After considering mixed feedback from prominent members of the 9/11 Truth community, we have decided to revise our proposal for The Vancouver Hearings, to be held at Vancouver’s Denman Theater on 15-17 June 2012. Upon reflection, we believe that our preliminary proposal, which called The Toronto Hearings “acutely disappointing,” was a mistake.
Our aim in holding the Vancouver Hearings is not to belittle The Toronto Hearings. On the contrary, we appreciate the efforts of those who organized The Toronto Hearings and agree that the overall evidence presented there does amount to a convincing case against the US government’s version of what happened on 9/11.
The purpose of The Vancouver Hearings instead is to critique and supplement the Toronto Hearings, not undermine or dismiss them. The Vancouver Hearings will feature experts who will analyze and question certain aspects of the evidence presented at The Toronto Hearings—as well as other experts who will argue in favor of The Toronto Hearings’ evidence. We are open to and would welcome additional speakers from A&E911, for example, to insure that we have a balanced panel to confront the controversial aspects of 9/11 in an effort to contribute to greater unity within the 9/11 movement.
The Vancouver Hearings is designed to expand the range of inquiry in relation to the issues addressed at The Toronto Hearings. Those hearings limited themselves to presenting what the organizers considered the “best evidence” against the official version of 9/11, without considering questions of who actually perpetrated the attacks and why. Only limited attention was given to the Pentagon charade, for example, while problems related to the planes and the passengers were not confronted. It was not intended to address the more controversial aspects of 9/11 research.
Plane in Pentagon frame is not a Boeing 757
We, the organizers of The Vancouver Hearings, do not completely agree with the organizers of The Toronto Hearings about which evidence is the best evidence against the official story of 9/11. For example, like the majority of the 9/11 truth community, we believe that the evidence contradicting the government’s contention that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon is just as compelling as evidence for the “demolitions under control” of the World Trade Center skyscrapers. In our view, The Toronto Hearings did not do justice to the importance of the Pentagon issue—though we applaud the excellent presentation by Barbara Honegger.
We believe that the fabrication of the attack on the Pentagon affords a proof of governmental duplicity at least as persuasive as what we all agree was the classic “controlled demolition” of WTC-7. But we also believe that the absence of any proof that the alleged hijackers were aboard any of the planes, the presence of proof that all of the phone calls from the planes were faked, and the absence of debris from bona fide airplane crashes in Shanksville, at the Pentagon and in New York all deserve more attention and dissection to establish what happened and how it was done.
Likewise, we do not agree with those who believe the entire 9/11 truth movement should limit itself to debunking the official account without considering the question of who actually perpetrated the attacks and for what motive. If there is evidence that neo-cons in the Department of Defense were involved, we should present it. If there is evidence of complicity by the Mossad, we should pursue it. We think enough evidence already exists to bring a many criminal indictments in any honest judicial system and to construct a reliable historical narrative concerning the perpetrators and motives behind the 9/11 attacks.
Special effects at the Pentagon
The five areas in which we believe a supplemental conference of this kind can make a constructive contribution include especially these:
(1) how the Twin Towers were destroyed through a comparison of the explanatory power of alternative theories of conventional explosives, exotic accelerants including nano-thermite, mini-nukes and directed energy devices;
(2) the role of the planes in these events, where there is a noticeable absence of debris of the kinds and quantities expected at all four of the alleged “crash sites”–and where there are even indications that some kind of video fakery may have occurred in New York;
(3) the absence of proof that the alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of the planes, that the purported “phone calls” were faked, and that even the passenger manifests are suspect and cannot be taken to be authentic;
(4) who was responsible and why it was done, including an evaluation of evidence that implicates neo-cons in the Department of Defense and other—surprisingly extensive—indications that the Mossad had an important role in this; and,
(5) the role of the media in collaboration with the intelligence agencies in covering up what really happened, typified by Jane Standley’s early report that WTC-7 had collapsed, when the building was visible over her shoulder and would not occur for nearly 30 minutes more.
For these and other reasons, we believe that a follow-up conference like this one, which addresses both the accomplishments and the limitations of The Toronto Hearings, will be a worthwhile exercise. We invite those who disagree with us on any of these issues to submit suggestions of names for potential speakers at The Vancouver Hearings. We have a tentative line-up representing alternative positions, but we are open to additional participants representing alternative points of view.
The South Tower “tipping”
Some of us have been down this road before. In arranging for the Madison Conference on “The Science and Politics of 9/11”, Jim Fetzer made it a point of inviting Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others to speak, but they either declined or did not respond. Others who had accepted our invitation withdrew and, as a consequence, a meeting that was intended to deal with controversial aspects of 9/11 was, very much like The Toronto Hearings, only a mixed success.
Here is the chance to overcome the shortcomings and limitations of those past events. We cannot resolve the differences that divide us unless we confront them. Our commitment to reason and 9/11 Truth should be more than sufficient to motivate us as a 9/11 community to share our expertise in order to establish mutual understanding and a greater degree of unity. This is an opportunity that we should exploit for the benefit of rational inquiry and to advance 9/11 Truth.
Indeed, as a token of our sincerity in seeking the truth about these issues and in respect for their contributions to 9/11 Truth, we hereby invite Richard Gage, AIA, and Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University to be roving commentators, who may not only speak at any session but have the first opportunity to raise questions after other speakers have been heard. We will provide them with transportation as well as accommodations for insuring that we are on the “straight and narrow” regarding such issues as the explosive capabilities of nano-thermite.
Proposals from those who presented at The Toronto Hearings and wish to respond to any prospective critics at the Vancouver Hearings will be welcomed and an effort will be made to accommodate them. We would also be glad to arrange panel discussions and debates between experts holding opposing perspectives on the issues we are addressing. Indeed, each session is being organized with that objective in mind. Further feedback on this project is welcome and we encourage suggestions to be submitted to any of the authors.
On June 3, 2008, former Canadian politician/UN ambassador/pro-Israeli flack Allan Rock became U of O president.
His administration’s marked by secrecy, political censorship, abuse of students and faculty, and repudiation of fundamental university values.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association reprimanded him for banning an Israeli Apartheid Week poster. He then pressured a student union president into distancing the organization from the student-run Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG). It opposes repressive Israeli practices as do growing millions.
In September 2008, Rock got the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors (EBOG) to suspend tenured Professor Denis Rancourt. In December, he recommended dismissing him and barring him from campus. In March 2009, he fired him for his principled stand on Israel/Palestine, but blamed it on his creative teaching methods.
Rancourt is a distinguished physics professor, a recognized expert in his field, and a “phenomenal teacher” according to members of the Environmental Studies Student Association.
Its members said he provided an “extremely enriching individualized…. empower(ing and) positive learning environment where inspired students gained confidence and courage.”
Yet Rock twisted his innovate pedagogical approach and grading methods as pretext to fire him. He then ordered campus police to ban and remove him from campus, assigned his graduate students to other faculty members, fired his post doctoral research fellow, and summarily dismissed him without cause.
That’s how despots operate. Under Rock, U of O is more police state than university. As a result, education and learning suffer.
Ironically, U of O’s Vision 2010 claims it “Support(s) and recognize(s) initiatives designed to implement a range of new and diversified strategies for learning and evaluation.”
Rancourt wanted U of O pedagogically improved and more democratic. He also advocated effectively on environmental concerns, professional ethics, lobbying, media influence, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In response, university officials silenced him by banishment.
In addition, Freedom of Information (FOI) documents showed he was victimized by intense illegal surveillance. A student spy and professional reporters were enlisted to produce transcripts of his academic and professional talks at other universities to use against him.
Most likely, it was the first time a university used a student to spy on a professor and like-minded students in violation of Canadian and international law.
Under Rock, U of O is a hotbed of autocratic extremism. It’s also racist, according to a November 2011 lawsuit. A January 30, 2012 press release explained, saying:
“Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy (Neurosurgery Residency Program, University of Ottawa), Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail (Cardiac Surgery Residency Program) and Dr. Manal Al-Saigh (same) have filed a joint action against the University of Ottawa and several of its officials.”
Those charged include Dr. Jacques Bradwejn (Dean of the Faculty of Medicine), Dr. James Worthington (Ottawa Hospital’s Vice President of Medical Affairs and Patient Safety), Dr. Paul Bragg (Associate Dean Postgraduate Medical Education), Dr. Eric Poulin (Chair of Cardiac Surgery), Dr. Richard Moulton (Neurosurgery Chair), Dr. Fraser Rubens (Cardiac Surgery Program Director), and Dr. John Sinclair (former Neurosurgery Program Director.
Charges relate to university discrimination against foreign medical students at both provincial and national levels. It also focuses specifically on U of O abuses.
In spring 2011, plaintiffs held a press conference announcing a Human Rights Complaint against U of O. Attorneys Douglas Christie and Barbara Kulaszka represent them.
Their November 2011 lawsuit detailed charges explicitly and extensively. For example, plaintiff Khalid Aba-Alkhail AlGhaithy asked for $25 million in damages for wrongful dismissal and violation of his freedom of expression under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as Section 15(1), pertaining to issues of equality, right to equal protection, as well as benefits without discrimination.
Other charges included conspiracy to injure, public office malfeasance, defamation, intimidation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of contract, U of O liability for negligence and breach of contract, vicarious liability, and violations of the 1990 Human Rights Code.
Plaintiffs also said defendants treated them “in a high-handed and oppressive manner. The conduct of the University and the individual defendants described herein constitute such wanton and reckless disregard of their professional duties, their contractual obligation as well as their Charter obligations, and (have) caused such devastating harm that an award of punitive and aggravated damages is warranted.”
Damages plaintiffs suffered include loss of income, reputation, mental distress and suffering (including depression and anxiety), loss of future employment as surgeons, and loss of time and opportunity to pursue other medical specialties.
A Toronto trial was requested. At issue is securing a neutral venue, exposing U of O administration and faculty abuses, and assuring justice is served. Nothing less is acceptable.
Vancouver, B.C. — An upcoming planned speaking engagement in Canada by former President George W. Bush is again generating a wave of protest. Bush is reportedly scheduled to speak on October 20th at a gathering in Surrey, British Columbia hosted by Surrey Mayor Diane Watts.
But Lawyers Against the War (LAW) says the Canadian government must either bar Bush at the border because of his alleged involvement in torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity, or order his arrest when he enters Canada both to ensure he is prosecuted here or elsewhere, and to prevent him from returning to safe haven from prosecution in the United States.
In an August 25 letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian Ministers of justice, immigration, public safety and foreign affairs, the group says “there is overwhelming evidence that George W. Bush …aided and abetted and counseled the torture of non-Americans at U.S. controlled prisons outside the U.S.”
The 7-page letter cites evidence of complicity in torture (and other crimes) from numerous international reports and authorities, including Bush himself: “In his 2010 memoirs, (Bush) admitted to authorizing the use of interrogation techniques that constitute torture such as water boarding.”
The letter goes on to spell out Canada’s “legal duty to deny safe haven from prosecution to anyone suspected on reasonable grounds of torture committed anywhere against any persons.” This is a duty owed not just to Canadians but to all humankind. Barring entry is the first way that Canada can comply with this legal duty.
However, once G.W. Bush enters the country, Canada must then act to ensure that George W. Bush is prosecuted for torture (and other crimes) by either prosecuting him in Canada or extraditing him to a country willing and able to prosecute. Canada’s duty to prevent Mr. Bush from having safe haven from prosecution for the many crimes that he stands reasonably accused of, would require Canada to prevent him from returning to the United States.
The August 25/11 letter is signed by Gail Davidson of LAW, and Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law.
Professor Boyle has filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales for extraordinary renditions, which include torture and enforced disappearances, both crimes under the Rome Statute for the ICC to which Canada is a party.
Although the US is not a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute Bush administration officials for extraordinary renditions carried out in states that are party to the Rome Statute. (See at footnote 9, page 4 of LAW’s August 25th letter, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving council of Europe member states).
Professor Boyle’s ICC Complaint played a decisive role in deterring Bush from going to Switzerland in February 2011 because he feared prosecution there.
“New legislation in the US threatens to conflate campus criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism” reports Kristin Szremski
Great ! This shows the immense power that “the Organization”, the major pro-Israel organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America and the Anti-Defamation League has to beat down, censor and muzzle popular demand against amazing majority numbers in the face of all reason and “democratic” principle.
And, it also illustrates the cupidity, weakness, and failures of moral principles of elected representatives in the US and Canada to stand up for principle and the will of their constituency when confronted with, promises, offers, influence, coercion, intimidation and probably blackmail, as well as greed and ambition.
Eventually this will all have to be be brought and argued before the US Supreme Court. But, it is so patently a restriction of freedom of speech and association, that no one will permit it to go that far until they are absolutely assured that they have the Court stacked solidly enough, and public opinion sufficiently frightened or conditioned to accept a finding, one way or the other.
And, that will be a difficult thing to do because, as ignorant and uncontemplative as most of John Q Publius may be, even the suggestion of loss of their freedom of speech frightens them. There is still a strong racist undercurrent of distrust of Jews which has not been eliminated in America by decades of civil rights legislation but merely hidden under a very thin veneer of civility, tolerance and fear of being called a racist, as the Zionists have known for a long time and used it as a weapon… but when confronted and threatened many of those same John Q Publius will unbutton their collars and show just how red their necks actually are.
It is a sad thing to contemplate, indeed, that it is this red-neck of America which may be the ultimate instrument of its salvation from Zionism in the end. That is how badly the culture has suffered at the hands of these people.
Now I am beginning to sound like John Kaminski so I had better go and rest my tired brain and leave you to ponder below some hard truths and facts as reported by Kristin Szremski. Perhaps American college student troops can help bring Israel to its senses.
If the voice of the students are not to be heard and are under attack on college campuses in North America, they should shout louder and every one of them go on strike, and picket the entire University until it comes to a standstill.
Large amounts of grant money which supports the University, most of which comes from AIPAC, ADL and American-Jewish controlled foundations in America, is important, but students and American student satisfaction are ESSENTIAL to the Institutions’ survival!
New moves to curb criticism of IsraHell in US and Canada
by Kristin Szremski
New legislation in the US threatens to conflate campus criticism of IsraHell with anti-Semitism.
A number of new initiatives to curtail freedom of speech by conflating opposition to IsraHell crimes with anti-Semitism are underway in the United States and Canada.
The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) issued a report in early July recommending the adoption of strict new standards defining anti-Semitism and the types of speech and campus activities that would violate them. Its report urged the Canadian government to adopt the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’s definition of anti-Semitism (“Report on the Inquiry Panel,” 7 July 2011 [PDF]). That definition suggests that any questioning of whether Israel has the right to exist as a state that privileges Jews over people of other religions or ethnic backgrounds amounts to anti-Semitism.
Though the Canadian group is not linked to the Ottawa government, it has 22 parliamentarians as members. Activities it deems as anti-Semitic and, therefore, calls to be banned, include events such as the Israeli Apartheid Week that was founded in Toronto and now takes place on college campuses internationally every March.
The Canadian report is just the latest attempt at stifling public discourse about Israel. Free speech and the unimpeded exchange of ideas are also under attack on America’s college campuses. Pro-Israel supporters have targeted federal funding for academic institutions, including support for research and academic conferences, under the pretext that criticism of Israel is “hate speech.”
Federal authorities from the Office of Civil Rights with the US Department of Education are investigating charges of anti-Semitism against the University of California Santa Cruz, as well as at other institutions within the California university system, according to published reports. These are the first investigations taking place since Title VI of the Civil Rights Act was re-interpreted in October 2010, allowing Jewish students, as members of a religious group, to claim discrimination under a provision that previously applied only to racial and ethnic bigotry.
A “dear colleague” letter issued by the Office of Civil Rights in October 2010 said that discrimination against a student who is a member of a religious group violates Title VI when the discrimination is based on the group’s “actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics … or when it is based upon the student’s actual or perceived citizenship or residency in a country whose residents share a dominant religion or a distinct religious identity,” David Thomas, a US Department of Education spokesman, explained by email.
Bowing to the Zionist lobby
Major pro-Israel organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America and the Anti-Defamation League have lobbied for this re-interpretation for years. Title VI now can be applied to Jewish students who claim universities create hostile campus environments if they allow pro-Palestinian events or even class lectures critical of Israeli policies.
In other words, since Israel bills itself as a Jewish state, of which all Jews everywhere are automatic citizens, Jewish students can file complaints of anti-Semitism and discrimination based upon their perceived ethnicity and citizenship or residency in a country that has a “dominant religion.”
Dr. Hatem Bazian, a Palestinian-American professor of Near Eastern and Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, who founded the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) there in 2001, takes issue with the amended understanding of Title VI. While he agrees that Jewish students, as well as Muslim students, should be protected from discrimination based on their religious identity under Title VI, he believes the reinterpretation is actually being used to silence debate about Israel.
“Attempts to silence opposition to the illegal Israeli occupation and policies is un-American and amounts to political and academic censorship,” Bazian said via email. (Bazian is also the chairman of American Muslims for Palestine, the organization with which this writer is employed).
The Title VI reinterpretation and the subsequent case against Santa Cruz is part of a growing trend of stifling of protected political speech on college campuses. Several lecturers and professors have been censured and even denied tenure because they openly criticized Israeli policies or advocated for Palestinian rights.
Perhaps the most widely publicized cases are those of former DePaul University professor Norman Finkelstein and North Carolina State University professor Terri Ginsberg, both of whom were not given tenure because of their open criticism of Israeli policies in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Ginsberg initiated legal action against North Carolina State and her case is currently on appeal.
Freedom of information denied
The new interpretation has rejuvenated a 29-page complaint brought against the University of California Santa Cruz in June 2009 by lecturer Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, the contents of which have been kept secret by the Department of Education and university officials.
On 13 April, American Muslims for Palestine filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the complaint with the San Francisco Office of Civil Rights. Federal authorities declined the request on 22 April, saying that supplying the complaint would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” and that it could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,” both of which are listed as exemptions under the federal FOIA statute.
What is so troubling in the University of California Santa Cruz investigation is that the amended interpretation is being applied retroactively to Rossman-Benjamin’s complaint, which she filed more than one year before the October 2010 “dear colleague” letter. No one contacted from the university or the Department of Education would discuss how an institution can be held liable for something that was not considered to be a violation at the time it occurred.
“[The Office of Civil Rights] received the UC-Santa Cruz complaint … on 25 June 2009,” Thomas wrote in an email to American Muslims for Palestine. “On 7 March 2011, OCR formally notified the university and the complainant that OCR was opening for investigation the allegations that a hostile environment existed for Jewish students at the university in 2009 in violation of Title VI and that the university had notice of the hostile environment but did not have a process to adequately respond to hostile environment complaints.”
Thomas failed to respond to American Muslims for Palestine’s direct question about how the new interpretation could be applied retroactively, though it was posed three times in three separate emails on 13 and 15 April.
Jim Burns, a University of California Santa Cruz spokesman, also would not address that issue and instead referred it back to the Department of Education’s civil rights office. He did tell American Muslims for Palestine in an email, however, that the Office of Civil Rights is reviewing a complaint that “speech on campus that is critical of Israel creates a hostile environment for Jewish students.”
“We believe that [the Office of Civil Rights’] investigation will ultimately conclude that [the University of California Santa Cruz] diligently enforces laws, policies and practices that protect our students’ civil rights. But we also believe that our review of the matter with OCR will provide us with an opportunity to examine our relevant policies and practices to ensure that is the case,” he added.
If federal investigators find a university to be in violation of Title VI and the institution does not remedy the situation satisfactorily it could lose federal funding. This is a worst-case scenario to be sure, but it is one that seemingly threatens the open exchange of ideas on college campuses.
“While some of the recent allegations … might well raise a claim under Title VI, many others simply seek to silence anti-Israel discourse and speakers. This approach is not only unwarranted under Title VI, it is dangerous,” Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Presidents (AAUP), and Kenneth Stern of the American Jewish Committee, wrote recently in an open letter on AAUP’s website.
“The purpose of a university is to have students wrestle with ideas with which they may disagree, or even better, may make them uncomfortable. To censor ideas is to diminish education, and to treat students as fragile recipients of ‘knowledge,’ rather than young critical thinkers,” they added.
American Muslims for Palestine’s Hatem Bazian said the implications of the re-interpretation go far beyond free speech in the classroom and at extra-curricular events. Funding for scholarly research and academic conferences that bring up “legitimate criticism of Israel” may be at stake, he said.
“The new interpretation will directly, first and foremost, impact those who administer Title VI funding, and they for sure will be more hesitant and will engage in self-censorship in funding research or activities that are critical of Israel,” Bazian said.
Indeed, the Anti-Defamation League was one of 12 national organizations that urged the Department of Education to amend its Title VI interpretation. It may have just been a co-signer in that battle but the ADL has taken the lead in many high-profile cases to stifle free speech and public debate in its hundred-year history.
In March, the ADL, along with the American Jewish Committee and the Bay Area Jewish Community Relations Council, protested an academic conference at the UC Hastings College of the Law in March entitled “Litigating Palestine: Can Courts Secure Palestinian Rights?” Their protest was so effective the university board voted to remove its name and endorsement for the event and it prevented university Chancellor Frank Wu from making opening remarks.
UC BERKLEY DIVESTMENT VOTE
Challenging Israel on campus
Writing about the incident in the San Francisco Chronicle, Cecilie Surasky, deputy director of Jewish Voice for Peace, stated that “Perhaps for the first time in US history, there is an aggressive challenge to a one-sided narrative that covers up or justifies ongoing Israeli repression of Palestinians” (“Pressure on law conference threatens free speech,” 21 April 2011).
Surasky added, “The center of that challenge is on campuses, which is why those who have traditionally adopted knee-jerk defenses of Israeli policies are attempting to stigmatize or shut down alternative viewpoints.”
The same threats of losing federal funding because of an “anti-Semitic and hostile environment” are being leveled at Rutgers University in New Jersey, thanks in large part to a 15-page letter written to the university by Zionist Organization of America President Morton Klein, and copied to the state’s governor, its US senators and representatives and other officials.
These recent moves, according to Surasky, “suggest that legitimate criticism of Israeli policy is being conflated with anti-Semitism. If this is allowed to happen, then serious debate on Israel’s illegal actions in the Palestinian territories will be shut down.”
Rossman-Benjamin’s complaint against University of California Santa Cruz could very well be a test case under the new interpretation of Title VI. The reinterpretation, when viewed against the backdrop of professors being censured or denied tenure because of their political views, could have an adverse affect on the free exchange of ideas on college campuses at a time when debate and concrete examinations of US foreign policy in the Middle East is needed more than ever.
‘While for domestic political reasons… [Canada] has decided not to join in a U.S. coalition,… they are also prepared to be as helpful as possible in the military margins’—Secret U.S. diplomatic cable
Then prime minister Jean Chretien is applaud by his Liberal caucus in the House of Commons on March 17, 2003, after announcing Canada’s refusal to partake in the U.S. –led invasion of Iraq. (CBC)
The same day Canada publicly refused to join the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a high-ranking Canadian official was secretly promising the Americans clandestine military support for the fiercely controversial operation.
The revelation that Canadian forces may have secretly participated in the invasion of Iraq is contained in a classified U.S. diplomatic memo obtained exclusively by CBC News from the whistleblower website WikiLeaks.
On March 17, 2003, two days before U.S. warplanes launched their attack on Baghdad, prime minister Jean Chrétien told the House of Commons that Canadian forces would not be joining what the administration of then U.S. president George W. Bush dubbed the “coalition of the willing.”
Chrétien’s apparent refusal to back the Bush administration’s invasion, purportedly launched to seize weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein (which were never found), was hugely popular in Canada, widely hailed as nothing less than a defining moment of national sovereignty.
But even as Chrétien told the Commons that Canada wouldn’t participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Canadian diplomats were secretly telling their U.S. counterparts something entirely different.
The classified U.S. document obtained from WikiLeaks shows senior Canadian officials met that same day with high-ranking American and British diplomats at Foreign Affairs headquarters in Ottawa.
The confidential note, written by a U.S. diplomat at the gathering, states that Foreign Affairs official James Wright waited until after the official meeting to impart the most important news of all.
According to the U.S. account, Wright “emphasized” that contrary to public statements by the prime minister, Canadian naval and air forces could be “discreetly” put to use during the pending U.S.-led assault on Iraq and its aftermath.
At that time, Canada had warships, aircraft and over 1,200 naval personnel already in the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, intercepting potential militant vessels and providing safe escort to other ships as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the post-Sept. 11, 2001, multinational war on terrorism.
The U.S. briefing note states: “Following the meeting, political director Jim Wright emphasized that, despite public statements that the Canadian assets in the Straits of Hormuz will remain in the region exclusively to support Enduring Freedom, they will also be available to provide escort services in the Straits and will otherwise be discreetly useful to the military effort.
“The two ships in the Straits now are being augmented by two more en route, and there are patrol and supply aircraft in the U.A.E. [United Arab Emirates] which are also prepared to ‘be useful.’
“This message tracks with others we have heard,” the U.S. diplomat wrote in his briefing note to State Department bosses in Washington.
“While for domestic political reasons… the GOC [Government of Canada] has decided not to join in a U.S. coalition of the willing,… they are also prepared to be as helpful as possible in the military margins.”
‘Please destroy cable’
The original U.S. briefing cable, dated the day of the meeting, was marked “unclassified.” Two days later, the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa issued an urgent internal notice to “please destroy previous cable,” replacing it with the same message but marked “confidential.”
The Canadian official involved, James Wright, is now Canada’s high commissioner in London. He declined to comment for this report.
The U.S. ambassador to Canada at the time, Paul Cellucci, says he couldn’t be at the meeting in Ottawa that day — he was stranded in a snowstorm in the U.S. — but the version of events in the leaked memo “sounds right.”
“The message from the Canadians was pretty clear,” Cellucci told CBC News. “We are not putting boots on the ground in Iraq. We will say good things about the United States and not-so-good things about Saddam Hussein.”
And finally: “We will keep our ships in the Persian Gulf helping in the war on terror — and any way else we can help.”
Exactly what that meant for the Canadian naval ships and surveillance aircraft in the Gulf region at the time — and how much they ultimately became involved in the Iraq war — remains a matter of considerable debate.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the duties of the Canadian ships had been mainly to protect other vessels from attacks by militants and to intercept craft suspected of gun-running and other potentially militant-related activities.
The issue is what, if anything, changed after the Chrétien government decreed those ships and aircraft couldn’t be involved in intercepting vessels connected to the Iraq war.
Eugene Lang, chief of staff to then defense minister John McCallum, says there was no end of internal debate over whether the Canadian Forces were being put into a mission impossible.
“How do you know if something is connected to terrorism or Iraq? When you are intercepting unknown boats, you don’t know what you have taken over until you have taken it over.”
Lang says that after “painful” consultations with federal lawyers, the Department of National Defence issued Canadian naval commanders in the Gulf clear orders not to engage in anything to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom.
“But who knows whether in fact we were doing things indirectly for Iraqi Freedom? It is quite possible.”
McCallum’s former chief recalled a bitter internal battle over whether to pull the Canadian ships out of the Gulf altogether to avoid any confusion.
“For a long time, the [Canadian] military pushed really hard not to be in Afghanistan, and instead be part of a full-blown boots-on-the-ground Iraq invasion,” Lang said.
“So the military was dead set against pulling out [of the Gulf], and in the end the government decided we would stay mainly, I think, for Canada-U.S. relations.”
Former defense minister McCallum recalls he and his officials having “extremely long and detailed meetings to make sure that we were not in fact committing to help the war in Iraq.”
“Now, what happens on the high seas is not something I can prove or disprove, but those were the orders that the military had.”
U.S. didn’t seem to care
Ironically, after all the fuss, the Americans didn’t seem to care whether Canada contributed a lot of military might to the Iraq mission.
A former senior Canadian bureaucrat said: “The Americans knew we were stretched to the limit on the military side, and they really just wanted a political endorsement of their plan to go into Iraq.”
Former U.S. ambassador Cellucci concurred: “We were looking for moral support. That’s all we were looking for.… We were looking for ‘we support the Americans.’ ”
Then defence minister McCallum met with his counterpart, U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, three months before the Iraq invasion. McCallum recalls Rumsfeld never even mentioned Canada’s possible military contribution to Iraq.
A U.S. diplomatic briefing note prepared for Rumsfeld prior to the meeting states: “As for what Canada might bring to the table, our expectations should be modest.”
The memo, also obtained by CBC News from WikiLeaks, goes on to say: “Canada probably would need to use assets currently devoted to Operation Enduring Freedom, including a naval task group [in the Gulf] and patrol and transport aircraft.”
If the secret U.S. memos cast doubts on Canada’s status as a refusenik of the Iraq war, the public also didn’t exactly get the whole truth about a group of Canadian soldiers the government admitted were in Iraq.
From the outset, the Chrétien government said a “few” Canadian soldiers embedded with the U.S. and British militaries as exchange officers would be allowed to remain in their positions, even if they wound up in Iraq.
While the revelation caused a ruckus in Parliament, it all sounded relatively innocuous at the time.
But Lang, defense minister McCallum’s chief of staff, says military brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he says, even McCallum initially didn’t know those soldiers were helping to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command, including a Canadian general.
That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada’s chief of defense staff, who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000 U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait.
The Department of National Defense refused to comment on Natynczyk’s role, if any, in the invasion of Iraq.
