when the status quo frustrates.

Another taser horror story

Friday, July 25th, 2008

Mounties use tasers to sexually assault an aboriginal child. And get away with it.

Predictably, the article doesn’t call it sexual assault. But what does this sound like to you?

The girl, who was 16 at the time of the incident, said she was held down by four officers, one for each limb, while a taser was used on her legs and groin area. She said the third shock lasted between five and eight seconds and left her screaming in pain.

This is after they stripped her naked and threw her in a cell. It gets worse:

The girl, who is a high-school student, said her wounds were painful for days. The taser broke the skin, leaving red and bloody circular marks on her thighs. The police didn’t tell the girl’s mother about the incident when she picked her up the next morning, and the girl was too ashamed to tell. As a result, the wounds became infected.

Anyway, as is usually the case with these sorts of gross human rights violations—particularly in cases that involve racialized youth—the cops investigated themselves and found themselves innocent of any wrongdoing.

The Globe and Mail‘s pathetic excuse? She was “behaving badly.” Sickening.

Wait, this isn’t from the Onion? Fuck.

Thursday, June 26th, 2008

Yet another set of relics from the post-satire age:

The image “http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_02/GitmoGiftsMOS_800x762.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

As the keychain says, truly “It don’t GITMO better than this.”

Welcome to “Taliban Towers” at Guantanamo Bay, the most ghoulishly distasteful tourist destination on the planet. As these astonishing mementoes show, the US authorities are promoting the world’s most notorious prison camp as a cheap hideaway for American sunseekers — a revelation that has drawn international anger and condemnation.

Just yards from the shelves of specially branded mugs and cuddly toys, nearly 300 “enemy combatants” lie sweltering in a waking nightmare.

It is six years since foreign prisoners, many captured in Afghanistan, were first taken to this US-occupied corner of Cuba. Yet even now, no charges have been brought against them.

While the detainees lie incarcerated, visitors can windsurf, take boat trips and go fishing for grouper, tuna, red snapper and swordfish.

Hey, in all fairness, if you want to take your family out for a little dunk in the water, does it really matter if there’s a few detainees getting their own “dunk in the water” a few hundred feet away? Where is the line where it’s magically OKAY to start having fun? One mile away? 50 miles? (Don’t say 500 miles, or you’re already to Miami.)

(more…)

Guns in schools

Wednesday, June 25th, 2008

Whatever side one falls on in the gun control debate, most people agree that handguns should not be in schools. It’s just a bad mix—volatile, trapped kids and deadly firearms. Any sane person ought to feel a bit uncomfortable at the thought of guns in a high school.

Unfortunately, sane people aren’t in charge in my city.

Sticking police in schools is a bad idea on principle, but sticking armed police in schools is pure, unadulterated lunacy. We have enough problems with police shooting at teenagers of colour—why put them in a situation where they have even more opportunity to do that?

But of course, it all comes down to police chief Bill Blair’s inferiority complex:

“Quite frankly, as you can probably guess by my constant appearance, I believe in police officers in uniform,” he told a press conference this morning.

“I want the people of Toronto to see their police. I want them to have a relationship with the entire police service that is based on trust and respect. And my police officers are armed.”

That’s very nice for you, sir, that you believe in being formal. But we’re talking about arming crazed thugs who will be around children all day. Children—not criminals. How is anyone supposed to get an education with an armed cop just outside the door? Especially, say someone who is a refugee from a war-torn country or a police state, or from an impoverished region here, someone with every reason to fear large armed men carrying guns.

There’s a lot of talk about making schools safe and welcoming in Ontario. That’s all you hear about when you’re becoming a teacher. Apparently, though, that’s been amended to “safe and welcoming…or else.”

It can happen here

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

I wonder at what point a country accumulates enough of the markers—surveillance, botched elections, out-of-control law enforcement, and so on—that citizens and government alike can just shrug their shoulders and say, “Yep, we’re living in a police state. Can someone please liberate us now?”

The U.S. is pretty well there, I think. Check out this story from DCist. Hey D.C., guess what? You’re getting checkpoints!

D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence.

Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.

As most of the people randomly detained and abused at these checkpoints will no doubt be some combination of poor and black, the modest proposal to turn D.C .into a militarized zone is unlikely to raise much ire, though reasonable people, including the chairman of the D.C. police union, the ACLU, and the dean of the University of the District of Columbia’s law school, have all called this plan what it is: “breathtaking” and “cockamamie.”

Alas, I fail to be surprised, particularly in a country currently holding 26,000 people in secret prisons without trial. But, you know, freest country in the world, right?

Here’s the other thing. These people have not read their Jane Jacobs. I mean, it’s obvious because the sorts of people who want to put checkpoints and surveillance cameras everywhere are not the sort of people who read Jane Jacobs. But one of the things she argued, and she was absolutely correct, was that more pedestrian traffic = safer streets. That’s obvious when you think about it. Where would you rather walk around at night: a lively, active, well-lit city street, or a suburban park? Neighbourhood checkpoints will reduce foot traffic to people who can demonstrate that they have a “reason” to be there, making the streets emptier and therefore a better location to commit crimes. Of course, this isn’t so much about making a poor area of town “safer” as it is about policing the freedom of movement of U.S. uncitizens, but you won’t catch any of the plan’s advocates saying that in public.

Hat tip: symbioid.

Protest Pregnancy Day ’08: Pregnancy Kills Women!

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

What I care about is human life, and the ending of it that could be prevented, no matter how great or small that chance of the life ending might be. Lives, lives that would otherwise be in no danger at all, are being lost to pregnancy!

Like these folks, I am totally unconcerned about other people’s ideas that they have some right to “privacy” that trumps my right to stop them from entering into a situation where a human death might occur. I mean, really, what kind of moral leg do you have to stand on acting like “privacy” means you’re free to do things that might result in a living human being kicking the bucket?

You know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I am so in awe of the brilliance of this good organization that I am going to borrow their elegant and succinct “Talking Points” and make them my own, to promote my own worthy cause. With just the simple substitution of “pregnancy” for “the pill” and “women” for “unborn babies,” it seems to scan in almost seamlessly for this great endeavor! I’m sure they’re overjoyed to share with me here because, given their level of concern about deaths that might occur without you even knowing, their concern for deaths that are really obvious that you could not fail to notice occurring must be at least as great! (Any other attitude would be quite, quite illogical and even borderline psychotic, wouldn’t it?)

Let’s get started saving some lives!

(more…)

It’s The Way You Said It, Boss

Friday, April 18th, 2008

So I was just sittin’ at home, relaxing with some online poker and surfing the Blogosphere to occupy the mental space between hands, when on Feministing I came across this:

After the highest court of Maryland reheard the case which made the horrifying ruling that a woman cannot be raped once she has consented to sex, the court has overturned the decision and broadened the definition of rape…

Oh good, I thought to myself, feeling the momentary warm glow of faith restored in my fellow human beings. I did remember that case, of course, and how totally unbelievable it seemed to me at the time–you can’t actually give someone your BODY, y’know, of course it’s understood that your actual BODY the one and only irreplaceable item you live in 24/7 is a “loaner” situation ONLY…yeah, I never really believed they’d go through with that crazy ruling. Didn’t really remember the specific specifics of the situation but probably there was some technicality or something was misrepresented. Yeah! Happily I clicked on the thoughtfully-provided link to the Baltimore Sun story, and was greeted by:

Definition of rape widened
By Julie Bykowicz | Sun reporter
April 17, 2008

The state’s highest court ruled yesterday that a man can be charged with rape if he ignores a woman’s calls to stop – even if she had previously consented to sex.

WHOA!

Run that by me again…

(dramatic pause indicated by dash)EVEN IF! she had previously consented to sex

Have you ever turned in a project at work, felt really good about it, gone to your boss’s office ready for a little congratulatory back-patting, and found yourself instead getting seriously told how badly you missed the actual point of the entire thing? Have you ever taken a test, turned it in, felt really good about it, held out your hand for your B-at-the-minimum paper, and found yourself staring at a D instead?

I made a feeble attempt at rallying, though. So they phrased it, er, in a fashion that seemed to indicate that it was a shocking radical notion that a if a woman said she wanted to have sex with you, that didn’t give you legal ownership of all her bodily orifices til you, not her, decided you were through with them. Probably a typo..! Or maybe I’m being oversensitive. Cause I’m afraid I might sometimes be oversensitive when it comes to the “R” word. God knows that it’s easy to be oversensitive

With this expansion of the legal definition of rape, Maryland joins seven other states whose courts have determined that a woman can revoke her consent after intercourse begins.

(Shocked silence.)

(me, in a small voice) “I didn’t know that the default in 86% of the United States was that I wasn’t allowed to revoke consent whenever I felt like it.”

Always thought I could.

Always operated under that assumption.

I guess I’m luckier than I even knew that I got disillusioned this way, rather than…some OTHER way, eh?

Good news, bad news

Monday, April 14th, 2008

Prisoner 345
Drawing by Sami al-Haj, imprisoned Al Jazeera cameraman

After over two years, the U.S. military is finally releasing AP photographer Bilal Hussein. Hussein, guilty of practicing journalism while Arab, had been imprisoned without evidence or charges, and presumably will be released without apology.

These days, holding folks for no reason, indefinitely, is apparently no big deal. (Even if they’re journalists.) So don’t expect the countless U.S. military prisoners in Iraq and Gitmo to be as “lucky” as the unfortunate Mr. Hussein, who has had years of his life taken away with absolutely no reason.

Imprisoning or killing journalists is generally thought of (by proponents of democracy, anyway) to be one of those no-nos, even in the middle of a war. But like torture, which also used to be taboo, such crimes have their purpose. They effectively silence freedom of the press without the need to pass any laws that might make people uncomfortable. In the current context, “enemy combatant” refers not only to those on the other side of a war that we declared, but also anyone suspected of dissent or critical thought. Better stick to being an embedded reporter. You don’t want to be Tariq Ayoub, Taras Protsyuk, or Jose Couso. You don’t want your camera mistaken for an RPG, like Mazen Dana’s was.

Every so often, some well-meaning progressive cries: “Why does the press concentrate on McCain’s barbecues or Britney’s escapades? What happened to serious journalism?”

Apparently, it’s been locked away.

Outrage overload

Tuesday, February 12th, 2008

Spanish Inquisition
If we need to have fascism, can it at least be well-dressed fascism?

Okay, so this fellow Scalia has actually managed the unthinkable, which is to change my mind on the ethics of torture. Previously, as you may recall, I had the sane belief that torture was always unethical, under any circumstances. But this good judge has convinced me that torture is ethical in precisely one situation.

Say you have a batshit insane lawmaker who has never missed a meal, let alone suffered actual deprivation or, say, stress positions or waterboarding. Say he’s trying to remove legal barriers to torture, since there are only legal barriers remaining, and not very many of those. Say he claims torture no big deal. I think it might possibly be okay to give him a little of what he wants to inflict upon random Middle Easterners—if only because this is such an urgent threat that can apparently be stopped by no other means.

The funniest/saddest quote in that article is this one, though:

“We don’t pretend to be Western mullahs who decide what is right and wrong for the whole world,” he said in the broadcast.

The guy is just insane. If we can’t waterboard him, he should at least be locked up for everyone’s protection.

Ultimately, it’s too late. The U.S. has already granted itself the right to abduct prisoners of war and citizens of other countries, imprison them indefinitely without legal recourse, torture them until they make false confessions, and now, it can execute them too.

David Sheldon, an attorney and former member of the Navy’s legal corps, said an execution chamber at Guantanamo would be largely beyond the reach of U.S. courts.

I think this is the point at which I can no longer be accused of exaggeration or Godwin’s Law violations when I make the claim that the U.S. is running concentration camps. Were I an American, I’d be hard-pressed to cast a ballot for any of the candidates right now, since none of them are talking about this no-longer-slow-at-all slide into fascism, let alone planning to put a stop to it.

You think you know Roe?

Wednesday, December 12th, 2007

Some mystery organization, which only wants us to know the truth, has put out a handy-dandy Roe V Wade IQ test, 12 simple questions designed to test your knowledge of the 1973 Roe V Wade judgment. Alternately, this quiz will also test your understanding of what exactly judges do when they issue a ruling. For example, question 6 asks:

6) At what age does Roe require minor girls to have parental notification before an abortion?
Parental notification is not required
Girls 18 and younger
Girls 16 and younger
Girls 13 and younger

Picking answer 1 shows that not only do you know Roe, you are also probably aware that the question of if minors require parental notification before getting an abortion was not included in the Roe v Wade case, and that lawyers for both sides, only having a half an hour to actually make a case, probably stuck to the issue at hand. Roe was over 18 when she tried to get that abortion, and the Supreme Court is more famous for refusing to hear cases than for randomly throwing extraneous legal issues into the ones they do hear.

Question 9:

9) Which of our nation’s founding documents contains the phrase “right to an abortion”?
Declaration of Independence
U.S. Constitution
Bill of Rights
None of the Above
All of the Above

It’s true that every last right we have is enumerated in great detail in the Bill of Rights, which is actually 50,423 pages long and explicitly states that if it’s not in there, you ain’t got a right to it. This is why the Supreme Court has to make up work for itself; everything is so clearly written out that there is no need for a court devoted entirely to Constitutional matters.

Question 12:

12) Under Roe, which of these are allowed to perform abortions?
Licensed physician
Nurse practitioner
Resident assistant
Registered nurse
All of the above

And hidden question 13:

If Roe wasn’t keeping states from banning abortions outright, which of the following would you find performing abortions in areas where it was illegal?
Doctors, if you can find one
Nurses, ditto
Midwives, ditto
That woman that that woman in your sister’s office heard about
The pregnant woman herself, via something she read on the internet that she hopes is true
The pregnant woman’s boyfriend, via blunt force trauma
Fake doctors who will fill the void as options one through three are thrown in jail
Abortions will actually disappear, being replaced by abandonment and/or infanticide, which will offer a lower maternal death rate than coat hanger abortions

Just joshin’ – there is no question 13.

Truly, the lesser of two evils

Monday, November 26th, 2007

Ezra’s post slamming Obama’s wimpy stand on health care (largely because his plan isn’t universal and still would require us to pay premiums) hits the nail on the head. He correctly lambasts Obama for failing to capitalize on his chance to become — using Ezra’s analogy — the Reagan of the left.

The Democrats’ central failing as a party in the 21st century has been their dedication to furthering unfounded conservative frames. In this case, Obama buys into their BS on health care, but we’ve seen similar parroting on “security” and wartime tough-talk, environmental issues, economic policy, foreign affairs, taxes, and more. Conservatives paint a narrow, bigoted view of reality grounded in privilege. After so many years of watching them cave, I am left to assume the Democrats see the canvas the same way.

Truthfully, though, we all understand why Obama has hedged here specifically and why Democrats continue to wuss out at every opportunity. It’s all about the money.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why little RonPaulites think the country would be so much better if it were run by corporations instead of our present style of government. That has to be one of the dumbest, most obvious false dichotomies I’ve ever heard.

Even Obama, funding his campaign (*almost* entirely) without the help of PACs and lobbyists, hasn’t exactly crossed them, either. In fact, his health care plan would explicitly mimic the current health benefits a federal employee enjoys, providing coverage through private corporate partners like Aetna. In other words, his plan would send our premiums and government subsidies to the same corporations greedily inhibiting true health care reform.

Welcome to the new Democratic Party.

Psychological Torture: A How-To Guide

Wednesday, September 5th, 2007

Here’s something neat that you can read in preparation for your inevitable incarceration in Guantanamo Bay—a U.S. Government-funded manual on psychological torture, published in 1961 by John Wiley & Sons.*

It begins with “don’t try this at home” reassurances:

This work might help the armed forces to offset the lack of knowledge that was in part held responsible for much of the success Communist captors achieved in interrogation of United States prisoners of war in Korea (64). Its value for this purpose is limited in that it assumes an interrogator who pursues his objective of developing information rationally. Past experience indicates that practices encountered by prisoners of war are not determined exclusively by considerations of logic (5). A rational examination of the problem cannot lead to predictions of a nonrational opponent’s actions. Historically, there has been frequent resort to coercive practices for eliciting information, despite abundant evidence that such measures are relatively ineffective. Some estimates of what an opponent is likely to do, in addition to those based on considerations of what it will be feasible and advantageous for him to do, are required in devising measures for thwarting enemy exploitation attempts against prisoners of war.

Basically—this is what the Commies did; we’re just trying to guard against it. I’ll let Fred Clark explain why this isn’t very convincing:

During the Cold War, American spies and soldiers who were captured by the Soviet Union or its proxies were subjected to physical and psychological torture. America began studying the KGB’s interrogation methods for the same reasons that firefighters study fires: to learn how to fight against it, and how to survive when fighting against it. This study produced what became America’s SERE training. That stood for “survive, evade, resist, escape.” Training Americans to understand KGB torture so that they would be better able to survive, evade, resist or escape it was as rational and prudent a step as training firefighters to understand fire for all the same reasons.

But as America’s understanding of these KGB methods grew, U.S. military and intelligence agencies began to attract and produce their own version of firebugs in uniform. Unlike the fire departments, who try to filter out these madmen, the CIA institutionalized their efforts. Historian Alfred McCoy describes how, almost from its inception, the CIA’s SERE training was also perverse-engineered to provide training in how to adopt, conduct and inflict KGB-style interrogations. (A longer version of McCoy’s essay is here, at Tomgram. For primary sources and complete documentation, see “Prisoner Abuse: Patterns from the Past” from the National Security Archive.)

Anyway, the 1961 book is a blueprint for current human rights violations. Check out some of the chapter titles: “Effects of Disturbed Bodily Functions Upon Brain Function,” “The Effects of Reduced Environmental Stimulation on Human Behavior: A Review,” “Length of Stay in Experimental Isolation and Time Perception,” and keep this book in mind next time you encounter someone who thinks that what they did to Jose Padilla wasn’t a big deal.

* Probably best known for their For Dummies series.

But if we told you, it wouldn’t be a secret

Tuesday, June 26th, 2007

How exciting! The CIA has released 700 pages of “responses from CIA employees to a 1973 directive from Director of Central Intelligence James Schlesinger asking them to report activities they thought might be inconsistent with the Agency’s charter.” Thanks to the FOIA Electronic Reading Room, you can view the declassified documents from the comfort of your home or office.

Yep, here they are.

Unfortunately, this only documents the CIA’s illegal and immoral activities up to 1973—good luck finding out what they’re up to now. And the online archive is a pinnacle of bad design: The documents themselves are scanned in, and there’s no way to search them for something specific. If you want to find the bit about Castro and the Exploding Conch Shell of Death, you have to scroll through pages and pages about Russian spies and wiretapping hippies. (Auguste has one nice excerpt here. Who knew ice-making machines could be used for such nasty purposes?)

And, oh yeah. Even if you are patient, and you’re not on dial-up, and you’re really determined to know the truth, you’ll still probably be disappointed.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

They blanked out all the good bits.

Spoilsports.