As 2011 draws to a close, the issue of Wikileaks disclosures remains to be resolved – a breach of trust to some, the right to know to others.

However, if one examines the record, it’s pretty hard to see much of a  threat to American (or intentional) security, in the disclosures by Wikileaks that has embarrassed allied governments.

In some ways, Wikileaks’ founder, Julian Assange, who is fighting extradition from Britain to Sweden on accusations of rape and sexual assault, has performed a considerable service by revealing  “leaked” analyses of what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The most graphic revelations seem to be that high command has covered up or sanitized certain unpleasant facts – more or less confirming what many journalists have suspected, speculated, and written about.

Wikileaks has probed extrajudicial killings in Kenya, abuses at Guantanamo Bay, dumping of toxic waste off Africa, the release of diplomatic cables that embarrass governments. And so on.

New Gingrich has called Assange “an information terrorist . . .an enemy combatant.”

Amnesty International and others regard Assange admiringly.

Much of what Wikileaks has “revealed” is in the public’s interest – a network that relies of whistleblowers. It is mindful of Daniel Ellsberg, the U.S. Defence Department guy who released the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and was variously regarded as both a traitor and a folk-hero. So it is with Assange. Sort of.

There’s been little (if anything) that reveals the identity of undercover agents or spies, or details that jeopardize lives. Most of what’s been disclosed is information that the enemy –i.e. the Taliban and al-Qaeda — were quite aware.

Julian Assange does not seem very admirable, but nor he doesn’t seem much of a threat to security. One wonders if charges against him are real, or if they are manufactured to punish him for daring to use leaks?

Put bluntly, Wikileaks seems to have contributed to the military’s oft-declared policy of openness and transparency, which is often more rhetorical than real.

The case of army intelligence analyst Private Bradley Manning is another matter.

Manning is facing court martial in the U.S. on charges of aiding the enemy and wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the internet by downloading thousands of classified military files, and funneling the data to Wikileaks.

If it’s hard to see the harm done by Mr. Assange and Wikileaks, it’s also hard to see why the book should not be thrown at Private Manning. He’s the treacherous one –the one who betrayed his oath, and the army.

The army is justified in being upset that its emails and information it considers classified or secret, are illicitly copied and funneled to unauthorized people.

If found guilty, Private Manning could face life-imprisonment. If so, few tears will be shed. Meanwhile Assange should escape charges that involve espionage.

Private Manning’s lawyers think their client was so obviously emotionally troubled with curious behaviour problems, that his army superiors are at fault for not recognizing dysfunctional symptoms, and revoking or cancelling his security clearance.

As a defence strategy, that seems a hopeless – rather like the late Clifford Olson blaming the RCMP for his murder of several young people in British Columbia. because they didn’t arrest him sooner than they did.

Manning apparently tried to hide what he was doing by pretending on line that he was a  woman – Breanna Manning. To his apologists this indicates gender confusion, and a possible explanation for his treason. Rubbish.

It was the noted atheist Christopher Hitchens who remarked in a debate before his untimely death last week, that if indeed there was “all-seeing god” watching over us, “it would be like living in North Korea.”

And now the latest in the family of hereditary dictators of North Korea has died at age about 69 – Kim Jong-il, leaving his third and youngest (known) son , Kim Jong-un, as heir to impoverished country at age 28.

Although North Korea is a paranoid state where the regime keeps an “all-seeing eye” on everyone to make sure citizens aren’t subversively listening to Voice of America on pre-set radios, it’s difficult to take the country seriously.

Yes, the Kims have been adept at intimidating the world – first with Kim Il-sung, placed in power by Stalin and known as “Great Leader” who attacked South Korea in 1950, followed by his heir in 1994, Kim Jong-il, known as “Dear Leader” who threatens neighbors with nuclear weapons, and now by his son Kim Jong-un who is an unknown factor and dubbed for the moment “Successor Leader.”

Put bluntly, North Korea is a fruitcake regime. Without anything in the way of resources–except soldiers and nutbar leaders who threaten and bluff–North Korea has a first strike potential to do considerable damage to South Korea, but then would be obliterated If America retaliated.

Russia and China have to be embarrassed by North Korea, whose propaganda machine depicted Kim Jong-il as a jet fighter pilot, a composer of operas, a movie producer with a photographic memory, and a golfing phenom who in his first attempt at the game scored 11 holes in one.

Nuclear arsenal or not, how does one take this guy and his regime seriously?

That’s part of the trouble. There’s no guarantee the country will act sanely with the current leadership it must worship on pain of death.

While the new “Kim” on top — Kim Jong-un — is unknown, odds are he’s as nutty as his dad. On second-thought, maybe not. He’s got generals around him who’ll curb (or try to curb) any excessive loony tunes emerging. Dear Leader dad was one for the ages.

Reality is, we know more about the dark side of the moon than we do about the inner workings of North Korea. What we do know is that every year there is starvation, as crops fail and the country’s budget is dedicated to the military. Appeals for foreign aid are invariably answered (mostly by generous South Korea) and food aid goes to the army.

It’s been noted that the Kims may be the only fat people in North Korea – papa being addicted (we were told) to imported lobsters and cognac. When he was in school, Kim Jong-il was one of those rare students who allegedly could repair motor cars, or sewing machines while fine tuning electric motors and inventing electronic wizardry. Smart kid.

American presidents are particularly vulnerable to appeals of hunger – as well as being susceptible to gestures of blackmail: Give us aid or we’ll test nuclear weapons. That sort of stuff that U.S. administrations take more seriously than they should.

Japan is vulnerable to nuclear blackmail. North Korea missile and rocket testing that goes astray, periodically threatens Japan.

All in the name of gaining respect for North Korean bellicosity.

While threats of war are nonsense – terrorism is very real.

Last year North Korea torpedoed a South Korean warship, killing 43 sailors. As if to refute South Korea’s accusations of aggression, North Korea bombarded a South Korean island. That’s the sort of country it is, under the Kim dynasty. If you say we don’t want peace–we’ll kill you.

In the past, the late and now lamented (in the streets of Pyongyang) “Dear Leader” was credited with a 1983 bombing in Myanmar that killed 17 South Korean officials negotiating with the Burmese. And then blowing up a Korean airline, killing 115. All when Kim Jong-il headed North Korea’s espionage service, before succeeding his dad.

Some years ago, around the time that Kim Il-sung was fading, South Korea’s Institute for North Korean Studies published a book: The Son Also Rises which documented the family’s history, noting that uncles, aunts and offspring “are all in the gravy up to the elbow.”

As if to enhance North Korea’s goofiness, when Kim Il-sung died, he was declared “President for Life,” which would have been more accurate it if it had been for “afterlife.” Anyway Kim Jong-il never took the title “President,” but preferred to be “chairman,” and Supreme Commander.”

What happens now that he world has a young “sole leader” in North Korea is anyone’s guess. Likely nothing – for a while. We’ll know soon enough it Kim Jong-un is as nutty as his dad – who, although crazy, was not stupid, witness how he persuaded the West to leap through hoops. What chance does the kid have with a dad like his?

One thing certain – China will do what it can to harness North Korea not to be foolish and do something provocative that may jeopardize China’s commercial dealings with the developed world.

That’s the good news. The bad news is another Son is also rising…

In recent days, bullying in schools has been a hot topic for condemnation, with little in the way of solutions being offered.

While everyone deplores bullying, a sorry reality is that many people who oppose it are bullies themselves, without realizing it. And bullying takes many forms.

In differing ways, most have had experience with bullying. Looking back to my own childhood, I can’t recall being bullied, but I can recall schoolyard fights. My upbringing was a bit unusual, since my father was a soldier and that meant often changing schools as he was transferred around the country.

Arriving at a new school in mid-term meant finding one’s place in the hierarchy. In those days, that usually meant a recess fight with the class tough guy. I quite liked fighting – wrestling, because fist-fighting meant getting bopped on the nose.

I grew up despising bullies, perhaps because my father loathed them.

When I was nine or ten at school in Ottawa, I remember teasing a kid after on a winter day at the outdoor rink. A bigger kid came along to hassle the guy I was teasing.

I objected that I got him first, and wound up fighting the big kid, — and being thrown against the school wall and my head being cut. A teacher watching from the window saw the whole thing, and rushed out to take me to a doctor.

The teacher phoned my parents, fearing I’d be scolded for fighting (I never got scolded for fighting) and praised me for defending a smaller kid against a bully. When I got home, both parents lavished praise on me. My sister scowled at the attention I was getting.

I never fooled myself that I was defending the kid – I was fighting the interloper.

But ever after I tried to live up to what my parents (and the teacher) thought I was.

When attending Prince of Wales school in Barrie, I was never bullied but my younger sister was. She was being pestered en route to school. It was wartime, father overseas, and my mother paid little attention. In those days one never complained to teachers.

So me and my pal, Jim McConkie, would trail Robin as she walked to school, and when the bully harassed her, we were on him. It solved the problem. Afterwards, I tried to use Robin as bait to attract bullies, so we could beat them up. But the fish never bit.

When step-daughter Danielle was going to Toronto’s Whitney school in the 1970s – the public school I attended in the 1930s – she was plagued by a bully who made life hell for her and her friend Elizabeth.

I recalled defending my sister when she was that age, and Dani’s brother Guy picked up the theme. Guy wasn’t certain he could handle the bully, but his best friend in those days, Matty, was a natural, good-natured athlete.

Guy and Matty persuaded Dani to head for Whitney with them trailing, ready to step in if bullying occurred. I’m not sure what happened, but I think Danielle so enjoyed the outcome that she looked forward to her champions always on hand to protect her.

Teachers are the ones who should spot school bullying, but often they’re blind to it. Too often, teachers are bullies themselves. Kids who are bullied are often unpopular – even to teachers. But it’s part of growing up. Fortunately most learn to cope – even later, when bullying occurs in the workplace.

With the race for the Republican Presidential nomination now seemingly down to two candidates – Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney – suddenly Romney is in the uncharacteristic role of underdog.

Astonishingly (to me), polls show Gingrich some 10 points ahead of Romney in the upcoming Iowa primary; 8.6 points ahead in South Carolina; 16.5 ahead in Florida. In New Hampshire. Romney leads by 16.5 points. Nationally, Real Clear Politics has Gingrich leading Romney by 6.2 points.

Of course, all this may change by next summer, but it’s still puzzling to those who wonder how Gingrich can be a serious contender with the baggage he carries, including condemnation for unethical behaviour and lying.

Apart from being impressed with what seems a class act by Mitt Romney, I have fond memories of his father. George Romney was CEO of American Motors, Governor of Michigan, and a Republican candidate for President in 1968, but was edged by Richard Nixon.

Here’s why I have warm feelings about Romney.

In 1954, after being discharged from the army, I had gone back to the University of B.C. to complete the final year for a degree. Tuition was paid by Veterans Affair, and residence at Acadia Camp consumed the $60 a month I got in allowances. I had saved enough to buy a car – $1,500 for a snappy, new, two-seat Nash Metropolitan convertible, made by American Motors.

I was delighted with the car. The first I’d owned since buying a 1934 Chev Roadster as a teenager during the war ($75), and before that a 1927 McLaughlin Buick ($25).

After a month, I noticed the panel inside the left door of the Metropolitan had come unstuck. I went back to the dealer, who said the warranty didn’t cover the inside door panel, and tough bananas kid.

It was around the time when I’d written a letter to J. Edgar Hoover, enquiring about becoming an FBI agent. I got a gracious response from that strange man (whose foibles weren’t well known in those days) brushing me off, and suggesting the RCMP.

His courteous response persuaded me to write to George Romney, then CEO of American Motors in Detroit. I explained in the letter  that I had returned from the Korean war, that I was back to school, that I didn’t have much money but really admired the Metropolitan I’d purchased, but that the door paneling was defective and the car company said the warranty didn’t cover such damage.

I wrote that I didn’t think he, Mr. Romney, would want a customer treated as I had been treated. I didn’t blame him if he couldn’t do anything. I was still an admirer of American Motors products. I just wanted him to know a poor student’s plight.

A couple of weeks later, I got a message to phone the car dealer.

The car dealer had heard from Detroit, and not only was the whole businesses a misunderstanding but they wanted to repair my car, and would I accept a courtesy car as replacement until mine was fit to return — and don’t worry, keep it as long as is convenient. So sorry for the misunderstanding!

I was dazzled. I kept the courtesy for a week, and the Metropolitan was returned – with a full tank of gasoline too!

Is it any wonder I wanted Romney to win the 1968 Republican nomination?

And now his son is after the job. Being his father’s son is good enough for me – even though the Nash Metropolitan is long gone, now replaced by a Subaru.

A virtue of minority governments in Canada is that the ruling party has got to pay attention to its Parliamentary opposition, and must negotiate compromises. A negative is that legislation can get mired in debate and nothing happens.

A virtue of majority governments is that worthwhile legislation that couldn’t be passed in minority days, can get whistled through with neither fuss not fanfare.

A case in appoint is the of ending long gun registration (rifles and shotguns) which has been a costly boondoggle with few positive effects, but which got tangled in politics during minority days, and made criminals out off farmers who ignored it.

More significant, is the present government’s apparent determination to scrap or revise Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which was intended to punish manifestations of “hate” in Canada, but has been misused to effectively curb free speech.

Alberta MP Brian Storseth has a private member’s bill to scrap Section 13 and leave the Criminal Code as the means to counter hate propaganda.

Enacted in 1977 (by the Trudeau government, of course), the guts of Section 13 says: “It is a discriminatory practice (by an individual or a group) … to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable…”

At the time, Justice Minister Ron Basford said Section 13 applied mostly to Toronto where extreme groups used recorded telephone messages to attack others. Basford said the key was that the same messages were used repeatedly: “I underline the word ‘repeatedly’ that it has to be part of a pattern … (which) serve no social purpose.”

Hate propaganda is one thing, crushing free speech is another.

Initially it was Jewish groups that supported Section 13, probably because they felt they were the favoured targets of hate. What wasn’t anticipated was that the legislation would be used to limit free speech–and in a draconian way that can’t be justified in a court of law.

If (when) Section 13 is put to rest, much credit must go to Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, who stood tall and fought back when Human Rights Commissars went after them.

When Levant ran the magazine Western Standard (now deceased) he published the Danish cartoons that were a spoof on political aspects of Mohammed, but which every publication in North America shied from, for fear of Islamic violence that left people dead in other areas of the world.

By no stretch of any imagination was Levant indulging in “hate.” It was news and comment which other publications avoided by pretending their cowardice was acting on “principle.”

Steyn wrote a book that basically said their high birthrate indicated that Muslims would eventually be majorities in European countries. He thinks multiculturalism is a fraud–combining then worst of Muslim culture with the worst of Western culture.

By fighting back, both these guys gutted the Human Rights zealots.

The Criminal Code is quite adequate to deal with “hate,” and extends beyond free speech–our most precious democratic “right.”

Free speech is the right to be obnoxious; on occasion to be offensive; often to be wrong and to say rude or unkind things, but not necessarily untruthful things. Unlike Human Rights tribunals, those who go to court must prove they’ve been damaged by free speech.

According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the reaction to the Paris fire-bombing of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is another example of how fearful Western society is of offending Islamic extremists.

Hirsi Ali is the Somali woman who fled to Europe to escape an arranged marriage with someone in Toronto. She went to university and was elected to the Dutch Parliament. She migrated to the U.S. after collaborating on a documentary about the oppression of Muslim women (Submission) that resulted in filmmaker Theo Van Gogh being murdered and death threats against her.

Her two books, Infidel and Nomad are persuasive accounts of the plight of women under Islamic law and culture. A scathing indictment of extremism that plagues the faith.

Her recent article on huffingtonpost.ca, cites the fire-bombing of Charlie Hebdo’s offices after the magazine facetiously named the Prophet Muhammed as “guest editor,” with the cover drawing depicting Muhammed promising “100 lashes if you don’t die from laughter.”

Ali notes that some commentators rationalize the fire-bombing on grounds that the magazine’s  “‘offensive’ issue provoked a predictably violent response from extremists.”

She quotes an article by Time magazine’s Paris bureau chief, Bruce Crumley, saying that mocking Islam is to “openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of the common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?”

Hirsi Ali points out that offensive “scatological cartoons of world leaders and caricatures of Jesus and the Pope” rarely result in violent reactions.

The upshot of the Time’s article is that “in a free society, a newspaper can ridicule and stigmatize whomever it chooses, except those who demonstrate a willingness to respond with violence. Extremist groups must be exempt from satire or criticism – or the blame for ensuing carnage falls squarely on the shoulders of the offending publication.”

In other words, self-censorship is the order of the day–something not unknown in the Canadian media when it comes to Islamic extremists.

Ali cites examples of self-censorship in the U.S.: Yale University Press declining to reproduce Danish political cartoons of Muhammad in a book about the controversy–“fearful of attracting the wrath of militant Islamic factions.”

Random House cancelled the publication of a historical romance novel featuring Muhammad’s youngest wife, Aisha. “Comedy Central censored  an episode of the TV program South Park that featured Muhammad wearing a bear suit.”

Ali says “fear of Islamist violence” has inhibited critical discussion of the Koran, and has “silenced those who would decry the treatment of women in some Islamic communities.”

Accordingly, the message is that “Muslims, in general, are violent so it is better not to provoke them … so let’s give them special treatment. What sounds like a well-intentioned and honourable message is, if you think about it, denigrating and racist.”

Satire and questions by media are a hazard of democracy.

But for militant Islamists “there is no ideological distinction between fire-bombing a newspaper’s headquarters and murdering a filmmaker like Theo Van Gogh.”

That said, a majority of non-militant Muslims may not like Muhammad satirized, but they understand and accept free speech. They are the ones most damaged by minority extremism — and the cowardice of those who make a virtue out of capitulating to threats of violence.

It’s understandable why Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou wants to hold a referendum before implementing draconian financial restraints that will cause riots, clashes with police, car burnings, acts of vandalism, and anarchy.

He knows what has to be done, but undoubtedly supposes that if a majority of Greeks support austerity measures, that will neutralize hostility on the streets whenever the government takes unpopular but necessary action.

Understandable, too, is the outrage being expressed by the rest of Europe at Papandreou apparently reneging, or equivocating on what was assumed to be a slam-dunk decision.

So once again it’s back to the drawing board . . . or maybe not.

By “going to the people” Papandreou proclaims he is practicing the essence of democracy. The fishhook is that if the Greeks reject the deal with Europe, it virtually means that Greece is opting out of the European Union and dumping the euro in favour of going back to the drachma. Either way, wretched financial times are ahead for Greece.

If so it’ll be the first (and least important) domino to fall, but it will almost inevitably lead to defaults by Italy, Spain, Portugal.

U.S. President Barack Obama is in Europe to add his two cents to the debate which, the way Europe is heading, could result in a world-wide recession. Again.

Looked at from another viewpoint, there’s no way any bailout plan is a long-term solution to Greece’s economic woes, brought on by shameful abuse by over-indulged unions, exorbitant pensions, cowardly and deceitful politicians cooking the books, and greedy, self-absorbed citizens.

So whatever Greece’s leaders agree to likely won’t be fulfilled and will be merely bandaids until next time.

Now an election looms, as confidence in Papandreou and his PASOK socialist party is at low tide. If a vote of no-confidence ousts the government, will things change for the better? Unlikely. The culture remains constant.

Greece has shown little sense of responsibility or willingness to endure necessary sacrifices. So be it. Will the Greek people support Papandreou in a referendum, and thus continue using the euro as its currency, as 17 of the European Union’s 27 countries do?

If I were a betting person (and sometimes I am), I’d bet that a referendum would favour Papandreou, if only because the alternative would be so financially catastrophic.

If the Greek people vote not to accept stern measures in order to remain using the euro, and getting eight billion euro as bandaid bailout, then say goodbye.

Let ‘em go. Let ‘em make their own way until they change their minds and rejoin the club and adhere to existing rules. If that means another recession, or even a depression, better now than at some time in the future when damage will be even greater.

Canada as well as America will be hurt if (when) Greece officially defaults, and (or) Germany and France get fed up with all the hanky-panky and cut their losses.

No matter what, Canada will be better off than most countries – thanks to our banking system which is widely recognized as the world’s best — thanks to Jean Chretien and Paul Martin (as Finance Minister), and now the sensible Harper government with Jim Flaherty as Finance Minister.

President Obama’s contribution to emergency discussions in Cannes seem ironic, especially when he has contributed to the economic crisis in his own country, and his own future is threatened in next year’s presidential election because of his failures.

I’ve not read reviews of Conrad Black’s new book, A Matter of Principle, but it’s a remarkable work — unlike any of its kind that I’ve ever read. It tells the story of his Chicago trial and subsequent conviction.

While the trial is the core of the book, Conrad (excuse the informality—but that how many of us think of him) also tells the fascinating tale of how he acquired the Daily Telegraph, his surge to international prominence, the malice towards him generated by then-PM Jean Chretien, and finally his troubles at Hollinger and the vendetta waged by Richard Breeden – whose Special Report on Hollinger is presented as epic villainy.

In essence, the Breeden report destroyed a viable company, impoverished shareholders, and was profitable for “regulators” who oversaw Hollinger’s destruction.

Breedon is author of the “Corporate Kleptocracy” allegations against Conrad.

The ins-and-outs of Conrad’s newspaper acquisitions are a labyrinth of complexities, and not to everyone’s interest or understanding. Conrad seems to have total recall of everything, and he lays it out coherently and colourfully.

But it’s the story of his 2007 Chicago trial on 16 counts of fraud, theft, obstruction, etc. (reduced to 13 counts) that makes this 578-page book exceptional.

Conrad pulls no punches.

He analyzes participants in the trial with some brutality, enormous candor and considerable insight. His description of David Radler, his former partner who turned against him at the bidding of U.S. prosecutors, is soul-shivvering:

hunched, furtive, with darting, fearful eyes. . . . too distasteful to be pitiful . . . twitchy, timorous and bowed . . . misshapen by envy and insecurity that drove him to treachery and cowardice.

I covered much of the trial as a reporter, and that’s a pretty accurate summation of Radler (whom Conrad repeatedly refers to as the “rat”). Precise, blunt, succinct.

Not even his own lawyers escape Conrad’s candid assessments – especially Eddie Greenspan, his lead lawyer, to whom he gives credit in some instances, and then savages at other times.

Conrad quotes the lead prosecutor, Eric Sussman (whom he describes as having “a crewcut top knot . . . compulsively darting eyes . . . hollow chested . . . all nose, mouth and fake shoulders”). Sussman refers to Greenspan as “an old water buffalo.”

Among other criticisms, Conrad says “Eddie Greenspan’s methods were far too ponderous for the rapid cadence of American courts.”

In this context he notes: “Greenspan appeared to have no idea how to deal with the objections technically, and no idea whether they were well founded or not. Sussman was like a hyena nibbling at the legs of a lumbering beast.”

On one occasion Conrad says he asked Greenspan “very calmly ‘to raise my comfort level about your ability to master U.S. procedure.” Greenspan angrily flared up and said he’d return to Toronto immediately.

When told of this, Conrad’s wife Barbara Amiel “thought this was a golden opportunity not to be missed . . . and had to be restrained from paying for a private flight to take him home that day.”

That issue was ironed out, and Conrad acknowledges that Greenspan’s cross-examination of members of the Hollinger audit committee – former Illinois Governor Jim Thompson, former ambassador Richard Burt, Economist Marie-Josee Kravis – was a masterful emasculation that revealed them as either lazy, negligent, cowardly or untruthful – or all four.

From Conrad’s writings, it seems he was always second-guessing his lawyers, offering advice, recommending tactics, listening to his congenitally pessimistic wife who at times seemed to be unraveling and verged on panic. Conrad writes that Barbara and his daughter Alana repeatedly wanted Greenspan replaced.

Throughout, Conrad himself seemed a pillar of strength and composure – even when giving impromptu press conferences to the occasional dismay of Greenspan.

In the Globe and Mail on Oct. 1, Greenspan had a full page article on Conrad’s book, noting wryly that when he noticed he wasn’t one of “thousands of people” Conrad thanked and acknowledged in his book, “that I probably wasn’t going to like it.”

In challenging many of Conrad’s views, Greenspan said his health is fine (Conrad felt he was suffering the effects of diabetes). Greenspan was upset when journalist Mark Steyn wrote in Maclean’s magazine that just before the case went to the jury, Greenspan and his American counsel, Eddie Genson, had “demanded a million ‘bucks’ each” from Conrad.

“The clear implication was that we had effectively extorted our client at a moment of vulnerability,” Greenspan wrote. He wrote a letter to Maclean’s calling the allegation “complete fiction” and e-mailed a draft to Conrad who, he said, agreed with him: “I think you are right to rebut the allegation. If asked, I will support your version of this.”

However in his book, Conrad says “I was peddling away from the Eddies” . . . and noted Steyn’s “fierce diatribe . . . highlighting their lifting of $2.2 million from me just as the trial was ending. . . . It was the end of Greenspan’s mystique.”

This clearly wounded Greenspan. But it didn’t stop there.

While noting that Greenspan “had been an able lawyer, a genuine friend and a true believer in the right of all to representation,” Conrad added that: “The deterioration of such a man is objectively sad, and is made more so by the inelegance of his acts of denial and displacement of responsibility for his own shortcomings and aggressive paranoia . . . . His time is passing; I wish him well.”

I admit to being shocked and puzzled at Conrad’s harsh assessment of Greenspan, and also at Barbara’s belief that Greenspan should be replaced. Conrad writes: ”At one point . . . Barbara passed me a note suggesting that I interrupt proceedings and tell the court that there was a medical emergency that required Greenspan to withdraw . . . I ignored it, but it did betray the flaring nervosity in our camp, which I shared.”

In my view Eddie Greenspan saved Conrad Black.

Conrad is candid in documenting how, when fortunes turned against him, former friends and allies also turned against him. Even at the Telegraph, employees who owed their careers to Conrad, turned on him. As did then likes of Henry Kissinger, Hal Jackman, Alan Gottlieb. A host of lawyers milked him for millions. People he put on Hollinger’s board, turned on him – sided with the prosecutors.

If nothing else, Conrad Black seems not have been a great judge of character.

Kissinger (and others) now, apparently, want to be friends again. And Conrad is apparently agreeable. In this, he’s more generous than many would be.

At Conrad’s trial it was Greenspan who destroyed the audit committee’s efforts to support the prosecution’s contention that Black should be imprisoned for life. Thompson and Kravis were revealed as cowardly, as liars, as negligent.

Fred Creasy, Hollingers’ controller, was taken apart by Greenspan, who destroyed Creasy’s contention that Conrad’s trip to Bora Bora cost the company $565,000 — “the most expensive airplane trip in the history of manned flight,” said Greenspan. Creasy was badgered into acknowledging he might not be an expert in corporate financing.

Conrad pays tribute to Greenspan’s dismantling of Creasy.

But it was Greenspan’s cross-examination of Radler that destroyed the prosecution’s case. Conrad thought he started off badly: “Ponderous, repetitive, disorganized and excrutiating . . . we considered what to do with Greenspan.”

Yet Conrad later acknowledges that before Greenspan was finished with him, “Radler was smeared over the floor and walls.” Relentlessly, Greenspan nailed Radler as a liar and cheat.

On the first day he was cross-examined, Radler was cocky and thought he was in control. On the second day he was in disarray. He had a sweetheart deal with the prosecution on condition that he nail Conrad, but by the time Greenspan was done with him, he was pleading that he couldn’t remember things he had said the day before.

In its summation, the prosecution didn’t dare cite Radler’s testimony, where they once had boasted to the jury that Radler’s testimony would destroy Conrad.

Instead, it was Radler and the prosecution that were destroyed.

Conrad also expresses concern that during the trial, the two Eddies (Greenspan and Genson) “frequently slumbered in the afternoons . . . . Greenspan would awaken occasionally, like a crocodile whose nostrils have been tickled by a ripple on the water, and advise me to sit differently, that my posture was too erect for the jury, and then doze off again.”

Lawyers for the defence worried that the jury didn’t like Greenspan. This didn’t seem to worry Greenspan as it worried others. He was more concerned about the verdict than his popularity.

As it turned out. Conrad was found “Not Guilty” on nine of13 charges – the nine being issues that Greenspan had argued. I remember having lunch with Greenspan and his legal team the day the case went to the jury. Greenspan asked (as all lawyers do, of reporters) what I thought the verdict would be.

I thought Conrad would win 12 of the 13 charges, the exception being obstruction of justice in the removal of boxes from 10 Toronto street, simply because video images of carrying boxes looked bad. “My God, that case alone could be 14 years,” said Greenspan.

The boxes were the one issue where Greenspan didn’t represent Conrad in court — Eddie Genson did, but had to stop before he’d finished due to frail health. Conrad considered Genson “a Damon Runyon figure, obfuscatory, stammering, almost incomprehensible in his repetition and syntax and jangling accent – but clever.”

Whether or not the jury liked Greenspan was irrelevant – jurors were persuaded by his demolition of prosecution witnesses that Conrad Black was mostly innocent.

That doesn’t come across clearly in Conrad’s book, which is too bad because it’s a fascinating book about the trial and contains many delightfully descriptive insights and assessments.

Still, Conrad must have been an aggravating client—forever advising his lawyers, second-guessing them, recommending what to do, and criticizing when the unexpected happened.

As far as I’m concerned, the hero of that landmark trial was Greenspan who, I think, saved his client from the lynch-minded prosecution which did all it could to convict a man against whom there was no evidence that indicated guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Had it not been for Greenspan’s withering cross-examinations, it’s likely Conrad would have been sentenced to 24 or life, instead of the 78 months imposed by Judge Amy St. Eve, who Conrad seems to have respected as fair, courteous, in control.

The only ones to benefit were lawyers and, of course, Hollinger’s regulators who took exorbitant fees ($17,000 a day) to wreck a company that had been profitable for shareholders. And of course Richard Breedon, whose report was used to “get” Conrad, and who made some $50 million if Conrad’s assessment is correct.

The most noteworthy aspect of the rebellion in Libya and today’s death of Muammar Gaddafi is that it took so long.

When the rebellion started last February — catching the world by surprise, since it was spontaneous and without advance planning — it was initially expected to be quick and decisive.

Libya was (or seemed) one of the few rebellions by the people, with nothing resembling an army coup, palace revolt, or underground plotting. In the eastern part of Libya, notably Benghazi, people just had enough, were not going to take oppression any more, and rebelled.

Quickly the Western world took stock of what was happening, and at first lent cautious morale and verbal support, wishing the rebels good luck, but with some skepticism.

When Gaddafi loyalists counter-attacked, and looked as if they might crush the rebellion, countries like France and Britain urged Western involvement.

The U.S. Administration of President Barack Obama refused to take the lead, but offered support if other countries bit the bullet, so to speak, and led the way. Thus, the air war began, with expectations that air attacks would neutralize Gaddafi’s air force, his artillery, his tanks, and mechanized forces. But no Western ground troops.

Some were predicting victory within 48 hours, at which time the way would be clear for the rebels’ rag-tag “people’s army” to sweep west along the coast to Tripoli and beyond.

This didn’t happen. Against prevailing logic, Gaddafi’s forces were tougher and more determined that anyone expected. For some eight months, Gaddafi held on, steadily losing ground but holding off the rebels.

It became apparent that air power alone was insufficient to crush Gaddafi.

Canada was an enthusiastic supporter of the air war, and hundreds of missions against Libyan targets that didn’t shoot back amounted to virtual target practice for Canadian pilots and their eventually-to-be-replaced CF-18 jets.

The same for British, French and American strike aircraft.

The Arab League endorsed the Allied efforts to attack Gaddafi. Our politial leaders insisted we were shooting up Libya to protect civilians, not in an effort to replace Gaddafi’s oppressive regime. Nonsense, but that’s international diplomacy.

Gaddafi was true to his word that he had no intention of leaving Libya. Unlike most despots, he did not flee to a friendly tyranny for refuge. He stayed and fought. He may have been nuts, but he was resolute.

Exactly how he died, is as yet unknown. Photos at the scene show a wounded Gaddafi, his face contorted, blood soaking through his shirt, a man in obvious pain.

He apparently had gunshot wounds on his legs, and if he didn’t bleed to death, he was almost certainly dispatched. And a good thing too. The very last thing anyone wanted was Gaddafi as a prisoner facing a war crimes trial which he would certainly have turned into a circus.

Thus 42 years of his rule has ended — starting in 1969 when as handsome young officer and admirer of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser he deposed Libya’s King Idris in an army coup, and ending as a grotesque blood-soaked relic that was more cartoon character than tyrant.

Some accounts of his death say he was begging for mercy. Maybe, maybe not.

But good that he’s gone.

The question now is whether the ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) is a democratic as our side hopes it will be. Odds are it won’t be. They never are. Their leaders — many are Gaddafi turncoats — have no background in democracy and lean towards autocracy. Remember, power corrupts. And these guys now have power.

Here we go again!

Another conspiracy theory – this time by a woman who has written a 600-page book (Me and Lee) claiming she and Lee Harvey Oswald were lovers and that instead of assassinating President John Kennedy in 1963, he was trying to save him. That might seem a stretch to some, but Judyth Vary Baker, now pushing 70 years old, was in Toronto on October 18to push her book and attend what would have been Oswald’s 72nd birthday party, held appropriately at the Conspiracy Culture Shop on Queen St. West.

For some, it’s hard to take Ms Baker seriously. Then again, it is likely true that she knew and worked with Oswald in New Orleans in the months prior to his (alleged) assassination of JFK on Friday, Nov. 22, 1963. She may even have been his lover, although she was married then — and was divorced in 1987, the mother of five kids, now all adults.

Because I was the only Canadian journalist in the underground garage of the Dallas police station who witnessed Jack Ruby gun down Oswald on Nov. 24, some assume I have special knowledge of the Kennedy slaying. I don’t, although I’ve followed the case and periodically remarked on various inconsistencies and unanswered questions that abound in the shooting.

Ms Baker’s contention that Oswald’s earlier defection to the Soviet Union, where he married the niece of a high ranking military officer, was really a CIA-penetration, is patently silly. The mystery of Oswald’s defection to the USSR is that he was allowed to return to America with a Russian wife. Why did the Soviets let him return; why did America accept him? Dunno. It didn’t happen with others – why only Oswald? This reality has always been fuel for conspiracy buffs.

The “they” Ms Baker says Oswald was trying to save the President from, are ether mafia types who wanted Kennedy dead, the CIA and/or Vice President Lyndon Johnson and people around him who felt Kennedy was betraying the nation. This makes no sense whatsoever. As someone who was there that weekend, I’ve always felt that if there had been a conspiracy to kill the President, in the 48 years since that infamous day, someone would have talked, or written, or revealed involvement. A conspiracy would include many people, but nothing has ever emerged – no diary, death-bed confessions, no authentic documentation of planned murder.

Still, valid questions prevail. What I find interesting is how some of the witnesses of JFK’s murder that November noon who were quoted extensively at the time, have changed their stories as years have passed. This isn’t sinister, but human memory at work. As time passes and more details are learned, stories tend to change or adapt without the person realizing it. And so it is with the Kennedy slaying – as seen in memories of the “grassy knoll” where supposedly gunshots were heard, not necessarily at the time, but in later recollections.

Why has Judyth Baker waited so long before telling her story? She says she feared for her life, as many who were connected with the case began dying – if not mysteriously, at least before their time. Judyth became something of a recluse (do recluses usually have five children, one wonders?) until conscience and a desire for truth and justice persuaded her to write this book to clear Oswald’s name. I suspect it’s a bit late for that, but give her marks for trying.

I remember talking to Jim Garrison, former New Orleans District Attorney who unearthed  conspirators who supposedly killed JFK. Garrison’s prime suspect was businessman Clay Shaw who was acquitted and it became apparent (to some) that Garrison was a conspiracy nutbar. At least that was my impression — if not Oliver Stone’s, who made the film JFK in which Kevin Costner played Garrison as if he had credibility.

At the very least, Judyth Baker is controversial, with believers and disbelievers in her contention that Lee Harvey Oswald was really a patriot who was railroaded into being a scapegoat for a CIA/Mafia conspiracy. While it’s plausible that the mafia might want JFK snuffed, it taxes credulity as to why the CIA would want him terminated – as improbable as Lee Harvey Oswald being a CIA operative going to Russia, and later trying to save the president’s life.