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.

Hatecookies!

Wednesday, July 16th, 2008

Folks, the internet has been won.

Background: Something Awful commentators react to recently-released footage of then 16-year-old Omar Khadr being cruelly interrogated by Canadian officials at Guantanamo. Their reactions range from sympathetic to death threats—these soft children of privilege who never leave the comfort of their parents’ basement, let alone face unending hell in an illegal American gulag.

Anyway. GvB responds by baking cookies for the torture apologists.

Here’s the cookies being scooped out onto the sheet just before they head into the oven. I really like Anolon jelly-roll baking sheets because they seem to heat evenly and the high sides make them useful for a lot of baking tasks, but none of you would know that because you feed like animals from a trough of violent sensationalist news and glory in the abuse of fundamental human rights. You discuss the semantics of what it means to truly torture a person as if you had the faintest inkling of what it means to suffer. Mercy is foreign to you. You are ignorant savages so far removed from principles of human decency that if you were suddenly thrust into the resurrected presence of the framers of the Constitution, they would immediately begin spewing blood from every orifice and their souls would yearn for the grave. :)

You need to read the whole thing, because there are pictures. And also, delicious, delicious cookies.

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…)

THE PRESS! Hunh! Good God! What is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN’! Say it again…

Wednesday, June 25th, 2008

At least not so much lately in America. Of course, cynics would say that, by merely parroting the propaganda of the powerful, they are doing PRECISELY their job, because that’s what they’re kept around for in the first place. And, well, I guess the cynics would probably be right. But appearances of speaking truth to power must be kept up, and so occasionally some journalists are let off their leash for a little bit to retrieve a juicy story.

And so, although it appears this is Punkassblog Beat-on-the-Press Day, I thought I’d just be a contrarian and point out that there is one big American press chain bucking the trend: McClatchy Newspapers. Now, granted, they’re nowhere as big as AP, but they’re no small potatoes either.

What’s got to be the biggest thing working in their favor was that they were the only major newspaper group who consistently criticized the Bush Administration’s rationales for war prior to the invasion of Iraq. (Well, actually, Knight-Ridder was, but McClatchy bought Knight-Ridder two years ago, and the same staff continues to work for them.)

Now maybe McClatchy doesn’t always manage to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”, as the trope about the press goes, but they certainly have their moments.

Just the other day, they featured this story about the response in Iraq to the complete lack of punishment to seven of the eight US marines charged in the three-year-old Haditha massacre. In which nobody denies that they killed 24 innocent civilians, male and female, of all ages from toddler to elderly.

Iman Waleed recounts the killing of seven members of her family that occurred on Nov. 19, 2005, in Haditha, Iraq.

Iman Waleed lost everyone in her family save her little brother. The 12-year-old tells the story quickly and matter-of-factly now. She’s told it at least 20 times to journalists, investigators and human rights groups.

“The Americans came in and they entered through the kitchen door. My father was in the room reading the Quran and they shot him,” she says in a monotone voice, her green eyes looking at the floor.

(more…)

Rape is a war crime.

Saturday, June 21st, 2008

Yellow ribbon. Caption: 'our troops rape'

The U.N. Security Council has unanimously declared that rape is a weapon of war. My first thought upon hearing this was “yay!” My second thought was that perhaps “yay” is not the right response to anything pertaining to rape; in any event, thinking about the news even now stirs a dull pang of hope.

Reiterating deep concern that, despite its repeated condemnation of violence against women and children in situations of armed conflict, including sexual violence in situations of armed conflict, and despite its calls addressed to all parties to armed conflict for the cessation of such acts with immediate effect, such acts continue to occur, and in some situations have become systematic and widespread, reaching appalling levels of brutality,United Nations Security Council Resolution 1820

This shouldn’t be shocking or mind-blowing. Perhaps my response is a result of setting the bar so low that even the shoddiest expression of respect for women’s autonomy can’t help but trip over it. But it is shocking. Mind-blowing. All in the most fantastic way. The articles read ever-so-slightly like dispatches from an alternate universe, one where the UNSC is a powerful force for improving human rights, where rape is non-controversially regarded as systemic, institutionalized, and oppressive, where the U.S. Secretary of State, a black woman, says things like, “We cannot forget as we examine this issue other women activists who struggle for freedom under violent environments,” and “As an international community we have a special responsibility to punish perpetrators of sexual violence who are representatives of international organisations.”

International organisations. Like, for example, the U.N.

Or the U.S. military.

(more…)

Book Review: Guantanamo’s Child

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008

Guantanamo's child

I admit to being slightly obsessed with Omar Khadr’s story. Many of us here in Soviet Canuckistan, the one major U.S. ally unwilling to say a peep about America’s human rights violations in Guantanamo Bay, are slightly obsessed with Omar Khadr’s story. I’m not sure if the Khadr family—”Canada’s First Family of Terrorism”—gets as much press down south as they do here, but it was fascinating to watch public opinion change its tune in recent months as first, a military judge threw out the war crimes charges against him last June, and then in February, the not-at-all-surprising revelation that while he had been present at the firefight that killed a U.S. soldier, there was no actual evidence that he threw the grenade. Neither Canadians nor our government have been particularly sympathetic towards the Khadrs, even though Omar was only 15 when the Americans shot and captured him, even though we tend to wring our hands a fair bit over the plight of child soldiers (when they’re attacking someone else, that is). But Michelle Sheppard, the author of Guantanamo’s Child: The Untold Story of Omar Khadr, is one of the good ones as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Her clear-headed, honest reporting on the case for the Toronto Star has been a breath of fresh air, so of course I was thrilled when her book came out.

It did not disappoint. Sheppard has a keen eye for detail, and she manages to track every key moment in the Khadr’s lives. She paints a vivid detail of the years leading up to the firefight in Afghanistan, as Omar is dragged by his parents between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Canada, indoctrinated into his father’s ideology even as he clings to the trappings of a Western childhood. The descriptions of Guantanamo, of course, are horrific, confirming much of what we already know goes on within those walls:

One evening in March 2003, Omar was taken from his cell and in no mood to co-operate. The guards left him in the interrogation booth for hours, short-shackled with his ankles and wrists bound together and secured to a bolt on the floor. Unable to move, he eventually urinated and was left in a pool of urine on the floor.

When the MPs returned and found the soiled teenager, Omar’s lawyers later said, the guards poured pine oil cleaner on his chest and the floor. Keeping him short-shackled, the guards used Omar as a human mop to clean up the mess. Omar was returned to his cell and for two days the guards refused to give him fresh clothes.

(If you have the stomach to read it, Rolling Stone has more here.)

Beyond telling a gripping, heartbreaking story, Sheppard is also courageous in tackling the motivations of terrorism. By tracing the Khadr family history and Ahmed Said Khadr’s path from being a secular Muslim primarily interested in charity work to the guy that Osama bin Laden kept snubbing at al-Qaeda get-togethers, she of course brings up the West’s involvement in the rise of Islamic extremism and questions what exactly it is that we’re doing in Afghanistan in the first place.

Omar, now 21, has spent a fifth of his life in America’s off-shore gulag. He is the only Western citizen remaining there. Slightly more moral countries have demanded the extradition or repatriation of their citizens, but despite the urging of Amnesty International, UNICEF, and the Canadian Bar Association, Canada has not. Our government has, in fact, acted in a rather callous manner to one of its own citizens. After Omar’s arrest:

Foreign Affairs media director Lillian Thomsen, on instructions from Colleen Swords, now head of the intelligence division, wrote in an email a new press message must “claw back on the fact that he is a minor.”

(The spin hasn’t worked, by the way. A poll last year revealed that slightly more than half of Canadians believe the government should ask for Omar’s repatriation. It’s somewhat of a relief to know that Canadians have more empathy than our minority government.)

Guantanamo’s Child is a brutal read (and for me, all the more depressing since I’ve started working with kids around Omar’s age), but one I hope will be ultimately worthwhile. Sheppard does a phenomenal job of laying out the argument that Omar is a child soldier in need of rehabilitation, not imprisonment and torture, as well as the ethical and legal case against Guantanamo Bay.

Highly recommended.

Mr. Scalia’s iPod

Tuesday, February 26th, 2008

Mother Jones has gotten a hold of some of the music that U.S. troops use to “induce sleep deprivation, “prolong capture shock,” disorient detainees during interrogations—and also drown out screams.”

Lovely.

I find the use of Rage Against the Machine and Springsteen particularly abhorrent (not only because of the artists’ politics, but because I happen to like those songs). I wonder if they know about it. The music used to smoke out Noriega was far more creative.

This prompts me to ask: What music would you choose to drown out the screams of your victims? I’m thinking Anal Cunt’s “Hitler Was a Sensitive Man.”

Hat tip: Corvus.

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.

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.

The importance of language

Monday, July 16th, 2007

From Counterpunch, an interesting article on Israeli doublespeak. The pedant in me feels the need to point out that Orwell never used the term “doublespeak” in 1984. But it’s still a useful concept. Of course, neither Orwell nor the Israeli government ought to be blamed for inventing deliberately obscure political language. They simply provide, the former through cautionary fiction and essays, the latter through straight-faced political discourse, some of the most famous examples.

Take particular note of the deviously ingenious “moderate physical pressure,” because if it hasn’t yet been popularized in North America, it will be soon enough. It’s the neatest solution to the last gasps of moral conscience in the West: If 24 and ticking time bomb scenarios haven’t worn down public and legal resistance to human rights violations, one can simply redefine acts of torture as something other than torture.

Lea Tsemel, a defense lawyer and founder of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) remarked, “Israel is the only Western country that openly uses torture. This is not some brute in the secret services beating up a prisoner. It’s done in the open. There is quiet legitimation by a high-ranking commission and government ministers” (New York Times, May 8, 1997).

A judgment issued this past June allows Shin Bet to use methods regarded by PCATI as torture when in a “ticking bomb” situation. With likely wide interpretation of this circumstance, it appears a green light has just been issued to reinstate the practice.

Redefinition and euphemism are endemic to any political discussion where straightforward language would reveal a serious error in thinking. The war against Afghanistan, for example, is never called a war (at least not here, where the idea of a “War on Terror” makes most right-thinking people cringe). It’s a “mission.” We don’t attack houses, schools, markets, and mosques; “they” use “human shields.”

I’m not sure if the rise in such language, particularly in journalism, is real or imagined; it certainly seems more widespread than it used to be (Stalinist Russia excepted, because I love the term “posthumous rehabilitation”). Once you start noticing these catchphrases, you can’t stop, and then you start to wonder whether their popularity is caused by collusion or simply sloppy thinking. Either way, they should be pointed out and held up for scrutiny as often as possible. When someone uses them, that person’s trying to slip something by the public that they wouldn’t otherwise stand for.

This hurts me more than it hurts you

Wednesday, June 6th, 2007

If you’re an Ashkenazi Jew in a primarily goyish milieu, you’ve probably gotten this one: “Oh, I had relatives die in the Holocaust too! My grandfather fell off a guard tower.”

At the risk of blatantly violating Godwin’s Law on my first post here, I kept thinking about that joke as I read The tortured lives of interrogators, which is the latest, and definitely strangest, attempt I’ve seen to make Good Americans feel better about the war crimes that their government is committing. I’ve become accustomed to reading officials deny torture (it’s illegal, or it’s only the isolated excesses of a few bad apples), or try to redefine acts of torture as something else (moderate physical pressure), but this is the first time I’ve come across an article that actively solicits the reader’s sympathy for professional sadists. I might be less surprised by this strategy if I watched “24,” but I don’t have cable TV.

The whole article is worth a read, if you can stomach it.
(more…)

Veiling (discussions by white people who don’t know what they’re talking about) sucks

Tuesday, October 17th, 2006

Reading this thread at Feministe made several highly salient points magically appear in my head about the Veiling Debate that’s been going on:

1) Why am I the only white person in the world it seems who knows that muslim women are not actually commanded by their religion to veil in front of children – which means she’s veiling to avoid the male gaze of her colleagues not the children – according to the Quran? I’m pretty sure I read a english translation of the Quran at some point unless I secretly learned arabic without me realising, so I’m kinda shocked to see so many people who are so utterly unclear about that point, I’d assume it’d be like having at least a passing knowledge of the bible – sort of fundamental to commenting about islam and most of the geo-political hoo-haa surrounding the various islamophobic pogroms really.

2) Last I checked it was illegal for a woman to wander around without a top on in most american states, where are the legions of anti-mandatory-chest-covering protestors? It’s the same principle and I really could have done with out the mandatory bra + shirt combo I had no choice about wearing back in the summer – covered breasts do also seem to send crazies (like ann althouse or John “The Pedobear” Derbyshire) into a complete tizzy so it would save everyone a lot of trouble really because so many people freak out at covered chests and just can’t stop staring for some reason.

Oh, and it’s fucked up to ingringe on people’s personal liberty to wear whatever the hell they like or not just because some crazy white asshole finds something offensive – like that’s anyone’s problem but their own.

3) If a class of 6 – 12 year olds needs to see the teachers lips to understand her (which I’m sure has nothing to do with a presumption by anyone about her ability to speak english – because I’m sure everyone knows that like all most (innit!) british muslims she speaks english better and more eloquently than pretty much any and all canadians ever will), then I assume she has the training to deal with a special ed class and when she say “the kids can understand me fine” (as she has done) we can pretty much take her word on it – and if she’s teaching deaf kids she should need to be able to sign anyway and that she wears a niqab is an incidental side note that isn’t really relevent.

But having said all that, I really do have to agree with all the rest of the knee jerk white reationaries that it’s about time Britain and America both started to deal with the scandal that is muslims wearing hoods on their head. (more…)