Check me out at my new site.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Torture News:Clean Torture, Kids and Winter Soldier...
You wouldn't know it by reading The New York Times, The Washington Post or watching the nightly news but veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars gathered in Silver Spring, Maryland last weekend for the Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan hearings (3/13/08-3/16/08).
Watch and listen to Chris Arendt, who was a guard at Guantanamo Bay, which he called a "concentration camp."
Read here about the psychological impact on Gitmo guards.
Take action for one Guantanamo detainee here.
Democracy Now! interviews Darius Rejali, author of Torture and Democracy:
"[T]here is no sharp line between domestic and international torture. Practices that start in our prisons go out into the field. Practices in the field come back to us...
Tasers moved from domestic policing here, they’ve been out there in Iraq. We have a number of cases where people allege that they were tortured with the use of tasers. And the problem with tasers—the problem with any kind of device that doesn’t leave marks is this: if we’re going to use violence in a democracy, there has to be third-party accountability. It just can’t be that you take the cops’ word for it, right? There’s got to be a way in which somebody can say, 'Hmm, let me look at that tape again and see if you properly used mace or that baton or something.' And with electrical weapons that leave very few marks, it’s very hard to know."
Children threatened with rape at Gitmo.
Watch and listen to Chris Arendt, who was a guard at Guantanamo Bay, which he called a "concentration camp."
Read here about the psychological impact on Gitmo guards.
Take action for one Guantanamo detainee here.
Democracy Now! interviews Darius Rejali, author of Torture and Democracy:
"[T]here is no sharp line between domestic and international torture. Practices that start in our prisons go out into the field. Practices in the field come back to us...
Tasers moved from domestic policing here, they’ve been out there in Iraq. We have a number of cases where people allege that they were tortured with the use of tasers. And the problem with tasers—the problem with any kind of device that doesn’t leave marks is this: if we’re going to use violence in a democracy, there has to be third-party accountability. It just can’t be that you take the cops’ word for it, right? There’s got to be a way in which somebody can say, 'Hmm, let me look at that tape again and see if you properly used mace or that baton or something.' And with electrical weapons that leave very few marks, it’s very hard to know."
Children threatened with rape at Gitmo.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Blue coat, purple backpack and how PATH searches spoil my commute
So a few years ago, in the wake of Bush's declaration of a war on terror, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, along with the NYC subway (through the NYPD) started randomly searching passengers before they entered the trains. One could refuse but would have to leave for another station. At the time I wrote a story, urging riders to refuse to be searched. Lawsuits cropped up and courts upheld the illegal searches. And in 2006 the Department of Homeland Security came to the PATH to show off its newest, high-tech equipment to search commuters.
And even though I commute every day on my dear PATH (I really do love it, even though some commuters don't know to move all the way in) I had never been stopped by the cops who occasionally hung around the station. Until today.
As I was walking to swipe my card, I saw their eyes on me and then heard, "Excuse me miss... we'd like to search your bag." I looked at them, pissed they were interrupting my morning routine, pissed they were searching me for no reason, other than that I caught their eye, and pissed at the idiocy -- and passive acquiescence -- to the whole dumb thing. I turned around to leave and walk to the station several blocks down. They told me again they wanted to search my bag.
I told them that they couldn't search my bag and I was going to another station. They told me the search would take no time (further proof that this whole thing is just a placebo) and I angrily said, "It's not about that. It's about civil liberties." Yeah, all you cynics, I said it. They told me I may be denied entry at another station. Annoyed, I demanded their badge numbers and names, scrawling it on the back of a booklet from work.
I left the station and got on at Exchange Place, adding about 15-20 minutes onto my commute.
During this exchange, one of the officers looked at me and said, "Blue coat, purple backpack." (I wear a puffy blue coat and a bright purple overstuffed backpack. It's what a 12-year old wears who wants to make sure traffic can see her at night.)
I know his meaning -- I'll be stopped tomorrow. While I stood up today, I know convenience will win out tomorrow and I'll acquiesce. Shit, that's not exactly an inspiring ending, is it?
Postscript: I haven't entirely given up. I'm researching to see if any organizations are interested in bringing this issue back to court. I've e-mailed the NJCLU, filled out their Mass Transit Random Search Report Form and Flex Your Rights to see if I have any recourse. No answer yet but we'll see.
And even though I commute every day on my dear PATH (I really do love it, even though some commuters don't know to move all the way in) I had never been stopped by the cops who occasionally hung around the station. Until today.
As I was walking to swipe my card, I saw their eyes on me and then heard, "Excuse me miss... we'd like to search your bag." I looked at them, pissed they were interrupting my morning routine, pissed they were searching me for no reason, other than that I caught their eye, and pissed at the idiocy -- and passive acquiescence -- to the whole dumb thing. I turned around to leave and walk to the station several blocks down. They told me again they wanted to search my bag.
I told them that they couldn't search my bag and I was going to another station. They told me the search would take no time (further proof that this whole thing is just a placebo) and I angrily said, "It's not about that. It's about civil liberties." Yeah, all you cynics, I said it. They told me I may be denied entry at another station. Annoyed, I demanded their badge numbers and names, scrawling it on the back of a booklet from work.
I left the station and got on at Exchange Place, adding about 15-20 minutes onto my commute.
During this exchange, one of the officers looked at me and said, "Blue coat, purple backpack." (I wear a puffy blue coat and a bright purple overstuffed backpack. It's what a 12-year old wears who wants to make sure traffic can see her at night.)
I know his meaning -- I'll be stopped tomorrow. While I stood up today, I know convenience will win out tomorrow and I'll acquiesce. Shit, that's not exactly an inspiring ending, is it?
Postscript: I haven't entirely given up. I'm researching to see if any organizations are interested in bringing this issue back to court. I've e-mailed the NJCLU, filled out their Mass Transit Random Search Report Form and Flex Your Rights to see if I have any recourse. No answer yet but we'll see.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Torture News: ACLU lawsuit, voices of torture victims, the torture playlist
ACLU sues the federal government on 03/14/08 to demand full disclosure of Guantanamo prisoners' descriptions of torture by CIA interrogators. The ACLU is demanding the government release un-redacted transcripts in which 14 prisoners now held at Guantánamo Bay describe abuse and torture they suffered in CIA custody.
Read more here.
Read one torture victim's experience here, the story of Dr. Sami Al-Arian.
Take Action for Dr. Al-Arian here.
Check out Mother Jones article on Gitmo Detainee 061 here.
And while you're at Mother Jones, check out their story on the Torture Playlist and the guards who chose the music. The songs are used "to induce sleep deprivation, 'prolong capture shock,' disorient detainees during interrogations—and also drown out screams."
Read more here.
Read one torture victim's experience here, the story of Dr. Sami Al-Arian.
Take Action for Dr. Al-Arian here.
Check out Mother Jones article on Gitmo Detainee 061 here.
And while you're at Mother Jones, check out their story on the Torture Playlist and the guards who chose the music. The songs are used "to induce sleep deprivation, 'prolong capture shock,' disorient detainees during interrogations—and also drown out screams."
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Torture News: 03/12/08
Obama Says Clinton Wavered on Torture, San Francisco Chronicle
Find out how your representative voted here
Go DC!
Spiritual Leaders Protest Torture Veto: Read it here
Oy, I can't believe we're actually having a national debate over torture, er, harsh interrogation methods... We don't torture, I forgot.
Media criticism on the mainstream press coverage of Bush's veto:
NYT Dangerously Downplays Bush's Anti-Torture Veto: Read it here
The Intelligence Authorization Act would have mandated that no person in the custody or within the control of an element of the intelligence community, regardless of that individual’s physical location or nationality, shall be “subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations” (Sec. 327).
The Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations dictates that:
No person in the custody or under the control of the DOD, regardless of
nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment as defined in US law, including the
Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
Care should be taken to protect the detainee from exposure (in
accordance with all appropriate standards addressing excessive or
inadequate environmental conditions) to—
− Excessive noise.
− Excessive dampness.
− Excessive or inadequate heat, light, or ventilation.
− Inadequate bedding and blankets.
− Interrogation activity leadership will periodically monitor the
application of this technique.
Use of separation must not preclude the detainee getting four hours
of continuous sleep every 24 hours.
Separation must be employed in accordance with the standards in this
manual. These standards include the following:
Prohibitions against abusive and unlawful actions (see para 5-75) and
against the employment of military working dogs in the conduct of
interrogation (see paras 5-59 and 8-2)....
Use of hoods (sacks) over the head, or of duct tape or adhesive tape
over the eyes, as a separation method is prohibited.
Obama's campaign cited Clinton's October 2006 interview with the New York Daily News in which she indicated she would be willing to authorize torture to extract information about an impending terrorist attack.
"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable," Clinton said.
Find out how your representative voted here
Go DC!
Spiritual Leaders Protest Torture Veto: Read it here
Oy, I can't believe we're actually having a national debate over torture, er, harsh interrogation methods... We don't torture, I forgot.
Media criticism on the mainstream press coverage of Bush's veto:
NYT Dangerously Downplays Bush's Anti-Torture Veto: Read it here
The Intelligence Authorization Act would have mandated that no person in the custody or within the control of an element of the intelligence community, regardless of that individual’s physical location or nationality, shall be “subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations” (Sec. 327).
The Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations dictates that:
No person in the custody or under the control of the DOD, regardless of
nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment as defined in US law, including the
Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
Care should be taken to protect the detainee from exposure (in
accordance with all appropriate standards addressing excessive or
inadequate environmental conditions) to—
− Excessive noise.
− Excessive dampness.
− Excessive or inadequate heat, light, or ventilation.
− Inadequate bedding and blankets.
− Interrogation activity leadership will periodically monitor the
application of this technique.
Use of separation must not preclude the detainee getting four hours
of continuous sleep every 24 hours.
Separation must be employed in accordance with the standards in this
manual. These standards include the following:
Prohibitions against abusive and unlawful actions (see para 5-75) and
against the employment of military working dogs in the conduct of
interrogation (see paras 5-59 and 8-2)....
Use of hoods (sacks) over the head, or of duct tape or adhesive tape
over the eyes, as a separation method is prohibited.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Tortured Language: White House Press Briefing
White House Press Briefing
March 6, 2008
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080306-3.html
March 6, 2008
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080306-3.html
Q Does the President realize he's going to further tarnish our image for humanity if he vetoes a ban on torture?
MS. PERINO: That's not what he's suggesting, Helen. You're talking about the Senate -- the intelligence authorization bill?
Q Isn't he supposed to veto the ban this week, or so?
MS. PERINO: Helen -- well, he is going to veto a bill, but it's not the bill in which you describe. The bill that he is going to veto is the intelligence authorization bill. We've had a statement of administration position that has been out for a long time. There are many different reasons he's going to veto it. One of the main ones is that it would apply the Army Field Manual, which is very good guidance for young soldiers who are out on the field who might capture somebody out on the battlefield, but it is not something that should apply to a terrorist interrogation program that is run by the CIA.
Q Why? It's torture, isn't it?
MS. PERINO: It isn't -- no, we are not torturing, and that is not what the bill says.
Q Well, it would ban --
MS. PERINO: Torture is already illegal.
Q -- he is vetoing a ban on torture, isn't he?
MS. PERINO: Torture is already illegal in this country, and the President has already signed a bill reiterating that fact. The simple point of this bill is that the Army Field Manual -- the President does not believe, nor does the intelligence community -- I'd point you to General Hayden and others who say that it should not --
Q The military certainly believes in it.
MS. PERINO: It is appropriate for the military to have the Army Field Manual as its guidelines. But we do not believe that it should apply to the Central Intelligence Agency.
Q Why? Are they human beings? Are we humane people?
MS. PERINO: We are humane people. We have a terrorist interrogation program that helps make sure that we keep this country safe. We do not torture. But what I will tell you is that you will hear more about this this weekend. The President's radio address will be on this issue.
Army Generals and Torture: Immoral and Stupid
Amazing interview about torture with retired military generals on Democracy Now!
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/6/retired_generals_criticize_president_bush_for
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/6/retired_generals_criticize_president_bush_for
BRIG. GEN. JAMES CULLEN: Well, we hear a lot of arguments to try to justify practices—under newspeak are called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” but we know exactly what we’re talking about. It’s torture in different packaging. We hear the argument, as you mentioned, that we’re in a new paradigm, and the old rules don’t apply. Anyone who managed to stay awake through high school history classes knows, as we have fought other insurgencies, from the Philippines and Vietnam and other places, the rules do apply. We’re not facing something new. As we go back in our history, we look at President Lincoln through General Eisenhower, they all faced far greater threats to our nation than what we’re looking at today. And yet, they held the line, and they were very clear in their direction that we are going to act properly in accordance with the rule of law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)