|
Lorna Mills and Sally McKay
Digital Media Tree this blog's archive OVVLvverk Lorna Mills: Artworks / Persona Volare / contact Sally McKay: GIFS / cv and contact |
View current page
...more recent posts
CSIS was formed to spy domestically, but with the government oversight that the RCMP lacked. (yup, that sure made a difference) But, bless their little hearts, they meant well. And until September 11, to most of us (those who didn't belong to a trade union, left wing political party, anti-globalization organization etc.), they still had an endearing image as lovable bumblers, leaving government issued laptops in their cars, only to be stolen from the parked vehicle while they were watching a hockey game at Maple Leaf Gardens.
Could happen to anyone. You remove your wet footwear at the door and before you know it, someone's stolen your shoe phone.
From an especially hard hitting November 16, 1999 Hansard debate on this theft:
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay-Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we know that top secret documents were stolen from a CSIS operative. In the minister's own words, he received a report from CSIS immediately.
I remind him that section 20, paragraph 2 of the CSIS act says specifically that the minister in turn must send the report with his comments to the Attorney General of Canada and SIRC. He did not do this. Why did the minister break the law?
The Speaker: I ask members to be very judicious in their choice of words.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I was informed by the director of CSIS, he also informed me that the inspector general was conducting an investigation, CSIS was conducting an investigation, and the process was proceeding as it should proceed.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay-Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will read section 20(2) to the solicitor general again. It says that the minister in turn must send the report with his comments to the Attorney General of Canada and to the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
He did not do that. He received a report from CSIS. He did not send the report to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Is that not a breaking of this statute?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague, the director of CSIS verbally indicated to me what happened and at the same time he indicated to me that the inspector general of CSIS was conducting an investigation and that CSIS was conducting an investigation"
And a Jolly time was had by all.
I found the above exchange on Jim Abbott's web site after some random googles on the subject. He seems to be actually proud of this.
On CSIS from the very perky Facts Canada site:
"Most nations are concerned with both their internal and external security affairs. Canada is no exception. Since 1984 our country has been placing its security affairs in the hands of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or, as it is commonly called, CSIS. CSIS was formed to handle these affairs in order that a dedicated group be awarded the mandate previously held by a branch of the RCMP. The RCMP, with a lot on its own plate, was found ill equipped to deal with national security concerns."
That would be the adorable way of saying that the MacDonald Commission of Inquiry into Certain Acts of the RCMP (and I don't make up all these expressions, my American friends) found that the RCMP's security branch were a bit too busy illegally infiltrating political parties, labour unions, and compiling security intelligence dossiers on tens of thousands of Canadian citizens.
Do You have what it takes to be a spy?
From an fluff article on CSIS:
"What does it take to become part of the intriguing world of Canadian
surveillance and intelligence?
"An interest in international affairs, a fascination with what an intelligence organization does: the mystery behind it, the secrecy that surrounds it,"
says Dan Lambert, media liaison officer for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)."
I'm interested in all that shit! Pick me! Pick me! I also have it on good authority (crap that I make up, all by myself, all the time) that Sally and her so-called neutrino community are developing a device that causes neutrinos to report back on everything they travel through.
And for a more in-depth report on this, all I'll need, right now, is an Amphibious Hydra Spider
But not in yellow. Indigo or black would be way more stealthy. (it really should be a hybrid too).
...and an iPod.
That should be it. Thank you.
Cold War - (submarine detail from installation) John Dickson 2003
First of all, anyone who was at my house last week for tea in the garden can stop reading now, since I am just going to repeat all that stuff I told you about the Kursk. (I saw your eyes glaze over, you know who you are)
While I was gluing fighter plane models together in front of the TV, I watched a French documentary called The Kursk: A Submarine in Troubled Waters.(I meant to start posting about this earlier, but I got carried away on line reading missile discussion boards, and then watched Das Boot for the 11th time.)
I love submarine week on Discovery. I digress.
As you know, the Kursk was a Russian submarine that sunk under mysterious circumstances while on a routine military exercise in the Barents Sea in August, 2000, killing 118 crewmen.
This particular routine military exercise was apparently very much about smart shopping. The Russians were demonstrating the latest model of the Shkval torpedo, and if you couldn't be bothered with that nerdy link, the technology for this torpedo is based on Supercavitation! Yay! (an equally nerdy link), basically, its a super fast torpedo (five times the speed of anything Nato had at the time) with a reported range of 60 miles. Now in researching the Shkval, I found a lot of discussion from weapons experts who doubt the claims that were made about the technology, the Russians did have earlier versions on the market, (you can even go to international arms shows ...well, maybe not me or you, dear reader) and at the time (mid 90's) the Americans weren't buying into the sales pitch.
Now to 2000, the speculation is that U.S. intelligence got wind that the Russians had developed a Shkval with greater range & velocity plus a homing capacity. A few months prior to the Kursk sinking, the FSB (formerly KGB) arrested an American businessman, (who was also a former naval intelligence officer) for attempting to purchase the designs for the new improved Shkval VA-111 from one of the scientists who had worked on it. (so maybe it worked after all.)
Anyway, the film claims that the Kursk was armed with this new improved weapon (for this routine exercise) and the prospective buyers were the Chinese. It also claims that the manoeuvres were being closely observed by two U.S. attack subs, a British sub and a surface spy ship from the US with a sensitive sonar grid, Nato? and a Norwegian spy ship. (but from the reading I have done that's standard, everyone spies on everyone else, carry on, nothing to see here) So onto the doc's conspiracy theory, and I like it, the two US subs: the Toledo and the Memphis are shadowing the Kursk, maybe they play chicken, (and I must say that if Sally and I were driving nuclear subs, we would be just like Chip 'n Dale: "Excuse me!", "Oh please, after you!", "Oh no, I must insist, after you!") but sadly, common courtesy is so rare, and the Toledo accidentally collides with the Kursk, the Kursk opens the torpedo tubes, and then the Memphis, in order to protect the now damaged Toledo, launches am MK48 torpedo at the Kursk. (though you'd think there'd be some kind of chain of command thing going on before a US sub attacked a Russian sub.) (Monica: dirty blue dress!) (I'm sorry that's a cheap shot, but this narrative needs a honey trap, zany submariner antics were not enough.)
The good questions that the doc poses are:
"Why did it take 30 hours to find the Kursk, when it could be seen from the surface?? (the water was 108m deep, the ship was 160m long) .
Why were the sailors of the Kursk, who may well have known the truth, not rescued when all indications are that a successful rescue was possible? .
Why did the Russian government declare a nuclear emergency, prompting its air force to take the air, if it had no reason to suspect a possible foreign aggression? .
Why did the CIA director, G. Tenet, go personally and secretly to Moscow 3 days later? .
Why did Putin and Clinton hold numerous telephone conversations during the week following the accident.? .
Why was a large Russian debt cancelled, a new loan granted, and Clinton decided to stop the anti-missile shield project?"
But the most bizarre question (or claim) is why did Canada buy a bunch of Shkval VA-111's shortly after this kafuffle? Potential punch lines in the comments thread.
The Trouble With Oscillation Website...
...is now online. I floated a first draft here a while ago and received great feedback. Thanks so much to all y'all Digital Media Tree dudes for your advice and comments (especially Mark, and Jimb).
Blog notes: okay, okay this blog has turned into my personal promotion page in recent weeks. I apologize, but I've been working like mad on this project, so that's what you're seeing here.
The good news: rumour has it that guest blogger L.M. is gearing up for another stint on this page. I have inside info about her topic choice and it's juice-eeeeee.
In the meantime, if you are looking for sassy Toronto art writing, read Artfag.
In the off chance that anyone is interested, I just realised that Daniel C. Dennet's controversial article, "Quining Qualia" is available here online.