a premature withdrawal (and by premature, I mean any withdrawal before the legitimate Iraqi government has developed the functional capability to provide for its own security, repond to the needs of its citizens, and provide for a stable Iraqi society that does not support international terrorism), it's far more likely that the Islamist radicals would be far better able to exploit this defeat-- by celebrating their victory and establishing bases of operation-- that would make the radicals more lethal, in terms of quantity and quality, in their attacks against the West.

I strongly recommend having a look at all three, especially Bobby's. At least read the ones you disagree with...

[Update - Sept. 26] John in the comments links us to Robert Kagan's column in the Washington Post. Anonymous Liberal has seen it too, and he sure didn't like it. He takes it on blow by blow in his post today. Meanwhile, Captain Ed is calling for the release of a redacted version. He's got his own set of quotes from the NIE, courtesy of Spook86, which suggest that there's a lot more nuance to it than the NYTimes' initial report would lead us to believe. He has a point. Selective quotes from unnamed sources are not exactly the bedrock of comprehensive, balanced reporting.

Technorati tags: National Intelligence Estimate

Truly frightening

I am depressed. And this is why.

The McCain-Graham-Warner proposal concerning military commissions was, from the beginning, an awful bill that was quite radical in its own right. As but one example, the senators' proposal strips all detainees in American custody of the right of habeas corpus, meaning that detainees are denied the right to challenge in court either the validity of their detention (e.g., by proving that they are not terrorists) or the legality of their treatment (e.g., by demonstrating that they have been tortured).

This denial-of-judicial-access provision means, as Yale law professor Jack Balkin explained, that the military can imprison, and torture, a detainee forever without ever bringing the detainee before a military commission, and the detainee has no means at all to challenge his detention or the treatment to which he is subjected. It is difficult to imagine a more radical power to vest in our government than the power to detain people (including legal residents in the U.S.) forever, and to torture them, while expressly denying a detainee all legal recourse. Yet that is exactly what the McCain-Graham-Warner proposal (and the White House's proposal) provides.

I would desperately love to hear that this is a serious distortion of the facts, that fundamental principles of justice have not been violated, and that the United States has not just taken the first great step towards becoming a police state.

Being something of a neophyte in American politics, I don't know if Glenn Greenwald is considered a loony lefty. I'm not sure it matters; I've never been overly impressed with ad hominem arguments and the mistaken impression that affixing a label trumps an argument. What I want to know from supporters of this bill is this: is this depiction accurate? Is it truly possible for an innocent to be trapped with no recourse? And if so, how can you support it? If not, please demonstrate. I would love to know that this is not actually reality. Because this kind of reality is truly frightening.

[Update] The Washington Post is also not impressed.

The bad news is that Mr. Bush, as he made clear yesterday, intends to continue using the CIA to secretly detain and abuse certain terrorist suspects. He will do so by issuing his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in an executive order and by relying on questionable Justice Department opinions that authorize such practices as exposing prisoners to hypothermia and prolonged sleep deprivation. Under the compromise agreed to yesterday, Congress would recognize his authority to take these steps and prevent prisoners from appealing them to U.S. courts. The bill would also immunize CIA personnel from prosecution for all but the most serious abuses and protect those who in the past violated U.S. law against war crimes.

[[Update]] Do read the comment thread. There's a good, constructive discussion going on.

Technorati tags: Detainee Bill

Harper gives speech to Economic Club

Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave a speech before the Economic Club of New York last night, and it looks like he hit a lot of right notes, both with Canadians and with his audience, who applauded him roundly.

Some highlights:

• He drew attention to the fact that Canada is the only stable and growing producer of oil, and the importance of this for continental security has been under-appreciated.
• He reminded his audience of the great efforts Canada has made in fighting terrorism since 9/11.
• Concerning border issues: "'Our border must not be seen as a fence where one country's national security stops and the other's begins. It's not like that in the real world,' he said in a prepared remarks released before the speech."
• He appealed to the prominent businessmen he was addressing to help improve poorly thought out and poorly implemented border security measures. "'And you in the American business community, who know what border disruptions could mean for business and tourist travel or for closely integrated supply chains, will be crucial in ensuring that (the measures) are implemented only in a pragmatic manner and on a realistic timetable.'''
• Canada is in Afghanistan for the right reasons and will remain until the mission is accomplished.
• On Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic: "We will defend our sovereignty over all our territory — including over the islands, waterways and resources of the High Arctic — even if that conflicts with American claims."
• Canada will continue to pay down its debt and cut taxes.
  

It is refreshing to see a Canadian prime minister address differences with the US without belligerence, and without giving these differences undue weight.

Technorati tags: Stephen Harper, Economic Club

Leahy calls border fence bone-headed

An American Senator with more than passing knowledge of Canadian/American relations has no patience for the idea of a fence along the Americans' northern border.

Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said the proposed wall would alienate one of America's staunchest allies and potentially cripple trade between the two nations.

"Have we gone blind? It is clear that those who want to build this have no clue about the character, the history and the day-to-day commercial importance of the northern border and the needs of the states and the communities being affected," said Leahy. "It would be best to nip this foolishness in the bud before Congress wastes more tax dollars on another boneheaded stunt. America can do better than this."

I do have to say, I agree with the Senator. Canada and the US have a relationship that is unprecedented in world history, on both cultural and economic levels. The proposal for a northern fence is poorly conceived, poorly researched, and displays a dismaying lack of knowledge both of the degree of the supposed danger and the very real damage that it would create.

Leahy, though, said a fence would do more to disrupt trade than protect the U.S. from harm.

"Heavens to Betsy. Most of us who live up there go back and forth all the time. We are visiting our relatives," said Leahy, who said his wife's family lives in Canada. "You know, these are not terrorists. I have heard some cockamamie ideas during my time in the Senate, but this rises to the top."

Technorati tags: Border fence, Patrick Leahy

Border fences

The San Francisco Chronicle blasts border fences as being not only stupid but counter -productive, arguing that the partial fence along the Mexican border has resulted in more, not fewer, illegal immigrants living in the US, in large part because just as many people keep coming north, and fewer of them can get back home.

I applaud this voice of reason. Border fences are colossally expensive and ineffective to boot. The lovers of fences are also militating in favour of building one along the Canadian border, which raises stupidity to stratospheric heights. (The border is 7000 miles long and not known to be a source of illegal immigrants.) Unfortunately the idea seems to have some traction in Congress. The only good I could see coming from it is a lessening the flood of illegal guns into Canada... (That was sarcasm, folks.)

Technorati tags: Border fences

RCMP nervous about O'Connor report

Justice O'Connor's report on the Maher Arar affair is due out on Monday. The Toronto Star reports that the RCMP is bracing for criticism of the way they passed information on to American authorities without proper analysis, but that they are likely to plead inexperience.

With this context, some observers are wondering if the government will respond to O'Connor's report by saying that the RCMP may have been inexperienced in the early days post-9/11 and mistakes were made, but improvements have already been implemented.

That was the reaction back in 2004 with the release of an internal RCMP report that found the force ill-equipped to deal with terrorism investigations.

"Post-9/11 was a different time (from) where we are now. Everything has changed," RCMP spokesperson Insp. Tim Cogan told the Star at the time. "We're in a different world today than we were then. ... A lot of progress has been made after this historically unprecedented event."

Well, at least they aren't trying to justify it.

Technorati tags: Maher Arar, Dennis O'Connor

Human rights in Canada

Dennis O'Connor's report into the Maher Arar affair should be released on Monday, and two other men who, like Arar, suffered torture in Syrian prisons are hoping for vindication also.

Warren Allmand, a Liberal cabinet minister in the 1970s and 80s who now heads the Montreal-based International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, said the key question in all the cases is whether Canada knowingly participated in the "out-sourced torture" of its citizens.

"It is not merely a question of whether there was negligence (but) whether these shameful incidents were carried out deliberately," said Allmand.

"What does all this say about the rule of law in Canada? Can officials and intelligence officers suspend the law and the Constitution to suit their own purposes?"

We must not fall into the trap of considering this to be a political issue pitting the left against the right. The Anti-terrorist Act was passed by a Liberal government and has not been seriously challenged by the Conservatives; "extraordinary rendition" first saw the light of day under Bill Clinton and has been extensively used under Bush's administration. There is blame and shame enough for everybody.

The issues here transcend political affilitation and empty-headed posturing. They are vital to conserving our liberal democracies and people from both ends of the political spectrum and points in between should be united in calling for an end to this kind of blatant injustice.

Please, contact your MP, Prime Minister, Senator, Congressman, President or anyone else with a voice in this matter and express your concern.

Technorati tags: Maher Arar, Dennis O'Connor

Padded cell vs. open road

Open letter to MP John Baird and Prime Minister Stephen Harper


Dear Sirs,

The Anti-terrorism Act is coming up for review. This law was passed hastily in the aftermath of 9/11 and contains some of the most alarming provisions ever enacted in a Canadian Parliament.

I have been impressed by the level-headedness and willingness to act according to principle that your government has demonstrated. Could you please use both in retooling this act?

Security certificates and the extremely broad wording limiting freedom of the press are especially troubling, as they dangerously undermine the foundational values of a free society. Allowing this legislation to be reintroduced in its present form would leave a legacy of open doors for legally sanctioned despotism. While you may have no intention of abusing the possibilities of this highly regressive act (although one could argue that any use at all is abuse), you cannot guarantee the actions of your successors.

I am confident that there are ways to protect our society from terrorism without sacrificing our most fundamental principles: freedom of speech, presumption of innocence and open trials.

I for one, am willing to accept some measure of risk in protecting these principles. Padded cells may be safe and even comfortable, but I prefer the risk of the open road.

On a related note, I believe it is high time that charges against Juliet O'Neill were dropped. This was a shameful move by the previous government and it dishonours you to allow it to continue.

Respectfully,

Technorati tags: Juliet O'Neill, Anti-Terrorism Act

Subcontracting torture

Maher Arar has moved to B.C. And I for one wish him well. I didn't know the man, although I did run into him on the street a couple of times when we lived in the same neighbourhood. But the mere thought of what he has had to go through makes my blood boil.

I don't care how spooked we or the Americans were by 9/11, there is NEVER any excuse whatsoever for sending ANYBODY to be tortured in foreign jails. Which is what happened to Maher Arar, on the flimsiest of evidence, with no court hearings, no appeal.

This is such a fundamental breach of justice it just about makes me ill. I don't believe for a minute that he was guilty. Guilty people do not clamour loudly for extensive public investigations, as Arar has. But even if he had been a fire-breathing jihadist, we profoundly violate our own values as a society if we take our own criminals and hand them over to other criminals who happen to be in charge in another society.

First, it violates the principle of presumption of innocence. Quite frankly, if we sacrifice that, we might just as well join the Taliban, because we have lost one of the main things that allows us to claim any moral superiority over them.

Secondly, it violates the principle of an accused person to face those accusations in an open trial. Again, this is such a fundamental principle of our society that it can not and must not be sacrificed.

Thirdly, we are big boys and girls. If we have terrorists to deal with, we are capable of handling them. We don't need Syrian torture chambers. This was not only a violation of fundamental justice, but an abdication of responsibility.

Fourthly, torture is just plain wrong. You may call this a subjective moral judgment, but I'm not budging. It's too big a topic to handle in this context, so I may tackle it another time.

Fifthly, even if you can stomach the idea of torture, in practice, it is horribly inefficient. Confessions and information obtained under torture are always highly suspect.

Sixthly, it was a violation of Canadian sovereignty. What business do American officials have deciding to deport a Canadian citizen, dual citizenship or not? He hadn't violated any American laws on American territory. Public inquiries or no, I don't think we've ever really found out how much Canadian complicity there was in this affair (correct me if I'm wrong). From the little I know about it, there was some cooperation between the police forces and possibly secret services of the two countries, which might make this a moot point.

Great as the wrong committed against Arar was, we violated ourselves just as much in this whole sorry affair. No one has ever been held responsible, no heads have rolled, and as far as I know, no measures have been implemented to ensure it doesn't happen again. We desperately need to address these issues or risk becoming a society unworthy of defence.

Technorati tags: Maher Arar