Dissemination of information and opinion related to global peace and human rights issues
I am taking a break from this, my political blog. I find it too restrictive right now. I need an open space for my pallette. Therefore, I am starting a new personal poetry/prose/whatever blog called Ramblings that will inculde some political commentary
From the Globe and Mail:
The Prime Minister is acting like a number cruncher and not a statesman in his approach to foreign aid, says Bono, the lead singer of U2 and onetime celebrity ally of Paul Martin.
A champion of Third World debt relief, Bono said he is "bewildered" by the government's decision this week that dedicating 0.7 per cent of the gross domestic product to ending global poverty is too expensive.
In an interview with CBC's The House on Saturday he pointed out that Germany has "the same kind of fiscal discipline" Mr. Martin is famous for, is struggling to integrate economically depressed East Germany and has still managed to pledge 0.7 per cent.
"When I hear him speak like that I hear him speak as a finance minister, not a Prime Minister," Bono said.
Advertisements
"I like him enormously. I've sat with him, I've worked with him. I believe him when he talks," he added. ". . . But there are moments when you have to look up from the number. That's why you want to be in politics. What's upsetting about this is it feels like business as usual."
A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said in response that Mr. Martin does not want to dwell on "artificial deadlines."
"The Prime Minister has great respect for Bono and Canada remains committed to the 0.7-per-cent target," Amy Butcher said. "In fact, the budget saw an 8-per-cent increase to the aid budget."
Bono warned that part of the global appeal of Canada stems from its humanitarian approach and that underfunding foreign aid works to counter that image.
He urged Canadians to call the Prime Minister's Office directly, saying that only public pressure will convince the government that fighting poverty is politically viable.
"It's a Canadian idea, the Pearson commitment," he said. "Let's go for it; let's be remembered for something other than the Internet, which is wonderful, [and] the war against terror."
Here is an update of John Bolton. It looks like his nomination is in aserious jeopardy. If it was in fact defeated, that would be HUGE
Huge news that I'm a bit late on posting. Carl Ford, a staunch Republican and former Director of Intelligence and Research at the US State Department, lambasted John Bolton during Senate Confirmation Hearings on April 12. Here is a transcript with commentary, from Democracy Now, followed by an Amy Goodman interview with Ray McGovern.
AMY GOODMAN: After being sworn in, Ford began his testimony.
CARL FORD: Mr. Chairman, it's customary for me to thank you and the committee for the opportunity to come before the Foreign Relations Committee and present my views. Thankful is not the emotion that I am feeling this morning. It's a very awkward situation for me to be in. I was raised with the admonition that if you can’t find something good to say about somebody, you don't say anything at all. God knows I have not lived up to that high ideal throughout my life, but I have always tried, and even to this day, it's an important principle in the way that I conduct myself. It's also awkward because I consider myself to be a loyal Republican and conservative to the core. I'm a firm and enthusiastic supporter of President Bush and his policies, and I'm a huge fan of Vice President Cheney, who I worked with when he was Secretary of Defense. So, the notion of coming before you and making critical remarks about a presidential nominee is not something I take lightly, not something that I haven't done a lot of soul-searching on, and clearly, it's one of the more difficult assignments I have been given. But I also have to admit that I'm conscious that I might not be completely objective about Secretary Bolton. I was a party to the confrontation the Secretary had with I & R. I was a bit player, to be sure, but I was directly involved. And at the end of the day, you will have to decide whether my assessment is fair and balanced.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Carl Ford, the former Director of Intelligence and Research, I & R, at the State Department, testifying Tuesday at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. After a few brief remarks from Republican Senator, Richard Lugar, Ford addressed the controversial Bolton incident.
CARL FORD: I can guarantee you, though, if Secretary Bolton had chosen to come to me, or in my absence, my principal deputy, Secretary Tom Finger, I wouldn't be here today. He could have approached me in the same tone and in the same attitude, shaking his finger, red in the face, high tone in his voice, and I wouldn't be here today. If he had gone to Secretary Powell or Secretary Armitage and complained loudly about the poor service that he was receiving from I & R and the terrible treatment, that he had been stabbed in the back by one of I & R's analysts, I wouldn't be here today. The fact is that it's appropriate if someone is unhappy with the service they're getting from one of the service organizations in a bureaucracy, that they should complain. They should yell as loud as they want to yell. But instead of doing any of those three things, Secretary Bolton chose to reach five or six levels below him in the bureaucracy, bring an analyst into his office, and give him a tongue lashing. And I frankly don't care whether he is saying scat for five minutes. The attitude, the volume of his tone, and what I understand the substance of the conversation, he was so far over the line that he meets -- he's one of the sort of memorable moments in my 30-plus year career. Unfortunately, those two moments that he has given me are very negative. That is, I have never seen anybody quite like Secretary Bolton. He doesn't even come close. I don't have a second and third or fourth in terms of the way that he abuses his power and authority with little people. I say that because, if you bark back at him, he doesn't bother you anymore. And anyone who has either generally the same rank or even a step or so below, they don't have so much to fear. We can defend ourselves. There are a lot of screamers that work in government. But you don't pull somebody so low down in the bureaucracy that they're completely defenseless. It's an 800-pound gorilla devouring a banana. The analyst was required simply to stand there and take it. Secretary Bolton knew when he had the tirade that, in fact, that was the case. Now, I would argue that that action, by itself, certainly brings real questions to my mind about his suitability for high office. But it was also -- that person was an analyst, an intelligence analyst. And it's clear that there is a difference of opinion in the way people look at political pressure. If you don't mind, I'd like to take just a moment and wander off on political pressure before I finish my answer to my question.
SEN. GEORGE ALLEN: Mr. Chairman, just for point of clarification, the analyst was who? Now, is this Westermann you are talking about?
CARL FORD: Senator, I frankly don't like the idea of my analyst being named and argued about in public.
SEN. GEORGE ALLEN: I just wanted to –
CARL FORD: He didn't do anything wrong. If you have a complaint with him, talk to me. If you don't believe what I say, talk to me.
SEN. GEORGE ALLEN: I'm just trying to understand, Mr. Ford, just so -- just trying to get the chronology and who --
CARL FORD: It was an analyst at I & R.
SENATOR: Is this Mr. Westermann?
CARL FORD: It was an analyst at I & R. I actually believe that you're off on the wrong track. When people start taking a guy way down in the bureaucracy, just doing his job, and start making him the issue. He could have done everything wrong, everything. He could have been 150% wrong. It does not justify the treatment he received from a superior officer. I have never seen it in my career. I don't think that any of you have seen it before. Unfortunately, my judgment, my opinion, he is a quintessential, kiss up, kick down sort of guy. There are a lot of them around. I'm sure that you have met them. But the fact is that he stands out that he has got a bigger kick, and it gets bigger and stronger the further down the bureaucracy he is kicking. And he stands out. I don't have any other examples to give you of someone who acts this way.
AMY GOODMAN: Carl Ford yesterday at the hearing, the Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee emphasize that the incident described by John Bolton is just one example of this conduct, and said they could provide more witnesses. The New York Times noted Carl Ford's testimony offered an extraordinary public glimpse into the long-running and raw intelligence wars within the Bush administration, pitting hawks like Bolton, a protégé of Vice President Dick Cheney, against the more circumspect intelligence operatives at the State Department, who among other differences had cast doubt on some prewar claims about Iraq. Democrats charge Bolton's actions have grave and far-reaching implications for U.S. credibility, while Republicans painted it as an isolated incident. After break, we'll go to California Senator, Barbara Boxer. This is Democracy Now! Stay with us. Well, why don't we go to Barbara Boxer right now.
SEN. BARBARA BOXER: I want to put something new into the record here. That was written before we knew that John Bolton was going to be nominated to this position. I hope that you read it, and I hope Senator Chafee, in particular, reads it. Because what this is about is a way bigger picture, Mr. Ford. And you're mentioned in this particular article, by the way, in a good way, so don't worry. It ran in the Washington Monthly. It's called “Analyze This.” And I ask unanimous consent to place the whole story in the record.
SEN. RICHARD LUGAR: Placed in the record in full.
SEN. BARBARA BOXER: Now, the thesis here by the writer is that the I & R is the best intelligence agency we have, that they have been closest to right of all of the intelligence agencies, and they look at -- he looks at the Iraq situation as a specific case in point. And he says, “Indeed, on the whole question of Iraq's nuclear capabilities, I & R came consistently closer to the truth than did other agencies.” And he goes on and says, “They don't just tolerate dissent there, they actually encourage it.” So, it's the different culture than what we are used to in the C.I.A. And there's a couple of other quotes. “An important reason for I & R's success is that the agency has a culture that tolerates dissent. The lasting criticism of the C.I.A. the 9/11 Commission produced was the agency's tendency to shoehorn evidence to fit the results that the higher-ups desired.” And it goes on: “Remember, David Kaye, the chief American arms inspector after the war told The New York Times the tubes were the only piece of physical evidence about the Iraqi weapons program that they had, and that the I & R was the only one to back the Department of Energy when they said the tubes could not be used for nuclear weapons.” And then, just to finish my quotes here, "A culture of dissent must be nurtured and protected if it is to thrive. And State has usually given I & R the requisite political insulation. Another part of the reason for I & R's insulation has to do with the kind of people who have led it. I & R analysts give former I & R director Ford, for instance, tremendous credit for shielding the bureau from political pressure.” Quote, “Carl earned the respect of the people in the bureau for standing up for the work of the bureau.” And then it says, “Not everyone in Washington is a fan of I & R. Many neoconservatives especially see the agency has a threat to the more vigorous military projects that they advocate.”
Mr. Chairman, the reason this is such an important point is it's really central. This is not one isolated incident. It's three incidents. And it fits into the larger pattern of whether we are going to have an intelligence community that is free from political pressure, whether it comes from me, or from you, or from Mr. Bolton or anyone else. And the fact that Mr. Bolton tried to say it wasn't a big deal, and he shrugged it off, fades in the light of this testimony, and the fact that we learned today that Secretary Powell actually mentioned the name of this analyst and came over to the State Department, so anyone who was fooling himself into thinking this all came out alright, there’s no “there” there, is essentially fooling himself. Because bottom line again is this was pressure, heavy duty pressure, inappropriate pressure applied to a line analyst here, and thank goodness that analyst did have the character to stand up to it and that he had someone like you, Mr. Ford, to say “knock it off” even to as big a bully as Mr. Bolton is. And I think Mr. Bolton needs anger management at the minimum, and he doesn't deserve to be promoted based on this alone, let alone all of his comments about how the U.N. doesn't exist and it should lose ten floors and no one would care. That aside, which is bewildering in itself, this is, based on this testimony, I think, explosive. And I hope that this committee will tell the President, “Mr. Bolton is your friend. He is a strong partisan. You can use him, but not in the job of the United Nations.”
AMY GOODMAN: California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer at the John Bolton confirmation hearings on Tuesday.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Ray McGovern. He was with the Central Intelligence Agency for more than a quarter of a century. He was one of the top daily briefers for George H.W. Bush when he was Vice President. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Ray McGovern.
RAY McGOVERN: Thank you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you respond to the whole scenario yesterday of Carl Ford, the significance of him coming forward and testifying?
RAY McGOVERN: Yeah. Well, just listening to your clips -- I heard the whole thing yesterday, but listening to your clips, I'm getting the idea that there's a little taste of democracy now coming in here. It's really good to have this kind of information aired so the public can judge what kinds of pressures intelligence analysts have been put to over the last couple of years. Needless to say, I admire Carl Ford very, very much. He is appropriately protective of the people who work in his organization, people who are really under more fire than anyone else. Why? Well, because they didn't have the same ideological proclivities as the so-called neoconservatives. And they wouldn't -- you know, they wouldn't heel. They wouldn't bow. Witness the fact that in that famous or infamous estimate back dated October 1, 2002, they took a footnote saying this uranium from Niger business is a canard, and the story is, (quote), “highly dubious.” They dismissed the aluminum tubes canard, siding with the Department of Energy and saying, look, the specifications are exactly what they need for conventional artillery, and worst of all, when they were asked to predict when Iraq's nuclear weapons program was likely to yield a nuclear weapon, they said, well, you know, we really cannot predict that, because we cannot predict the end of a program that we don't see as having started. There's no evidence that Dick Cheney is correct in saying this program was reconstituted. So, you get a little idea of why a fellow like Bolton would get all red in the face when he is faced by junior people who stick to their guns and say, look, we're going to call it the way we see it, and we don't care what your grade is.
AMY GOODMAN: Ray McGovern, the significance of Secretary of State Colin Powell intervening and what he did?
RAY McGOVERN: Yeah. That is very unusual, and again, it's very much to his credit. He did pretty much give I & R free reign. Now, it would have been nice if he heeded their analysis more, because, as I’ve just said, they were right on a lot of things and specifically on things that Powell was wrong on, when he went before the world and the U.N. on February 5, 2003. But he did have the right instincts, and I applaud Carl Ford, as well, for inviting the secretary down to give a little morale and pep talk to the folks, because clearly there was this chilling effect. Clearly, the analysts were fearful of their careers if they would be subjected to the kinds of things that Westermann was subjected to. Now, what's really striking and, you know, I have great admiration for I & R, the State Department intelligence unit, and I have worked with them very closely for those 27 years, cooperatively, I might say. We really learned a lot from them, and they from us.
Now, take the situation at C.I.A. during precisely the same time. We know that Vice President Cheney was visiting the C.I.A. regularly to make sure that their analysis was good. See, now, people ask me, was that unusual? I say, no, that wasn't unusual. That was unprecedented. Never in my 27 years there did a Vice President come to the agency on a working visit. We would always go down to him. So, the fact that he made multiple visits, and curiously enough, the director of analysis didn't know how many. She said, well, between five and eight, which suggests to me that Vice President Cheney was turned loose on analysts just as junior as Mr. Westermann. Now, the cardinal sin here, in my view, is that George Tenet had every responsibility to prevent that from happening to his analysts. If George Tenet had the kind of integrity that Carl Ford had -- Carl Ford, as you well discerned was incredibly outraged at this the attempt to prostitute the intelligence product. Now, if George Tenet was anything like Carl Ford, he would have protected his analysts from this kind of pressure, and it wasn't only Cheney. The likes of Newt Gingrich would go up there from the defense board there that he serves on and make sure that their analysis was in tune with what Cheney and others wanted. So, you have a real contrast here. You have the analysts at the C.I.A. receiving not only no protection, but every encouragement to not tell it like it is, but tell it like the administration wants it to be. And on the other hand, you have the State Department with a fellow like Carl Ford, who adheres to the long tradition of intelligence professionals who stand up to that kind of pressure. And if they encounter it more and more, they go to the boss and they go to the Secretary of State and say, look, if you want to hear it straight from us, you have got to protect us from the likes of John Bolton.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Ray McGovern, with the C.I.A. for more than a quarter of a century.
Naomi Klein exposes the industry that is "Disaster Capitalism"
Listen to John Bolton talk about the United Nations, and say that it doesn't exsit, that it is inseparable from the United States, and that the United States must be expected to pursue its own interests. John, that's exactly why there needs to be an impartial international body like the United Nations is supposed to be. Saying that the United States must be expected to pursue its own interests makes the case for us.
I would like to talk about Zahra Kazemi, the Iranian Canadian journalist who was killed by Iranian journalists, and my feelings around that. It has angered me considerable that it happened. It angers me that the Iranian government, in the face of evidence to the contrary, could try to suggest that she died as the result of an accident. It angers me that they thought they could get away with it.
Today, the Conservatives and other opponents of same-sex marraige rallied in Ottawa.
J. Kent Ashcraft
May 2000
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Leviticus 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
I went to hear a woman, Kelly Dougherty, talk tonight. She is a veteran of the Iraq War, who has come out against it, and helped form the organization Iraq Veterans Against the War. The talk was put on by the War Resisters Support Campaign. She was obviously a little nervous with public speaking, but what she had to say about the war, how a lot of soldiers feel about the war, and what they were going through, was captivating.
Here is a good article on human rights advocate and hero-turned-human rights violator Natan Sharansky.
Of course most Americans don't remember Sharansky's history as a "refusenik" or "prisoner of conscience." They probably don't even remember the Soviet "gulags." What they do know about Sharansky is that he has become the "darling" of the Bush Administration. It has been reported that it was a long conversation Sharansky had with Vice President Cheney that led to the Administration's decision to isolate, ignore, and seek the removal of Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. And, more recently, it was after a long meeting in the White House between President Bush and Sharanksy that the President emerged to praise his book The Case for Democracy. President Bush said, "I felt like his book just confirmed what I believe. He writes a heck of a lot better than I could write, and he's certainly got more credibility than I have..."
"Ay," to borrow from Shakespeare, "there's the rub." The point is, does Sharansky have credibility? The recent above-mentioned criticisms from the right and left appear to agree that because of his silence in the face of Israeli abuses of Palestinian human rights and denial of democratic rights to this occupied people, he is not credible.
Now there is an important lesson here, not only for Americans and Israelis, but for Arabs as well. For our commitment to human rights to be consistent and not hypocritical, it must be absolute. We, too, must measure human rights by one yardstick.
"The chasm between rich and poor is not a divide between who has intelligence and drive and who does not. Rather it results from a society whose rules allow some to amass wealth greater than could be enjoyed in a thousand lifetimes, while they deny others enough money to scrape through just one lifetime." - from Common Dreams.
There's more talk of a military draft. This is from the San Fransisco Chronicle:
The war-strained all-volunteer U.S. military has a growing manpower problem and a cross-section of Washington policymakers has proposed a solution -- increase the size of the regular military by 30,000, 40,000 or even 100,000 or more.
While just about all the proponents maintain they want to achieve the increase by offering recruits bigger financial incentives or through appeals to patriotism, lurking in the background is a possibility that for now remains anathema to all but a few. The military draft, which coughed up its last conscript in 1973, could make a comeback if recruiting doesn't pick up and if America's commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan turn into long-term occupations or if the Bush administration's tough-minded foreign policy means military action in places like Iran or North Korea.
It's important to note that the Bush administration adamantly scorns the idea of a resumed draft. It won't even agree to a permanent increase in the Army's size, which Congress temporarily boosted by 30,000 last year, saying instead that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan to transform the military into a high-tech, mobile force will meet the nation's needs.
But the administration does admit it has a problem, particularly in filling the ranks in the 500,000-person regular Army and the 675,000-person Army National Guard and Army Reserve, which have been called upon to carry a large part of the burden of deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan. In a March 23 press conference, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said that in the first two months of 2005, the active Army was meeting 94 percent of its recruiting goal, the Reserve 90 percent and the Guard 75 percent.
The idea is widely attacked. "The argument for a draft is political hot air," said Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank.
But he warned that if the Iraq occupation drags on, other foreign military operations are launched and a half-million more soldiers are needed, "I don't think we can get there without a draft."
"Anything less than that, I can't see it's necessary and it would be counterproductive" by burdening the military with people who don't want to be there, Goure added.
Charles Pena of the libertarian Cato Institute, which opposes the draft, said the only way the public would accept a draft would be if it was part of a broader national service plan in which young people could still volunteer for the military.
"It might be politically acceptable if all the pressures lead to an increase in the military," Pena said. "But if the administration can transform Iraqi security forces so they assume more of the operations in Iraq and can bring forces home, we'll see the pressures wane."
Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under President Ronald Reagan, supports the all-volunteer military. But he said the Bush administration is severely straining the military and faces a deadline.
"You've got about another year," said Korb, who is now an analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "If you don't cut back in Iraq, your all-volunteer Army and Marine Corps are going to be in big trouble."
The Pope has died today at the age of 84.
Amnesty International issued a press release in response to the human rights report released by the US State Department. While applauding them for pleadging to take on human rights initiatives, the pointed out that hte US must start walking the talk if they are not to be viewed with skepticism.
Amnesty International USA applauds the U.S. initiatives to promote human rights outlined in the Department of State's annual human rights policy assessment, Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record: 2004-2005, but warns that as long as the White House continues to flout international law and blatantly disregard the Geneva Conventions, many of its policies to promote democracy and human rights will be greeted with deep skepticism.
"Last year's report was postponed following release of the horrific photos from Abu Ghraib, which cast a shadow on the report's legitimacy by calling the United State's own human rights record into question," said Alexandra Arriaga, Director of Government Relations for Amnesty International USA. "The U.S. authority to promote human rights abroad diminishes every time it sanctions rendition, refuses to thoroughly investigate detainee abuse, denies its citizens access to an attorney or habeas corpus, or approves small arms shipments to countries with abysmal human rights records. The U.S. loses its moral voice on human rights every day it continues to detain without charge or trial the hundreds of individuals held at Guantanamo Bay, most believed to be innocent of crimes and swept up in a dragnet. The Department of State is right to herald its human rights achievements, but its worthy efforts are undercut by the administration's overall approach, making its report tantamount to a business ethics manual published by Enron."
Amnesty International urges the White House to hold U.S. agents and officers accountable to international law and calls for a thorough, independent inquiry into domestic allegations of detainee abuse and torture as well as in U.S. detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. Amnesty International calls for those detained in U.S. custody in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere to be charged and tried in fair and public trials that meet international standards for justice or to be released. The human rights organization also calls for an end to extraordinary renditions—the outsourcing of torture to other nations—and for the immediate cessation of all small arms transfers to countries with questionable human rights records.
This is from the CBC. Not to say that one life is more important than another, but as fellow citizens, when need to be extremely concerned, and stand up for our rights to exist peacefully within other countries.
Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi died in Iranian custody on July 11, 2003, almost three weeks after she was arrested for taking pictures outside a prison during a student protest in Tehran.
Two days later, Iran's official news agency reported that Kazemi had died in hospital, after suffering a stroke while she was being interrogated. On July 16, 2003, the story changed. Mohammad Ali Abtahi, Iran's vice-president, conceded that Kazemi died as a result of being beaten.
Later, the Iranian government would charge an Iranian security agent in Kazemi's death. He was acquitted of a charge of "quasi-intentional murder. In July 2004, Iran's judiciary said the head injuries that killed Kazemi were the result of an "accident."
The case stayed under the radar screens of most Canadians until March 31, 2005, and the stunning revelations of Shahram Azam, a former staff physician in Iran's Defence Ministry. He said he examined Kazemi in hospital, four days after her arrest.
Azam said Kazemi showed obvious signs of torture, including:
Evidence of a very brutal rape.
A skull fracture, two broken fingers, missing fingernails, a crushed big toe and a broken nose.
Severe abdominal bruising, swelling behind the head and a bruised shoulder.
Deep scratches on the neck and evidence of flogging on the legs.
Son, brother, friend, activist, poet, blogger, student, all-around good egg
