CKNW Editorial
for October 12, 2001

First off, a word on the Glen Clark trial. All I want is a fair trial. But I’m appalled to think that evidence might be inadmissible because wire tap evidence may not have had an appropriate legal basis because the Associate Chief Justice gave one of his orders while on vacation in California. First there is the ridiculous image of five people – three policeman and two lawyers, flying at taxpayers expense to Palm Springs because the judge has decided that only he – none of his scores of colleagues on the bench – can hear this matter. That in itself is breathtaking judicial arrogance. But apart from that, I simply make this observation – suppose a first year law student had this question posed to him by his professor. Here are the facts. A Supreme Court of British Columbia made an order respecting a criminal trial in British Columbia while he was languishing by a pool at his condo in Palm Springs, California – as counsel for the accused, what do you do? Even a law student on his first day in law school would say "I would raise the question of jurisdiction! Does a BC Supreme Court Judge have the jurisdiction to make a decision whilst he is vacationing in another jurisdiction?"

The court may very well rule that he does. But that’s not the point. How in hell does it even arise as an issue? Did the Associate Chief Justice Dohm and Crown Counsel not get the feeling in the pit of their tummy that how they were behaving might just later in the day provide the accused with the defence that the authorization for a wire tap was done without jurisdiction?

Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm declared that he was seized of the matter – meaning that he was the only judge entitled to make rulings in the Clark/Pilarinos case about such matters as wire tap evidence. Why? He didn’t have to and, as I understand it had he not done so, a judge not on vacation could have ruled on the matter. No one would have had to go to California to suit the convenience of a judge on vacation. If this evidence – from what we’re told crucial evidence – is ruled inadmissible by reason of faulty procedure the public will have every right to be enraged. In fact, they have every right to be enraged that it is even an issue.

What has not been assessed as a consequence of the war in Afghanistan is the fallout in Middle East if this battle goes on for a long time and doesn't reach some sort of defined conclusion. I wouldn't raise this except that both President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have made it clear that the war against terrorism will be a long struggle indeed.

If the struggle moves away from bombing and otherwise dealing with Afghanistan and does so fairly quickly, that's one thing. But what if it drags on?

Every day there is a new count of civilians killed. This is, of course, an unavoidable consequence of any bombing but unless tangible results can be shown, how do you explain to Muslim colleagues in the coalition that this shedding of blood ought to continue. It was different in the Gulf War because everyone knew that the Iraqis were being softened up for a ground war in Kuwait. But here there is no goal line evidently.

One hesitates to be critical for it just may be that for purposes of waging the struggle the United States must play its cards close to the vest. The inevitable result will be, however, more and more unrest in other Muslim countries.

We have come to think of Egypt, for example, as a stable near democracy in the region. It is anything but. The opposition has been muted it's true but it's there. I remember being there in 1990 and being spat upon, as an assumed American, in Alexandria. The problem is that those who legitimately want democratic change have no choice but to accept the support of, if not actually ally themselves with, Islam fanaticism. It's unfortunate but true that in changes to the system by force, the best soldiers are the fanatics.
It's not only Egypt, of course. There is at least a measure of freedom there. But what about Saudi Arabia, still the world's biggest source of oil. There the Royal Family, which is simply the descendant of a powerful sheik at the beginning of the last century, even had the gall to name the country after themselves. It is a repressive regime, not as bad as the Taliban but damned near according to friends of mine who have lived there, and the wealth is mostly absorbed by the Oligarchic and very large Saud family. The opposition is very real and again could not possibly topple the so-called government without the help of the fanatics - but the fanatics would likely wind up running things. Even though the United States is moving closer and closer to self sufficiency in oil ... or at least towards getting foreign oil from friendly places ... an antagonistic regime in Saudi Arabia - which I think is inevitable - is a serious worry.

Jordan is also a worry. Moreover, it's no mystery why there are suicide bombers in Palestine - this is the problem Yasser Arafat must deal with in his own camp. I make no case for Arafat but it has to be understood that while he is expected by the Israeli government to control violence he himself must think if I control the kids throwing stones I even more encourage the violence that comes from the fanatics over whom no one has control. Moreover, he is a politician and must keep as high a measure of support as he can and all of his constituents, for whatever reason, hate Israelis and don’t like Americans any better.

Both Mr Bush and Mr Blair - who incidentally has risen to enormous prestige world wide by his actions - have made it clear over and over again that the war is not against Islam. But how do you sell that message to the average man in the area who hears that from the Europeans he doesn't like much anyway and on the other hand sees the casualty lists and hears the fundamentalist spin?

Every day Afghans are dying makes the case for the Coalition harder and harder to sell to the Muslim components and bring closer and closer the day when people in charge of these countries have to face an angry population.

These are dangerous days with even more dangerous days to come ... making all of us pray that Mair's axiom I doesn't apply and that Mr Bush and Mr Blair really do know what the hell they're doing.

http://www.rafeonline.com