According to ABC News, al-Qaeda uses social networking sites like MySpace.com to plan attacks and stay connected:

After relying heavily on fixed — and thus vulnerable — Web sites until early 2002, al Qaeda quickly switched to hiding its online operations within more legitimate bulletin boards and Internet sites offering free upload services or connecting through such popular social network sites as Orkut and MySpace.

This raises some obvious questions:

• Does bin Laden have a blog?
• How many people are on his friends list?
• Is facilitating terrorist attacks against MySpace policy?

In related news, al-Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Ghaith announced the creation of a new social networking and dating website called MyJihadist.com.

“The life of the mujahedin is an often solitary one. Frequently, the only companions our warriors have is their camels. With MyJihadist.com, we hope to change that, by giving eligible Muslim women the opportunity to become widows while they are still young.”

The site will also feature articles on the jihadist lifestyle, from tips on beard hygiene to how to plan for a very early retirement.

I received my first response today to the letter I wrote regarding Canada’s treatment of prisoners: a postcard from the Minister of Defence.

The card, which is actually from the Minister’s Correspondence Unit at National Defence Headquarters, is handsomely emblazoned with the coat of arms of the Canadian Forces on one side and says this on the other:

Acknowledgement

This is to confirm that the Minister of National Defence has received your recent correspondence.

Gee, thanks.

We are seeing the beginning of a vigorous debate on Canada’s role in Afghanistan, spurred by Canada’s recent takeover of command in the south and our recent casualties there.

Military officials have said Canadian troops will be required there for at least a decade, so we can expect a steadily mounting body count, and with it, a raucous struggle between Canadian liberals and conservatives – one that is sure to feature unhealthy amounts of mudslinging and accusations of cowardice and naivete, or war-mongering and complicity with American imperialism.

Here are a couple of good examples. The first is from an article called The Good Fight by Lorne Gunter, published in the National Post:

[W]e are not simply [in Afghanistan] to win favour with Washington.

To believe that, you have to forget Canadians were killed by Taliban-supported terrorists on 9/11, that Canadians died as a result of plots hatched in Afghan caves and at the hands of killers trained in Afghan terrorist camps. You have to see the war in the Afghan mountains as just another conflict among far-off warlords who are pretty much morally equivalent. You would have to believe we shouldn’t be taking sides.

Above all, you have to swallow the naive conviction that if we simply show no aggression toward the extremist Muslims we are fighting there, they will show no aggression toward us. Canada won’t be a target so long as no Canadians are fighting terrorists or their co-religionists overseas. So let’s all scurry into our hidey-holes and wait for the current unpleasantness to blow over.

The second is from an article with a long title by Linda McQuaig, published in the Toronto Star:

Our troops are attempting a number of things in Afghanistan, including helping the Afghan people build a country. But we are also there to wage war, to kill “scumbags” who “detest our freedoms,” as our top military leader, Gen. Rick Hillier, has said.

Of course, the main reason we’re in Afghanistan is because the Americans want us there to support their “war on terror,” and we see this as a way to make up to them for not joining their invasion of Iraq.

McQuaig goes on to ask, “So is Canada’s mission in Afghanistan really about preserving our ‘way of life,’ or about helping Washington extend its economic and military hegemony?”

Stephen Harper’s decision to reject a debate in Parliament on Canada’s increased and apparently extended role in Afghanistan makes the issue even more confusing. A debate in Parliament would clear the air a little by allowing MPs to explain their personal positions and those of their parties, instead of leaving us to be picked over by spokespeople and spin doctors.

Statements like this one by Harper, as reported by the CBC, make the situation even stranger:

“It’s not the intention of this government to question the particular commitment when our troops are in danger,” he said. “Such a debate or such a lack of strength by any of the political parties in Canada will merely weaken the resolve of our troops and will even put our troops in even more danger.”

Are we to honestly believe that the Conservatives will not question any decisions made by the Liberals? Who controls Canadian policy in Afghanistan: the generals, or the government? Do debates really put our troops in “more danger”?

The situation in Afghanistan is, as usual, more complex than the forces of left and right would have us believe. On the one hand, the decision to invade Afghanistan was not a knee-jerk reaction by Canada because “Canadians died as a result of plots hatched in Afghan caves”, as Lorne Hunter says. And we should not be frightened to ask why Islamist fundamentalists despise the West so much, and why we ended up on bin Laden’s hit list.

On the other hand, “Afghanistan is not Iraq”, says Ahmed Rashid in It’s Worth The Sacrifice (Word document), in spite of the constant comparisons made between the countries by people opposed to the wars there:

Today, NATO has as much of a responsibility to Afghanistan as the Americans do. But some NATO countries, such as the Netherlands, are balking at the prospect of having to carry out not just peacekeeping but also combat duties, as the south is the epicentre of the Taliban/al-Qaeda resurgence.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. For every layer of lies, subterfuge and lack of legality that we now know constituted Washington’s raison d’être for its invasion of Iraq, there was a parallel layer of transparency, international legality and massive public support when the United Nations Security Council and NATO sanctioned the removal of the Taliban regime in 2001.

The proof lies in the fact that, five years after the defeat of the Taliban, the majority of Afghans still support the presence of NATO troops in their country. Contrast that with Iraq.

A poll conducted in late 2005 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that the “Afghan public overwhelmingly rejects al-Qaeda [and the] Taliban”, “endorses the overthrow of the Taliban” and “strongly supports [the] US and international presence” there.

I can’t speak for the accuracy of that poll, but the idea that Canada’s mission in Afghanistan enjoys the support of many Afghans is reassuring. Given the brutal and repressive nature of the Taliban, it’s not particularly surprising, either.

But that doesn’t mean we can do whatever we want. Our conduct in Afghanistan needs to be examined as closely as our reasons for being there.

The Taliban were killers and they harboured al-Qaeda, but that doesn’t excuse the US air strikes that turned Afghan villages into rubble, killing many civilians, or the US support of the murderers and rapists of the Northern Alliance. Nor does the shadowy nature of al-Qaeda and the Afghan insurgency justify imprisoning hundreds of people without trial in secretive American prisons, or their abuse, “extraordinary rendition”, torture and even murder.

To truly build a free and democratic Afghanistan requires absolute respect for human rights and for the law, equally, fairly and transparently applied to Afghan and foreigner alike. That includes ending Canadian support for the Guantanomo prison and our practice of handing detainees over to Americans or anyone else who doesn’t guarantee their right to a trial and their safe treatment.

If that means Canada needs to create fair tribunals for people our troops capture, and a prison to house the ones that are found guilty, that is a price we should be willing to pay: because sacrificing Canadian values in order to promote them doesn’t make a whit of sense.

The New York Times has a piece today called Voices Baffled, Brash and Irate in Guantánamo that takes a look at some of the detainees whose stories emerged from recently released Pentagon documents.

The article describes some bizarre situations:

At one review hearing last year, an Afghan referred to by the single name Muhibullah denied accusations that he was either the former Taliban governor of Shibarghan Province or had worked for the governor. The solution to his case should have been simple, Mr. Muhibullah suggested to the three American officers reviewing his case: They should contact the Shibarghan governor and ask him.

But the presiding Marine Corps colonel said it was really up to the detainee to try to contact the governor. Assuming that the annual review board denied his petition for freedom, noted the officer, whose name was censored from the document, Mr. Muhibullah would have a year to do so.

“How do I find the governor of Shibarghan or anybody?” the detainee asked.

“Write to them,” the presiding officer responded. “We know that it is difficult but you need to do your best.”

“I appreciate your suggestion, but it is not that easy,” Mr. Muhibullah said.

In related news, the Guardian newspaper reports on a new Amnesty International report that claims 14,000 people have been imprisoned in Iraq by US and UK forces without trial.

In a new report published today, the human rights group criticised the US-led multinational force for interning some 14,000 people.

Around 3,800 people have been held for over a year, while another 200 have been detained for more than two years, the report – Beyond Abu Ghraib: detention and torture in Iraq – said.

“It is a dangerous precedent for the world that the US and UK think it completely defensible to hold thousands of people without charge or trial,” Amnesty spokesman Neil Durkin said.

The detainee situation in Iraq was comparable to Guantánamo Bay, he added, but on a much larger scale, and the detentions appeared to be “arbitrary and indefinite”.

In the interest of full disclosure, I think Paul McCartney is a pretentious bag of wind. My opinion is based on all the TV interviews I’ve ever seen with the man, which is probably fewer than 10. He comes off as a pedantic, self-obsessed millionaire – a guy who thinks he owes the world a good spanking.

Mine is not an expert opinion, so you can tell me if I’m wrong. You can tell me he’s a noble guy, and a great musician to boot. You can even tell me he uses his celebrity status to better the world, and I won’t argue. However, you can’t tell me that Paul McCartney has any credibility, especially in the Arctic. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

Sir Paul is a known animal rights activist. To demonstrate his love of animals Sir Paul has become a vegan, a spokesperson for the American Humane Society and the British-based group Respect for Animals; he has even personally boycotted China. He will never play a concert in China because the Chinese kill cats and dogs for fur. He did not, however, have any trouble playing at the 2005 Super Bowl. Apparently, the American fur industry is ok by Sir Paul. He wades hip-deep in his own hypocrisy.

Yesterday, Sir Paul brought his finger-wagging road show to the Canadian Arctic, ostensibly to protest the Canadian seal hunt. He called the hunt “heart breaking” and an “unjustified, outdated and truly horrific practice.” Sir Paul said he doesn’t want “local people to suffer…but this is something that leaves a stain on the character of the Canadian people…and I don’t think the vast amount of Canadians think that’s right.”

There you have it: vast amounts of Canadians. Paul McCartney says you oppose the seal hunt. I for one am relieved to have such a noble (literally) and credible spokesperson to act pejoratively on my behalf.

Again, in the interest of full disclosure, here are some facts from the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans:

• Canada’s seal population is healthy and abundant. The harp seal herd — the most important seal herd for this industry — is estimated at around five million animals, nearly the highest level ever recorded, and almost triple what it was in the 1970s.
• The hunting methods presently used were studied by the Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing in Canada and they found that the clubbing of seals, when properly performed, is at least as humane as, and often more humane than, the killing methods used in commercial slaughterhouses, which are accepted by the majority of the public.
• Methods used to kill seals in Canada were found to be generally more humane than the shooting of animals for sport. The Commission also found that no methods of killing which have come to their notice, other than clubbing or shooting, achieve acceptable standards of humaneness.
• In September 2002, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) issued a Special Report on Animal Welfare and the Harp Seal Hunt in Atlantic Canada. The conclusion of the CVMA study is that virtually all seals taken during the hunt (98 per cent) are killed in an acceptably humane manner.

Here is some more of the DFO’s myth busting on the issue (they don’t have an ageing rock star spokesperson, so you can choose to ignore them altogether if you like).

There are various objections to the seal hunt, and I won’t tell you that they are wrong. Truly, seal pups are killed, despite the law prohibiting the act. Seals are clubbed on to death and skinned for their fur. As well, the economic necessity of the seal hunt in some remote communities might be cause for bias in government regulation. These are all indisputable facts.

But is this issue really about seals? I would argue that seal pups look nicer on posters than several other animals – to the same degree Paul McCartney is more visually appealing than Loyola Hearn. So, I am not convinced that protests to the seal hunt are anything more than carefully orchestrated media junkets for animal rights groups. The seal pup is their best prop.

Ottawa Sun Columnist Michael Harris:

The seal hunt is as legal as any other abattoir operation. The difference is that this slaughterhouse is outdoors, where you can see — and be seen […] as a spectator sport, mass killing of anything — fish, fowl, or four footed — is never an agreeable sight. But if the seal hunt ought to be stopped, so too should the operations that supply our barbecues and ovens, that send animals to scalding tanks, and killing floors and dangle them by one leg from chains on their wide-eyed way to the knife. So too should farm operations that force-feed geese to bloat their livers for foie gras. And let’s not forget all those defenceless calves that die in the name of our right to veal cutlets.

Canada’s seal hunt is the largest in the world, and so it has drawn the attention of the world’s largest rock star. But is this the most effective use of Sir Paul’s celebrity? I think he has more time on his hands than he has good sense in his head.

———
This article was written be alevo.