Q & A with Mr.Bin Laden and Mr. William Elliott

Last October, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott addressed a meeting of security intelligence peeps about Canada's current terrorism environment :

"As far as Al-Qaeda is concerned, Canada is the enemy.
We recall Osama Bin Laden’s famous communiqué to America’s allies in November of 2002, in which he asked:

“Why are your governments, especially those of Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia, allying themselves with America in its attacks on us in Afghanistan? This is injustice. The time has come to settle accounts. Just as you kill, so you shall be killed; just as you bomb, so you shall be bombed. And there will be more to come.”

To answer Mr. Bin Laden's question, here's David Rothkopf, Bill Clinton's Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce and former managing director of Kissinger Associates, from Empire : Superclass, posted here on Saturday (mark 18:31) :

"If there were no oil in the Middle East, the United States wouldn't care about the Middle East, it wouldn't care about Israel, it wouldn't care about Palestine, it wouldn't care about social development in Iraq, it wouldn't care about the Taliban. If there were no oil and the interests who benefit from that oil and advocate for that oil, and who have done so and who have shaped American policy over the course of the past 70 years as a consequence of that oil, are big businesses."

Call me crazy, Mr. Elliott, but I think not helping the US occupy a country for oil bidness would go some distance towards not attracting unwanted attention from Mr. Bin Laden and his new friends here at home.
Back to Elliott's address :

Canada does suffer an image problem with some Americans as a safe haven for terrorists. We must work to overcome that perception ... demonstrate a more proportional and comprehensive commitment to not only fighting terrorism but to advancing our shared security interests more broadly.

I note that this year the RCMP’s strategic priority of “Terrorism” will be expanded to “National Security” which is consistent with this broader objective.

More criminal prosecutions for terrorist offences would certainly be one step to enhancing security relations with the United States.

And just where are we going to find "more criminal prosecutions for terrorist offenses" for the benefit of the US?
Junkies rebranded as terrorist financiers for the war on drugs.

Put succinctly, Canadian criminals and Canadian drug users keep Afghan and Pakistani heroin traffickers in business and contribute to the continuation of a serious threat to the West, and to Canada and Canadian interests.

Proving such linkages in court would mean that drug couriers and their associates could face terrorism financing charges. That would help send a strong message to the world [aka the US] that we are serious about prosecuting accomplices to terror.

Perhaps it also explains why someone decided to send a strong message to the RCMP in BC to stand down from its presser with Insite one month later.

Elliott wraps up with a pitch for an expanded RCMP "capacity to conduct and support extraterritorial investigations" in national security:

I believe the time has come for law enforcement to be even more active in the realm of national security. We need greater capacity to put more terrorism cases before the courts and more terrorists in jail.

And voilà! - Project Samosa. Hope our new alleged terrorists appreciate their important role for us in "enhancing shared security relations with the US".
I know Osama Bin Laden does.
.

The "personal transformation" of RCMP Commish Elliott

Pogge notes that last year RCMP Commissioner William Elliott

"attended a $44,000 course in Arizona that dealt with behavioural barriers to success.
He subsequently acknowledged to employees in a memo that he learned his actions "can and did have unintended, sometimes negative impacts."

and generously offers "to explain to him what a dick he is for half that".

If the RCMP is reading, Creekside would also like to enter the bidding fray at half again what Pogge is proposing to charge.
Oh wait. There were no other bids considered last year in the decision to send three RCMP to Arizona to take "personal transformation" and "100 per cent accountability" training for a $¼-million, accommodation and travel not included. At the time the RCMP said that Malandro Communication is the only known firm that can deliver the "leadership transformation services" it needs.
Well, at least they didn't send them off to Scientology.

Some might say "leader transformation" is the job of the government, but as noted yet again today by James Travers :

"Instead of bringing the fabled horsemen to heel for banana republic meddling in the 2006 election, the Prime Minister rushed to headquarters, cash in hand."

And then he laid off vociferous RCMP watchdog Paul Kennedy, replacing him with a former Con party operative in what the G&M termed "one of the most cynical and discouraging appointments this government has made in the past four years".

"Horribly broken" continues....
.

Yo! RCMP! Read the TASER™ manual!

On February 12, 2009, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott assured the public safety committee :

"The RCMP’s revised CEW policy restricts the use of CEWs and specifically warns of the hazards of multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW."

On March 25, the CBC reported that instead Elliott had actually relaxed the 2005 restrictions on multiple zappings, removing the following rule from the RCMP operational manual on conducted energy weapons :

3. 1. 3. Multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW may be hazardous to a subject. Unless situational factors dictate otherwise (see IM/IM), do not cycle the CEW repeatedly, nor more than 15-20 seconds at a time against a subject.

From the CBC yesterday : "Mounties shocked at least 16 suspects with a Taser five or more times", including one unarmed man zapped nine times and another - eight times.

May I politely suggest the RCMP read what TASER™ itself says about multiple zappings.

Taser International : Instructor and User Warnings, Risks via Stanford :

"When practicable, avoid prolonged or continuous exposure(s) to the TASER device electrical discharge. The stress and exertion of extensive repeated, prolonged, or continuous application(s) of the TASER device may contribute to cumulative exhaustion, stress, and associated medical risk(s). Severe exhaustion and/or over-exertion from physical struggle, drug intoxication, use of restraint devices, etc. may result in serious injury or death."

"Extensive repeated, prolonged, or continuous applications ... serious injury or death."

Guys just never want to read the manual first.

The Stanford report also notes that the dismissal of stun gun fatality suits in the US - much ballyhooed as victories by TASER™ Int. - are the direct result of the police officers involved not having sufficiently explicit guidelines to work from :

"Rather, in granting qualified immunity, the court simply held that the officers who fired the taser could not be held liable because the use of the taser did not violate clearly established law because there simply was no clearly established law regarding taser use at the time the officer fired one."

In other words - the same position we now find ourselves in here in Canada.
.

RCMP : Getting away with murder

Exhibit A
In June 2008, in response to public outrage over Robert Dziekanski's death at YVR in 2007, the House of Commons public safety and national security committee threatened the RCMP with a complete ban on TASER™ use if "clear restrictions" were not put on officers discharging stun guns multiple times by December.
Eight months later, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott told the committee that the force had already introduced a revised Taser policy back in June 2008 to address that very concern : "We have taken steps to restrict its use."

At the time, many wondered why Elliott had waited a whole eight months to signal compliance with a policy already implemented.

Tonight CBC reports that instead, Elliott had actually relaxed the 2005 restrictions on multiple zappings, removing the following rule from the RCMP operational manual on conducted energy weapons :

3. 1. 3. Multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW may be hazardous to a subject.
Unless situational factors dictate otherwise (see IM/IM), do not cycle the CEW repeatedly, nor more than 15-20 seconds at a time against a subject.

Cpl. Gregg Gillis, the RCMP's national use-of-force co-ordinator, cited two studies to explain the new position - one was funded by Taser Int., while the other did not address the effect of multiple TASER™ use on the heart at all.
Three of the officers involved in Dziekanski's death were trained by Gillis three months before but were unable to recall the policy. When questioned, Millington, who deployed the TASER™ on Dziekanski five times for a total of 31 seconds over one minute, said he would have to check the manual first to answer why there was a policy on multiple use.

Obviously if even their own manual does not prohibit it, individual RCMP officers cannot be held responsible - or charged or sued - for deaths by multiple TASER™.
Further, if another confused and frustrated immigrant walks through the Canadian Border Services Agency administered area of YVR tonight where the observation cameras apparently don't work and even when they do the tapes get erased, there is no reason to expect a different response and outcome than the one Dziekanski received.

In response to CBC's request for an interview, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott wrote: "Unfortunately I am not available to be interviewed."

Exhibit B
It is very unlikely that the Criminal Justice Branch of BC will change its decision to prosecute the RCMP officers who killed Robert Dziekanski - even following their appalling performance at the Braidwood Inquiry - because of the following criteria :
1) It must be determined that their prosecution would be in the public's interest
2) There must be a substantial likelihood of conviction

That the Crown had already seen Pritchard's video and apparently did not consider it to substantially contradicted the officers' statements tells us a good deal about their criteria.

Exhibit C

When the investigating officers from the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (IHIT) interviewed the four officers about Dziekanski's death, they failed to warn them first of their rights under the Charter that anything they said could be held in evidence against them or that they had a right to have their lawyers present. Consequently all of that now utterly debunked original testimony - Dziekanski running at them screaming and brandishing a stapler and needing to be wrestled to the ground following multiple TASER™ use or the CBSA room being too crowded - is now considered contaminated for use in the courts.

And even if the IHIT team had warned the officers, what they say in testimony at a public inquiry cannot be used directly in evidence against them at any other proceeding. Plus the Braidwood Inquiry does not have any jurisdiction over the RCMP and cannot compel them to hold hearings or investigations.

The RCMP is a paramilitary organisation that from Elliott on down through the ranks ceased being accountable to the public quite some time ago. What can you do? Here's one facebook petition nearing 10,000 members.

Braidwood Inquiry resumes tomorrow; William Elliott is an ass

On the eve of the resumption of the Braidwood Inquiry into the homicide of Robert Dziekanski after a two week hiatus, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott said he "would ask Canadians to reflect for a minute before they jump to conclusions".

A whole minute? What did Dziekanski get? 25 seconds, was it?

"Even in situations where people make mistakes or don't act appropriately, I think there is a requirement for a sober, sound examination of the facts and circumstances."

Yes. Watching Paul Pritchard's video, it's obvious that is precisely what was missing.

"I think the expression, 'Walk a mile in my shoes,' comes to mind.
I am optimistic that the inquiry will result in an assessment and recommendations that are based on that and not based on a knee-jerk reaction to what is heard, what is said or seen."

Right. So your advice is that we should just ignore what millions of us saw on the video and heard in the bullshit testimony given so far that bears no relation to it.

Tomorrow the lead officer, RCMP Cpl. Benjamin (Monty)"Hit him again! Hit him again!"Robinson, takes the stand.
Will he, like the three officers before him, also testify that Dziekanski was throwing things when they arrived, that he came at them screaming and brandishing a stapler, that he ignored their commands and had to be zapped twice before being "wrestled" to the ground, that none of the four have ever mentioned a single word to each other about what happened? Will he also have to be walked though the video frame by frame and have their official story debunked?

Cpl. Robinson will also presumably be asked why, as the lead officer, he did not monitor Dziekanski's condition after he started turning blue, why he did not attempt rescusitation, and why he initially refused to remove Dziekanski's handcuffs for the first responders.

On Oct 25, Cpl. Robinson again failed to provide aid for a victim when he fled the scene of an accident in which he hit a motorcyclist with his jeep. The motorcyclist died of his injuries.


In other RCMP/TASER™ news, the Sun reports that B.C. RCMP Sgt. Russell Hannibal, who was acquitted after zapping a man in handcuffs six times, "received a formal reprimand, not for deploying his Taser, but for using “vulgar, inflammatory” language during the arrest.
Hannibal’s commanding officer would have reviewed all the facts in the case before deciding against a formal hearing."

Yeah, don't mention the TASER™ - I did once but I think I got away with it.
.
Monday Update : P.S.A. on that whole "whack a mole in my shoes" thing.
.

RCMP strip details from Dziekanski airport TASER™ report

Missing from the RCMP report :
1) Dziekanski's name
2) the name and rank of the officer who fired the TASER™
3) the name of his supervisor
4) details about the duration of the firing
5) the number of times the weapon was used in stun mode
6) whether Dziekanski was armed
7) a written summary of the incident
8) "assessments as to whether use of the TASER™ helped the RCMP either "avoid use of lethal force" or "avoid injuries to subject or Police."

CP : "In a letter accompanying the form, the RCMP says it invoked exemptions under the Access to Information Act to protect the privacy of the person stunned and to guard confidences about the force's investigations and weapons."

"To protect the privacy of the person stunned"
I can't find the italics italic enough for that statement.

RCMP Commissioner William Elliott, the man brought in to clean up (the image of) the RCMP, said in March, "Our motivation is not to avoid criticism or controversy by exercising our discretion one way or the other, but to strike an appropriate balance between sometimes competing interests like privacy and the public's right to know."
CP : Insp. Troy Lightfoot, an RCMP spokesman, said that internal analysis of the forms concluded the painful weapons were being used correctly.


In 2004 Robert Bagnell was killed almost instantly after being shocked by a Vancouver police Taser.
CTV :

"Engineering firm Intertek tested the two weapons fired during the Bagnell incident. Their research found while one Taser performed within a normal electrical output, the other was 30 times higher.
Taser International, a U.S. stun gun manufacturer, later disputed Intertek's test results. Since then, the two Bagnell Tasers were sent to the Canadian Police Research Centre in Ottawa for further examination. That was two years ago.

Victoria Const. Mike Massine, considered one of Canada's foremost police experts on stun guns, says Tasers are not tested by police. "I'm assuming (Tasers) are tested at the factory," he said. "We don't have the mechanism to do that."

Intertek's data came as a surprise to Federal Liberal Party safety critic Ujjal Dosanjh.
"If they've known about this and have done nothing -- that is absolutely wrong," Dosanjh said."

Today, Dosanjh and TASER™ chairman Tom Smith will both testify at the BC inquiry into TASER™ use.

It's worth remembering that none of these inquiries would be happening at all had not Paul Pritchard of Victoria first recorded Dziekanski's murder and then stood his ground and hired a lawyer to reclaim the recording from the RCMP after they told him it might be several years before they would return it.

Previous to Pritchard's YouTube going worldwide, the RCMP were already covering their tracks, muttering darkly about the likelihood of Dziekanski being a drug mule and how the officers were forced to use stun guns because the room was crowded with airline passengers.

So much, Mr. Elliott, for your "appropriate balance between competing interests like privacy and the public's right to know".