Posts
War, Over There, Over Here
17 hours ago
Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
May Weasels Rip His Flesh - Grandmother Tasered at Traffic Stop (H/t Gates of Hell)
"A 72-year-old woman is pulled over for speeding, then tasered and sent to jail. Kathryn Winkfein says she drives to Austin about twice a month to do her shopping. But on a Monday afternoon, a Travis County Constable deputy pulled her over, on her way back to Granite Schoals."Source: Grandmother Tasered at Traffic Stop | The Gates of Hell"Due to being a construction zone, and workers being present," Pct. 3 Constable Richard McCain said, "it was 45, she was doing 60."
Winkfein admits she was speeding in the dangerous strip of Highway 71 and Bee Creek.
"He explained to her," Constable McCain said, "sign the ticket stub, it’s not an admission of guilt. It’s a promise to appear in court. She didn’t want to. She said take me to jail."
That’s when the officer says Winkfein exited her vehicle and didn’t cooperate.
"She refused to get off the side of the road, he said to her, Ma’am, you’re under arrest. She used profanity," the Constable said.
He adds she got violent, and the officer used a taser on her."
In full @ myfoxaustin.com
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
What do you call three crony DOJ lawyers at the bottom end of a taunt rope?
by Michael Isikoff
(Newsweek)
An internal Justice Department report on the conduct of senior lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics is causing anxiety among former Bush administration officials.
H. Marshall Jarrett, chief of the department's ethics watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), confirmed last year he was investigating whether the legal advice in crucial interrogation memos "was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys."
According to two knowledgeable sources who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters, a draft of the report was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. It sharply criticized the legal work of two former top officials—Jay Bybee and John Yoo—as well as that of Steven Bradbury, who was chief of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the time the report was submitted, the sources said. (Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)
In Full @ Newsweek
Thursday, January 8, 2009
"No, no, no," he said. "We should be hitting the greenhouses." - Israelis Watch the Fighting in Gaza ... They Come With Binoculars and Lawn Chairs
But IF they get killed, I'm SURE it'll be blamed on the Gazans or Hamas by the IDF's spin cyclers.
For those looking for real solutions, and dialogue, Da' Buffalo highly recommends Bitterlemons(War in Gaza II , January 5, 2009) and Bitterlemons-International (War in Gaza: the regional dimension). The current issues at the time of this posting are linked.
The squandering of a birthright by a PERVERSE society"If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with all others justly, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless, the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place…then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever." -Jeremiah 7:5-7
(Note the adult 'supervision' of these psychologically abused Israeli children)
"Jocelyn Znaty, a stout 60-year-old nurse for Magen David Adom, the Israeli counterpart of the Red Cross, can hardly contain her glee at the site of exploding mortars below in Gaza.
"Look at that," she shouts, clapping her hands as four artillery rounds pound the territory in quick succession. "Bravo! Bravo!"
Wall Street Journal Online
JANUARY 8, 2009
Israelis Watch the Fighting in Gaza From a Hilly Vantage Point They Come With Binoculars and Lawn Chairs; Nurse Znaty: 'I'm Sorry, but I'm Happy'
By CHARLES LEVINSON
Farnaz Fassihi in Rafah, Egypt and Margaret Coker in Tel Aviv contributed to this article.
GAZA BORDER -- Moti Danino sat Monday in a canvas lawn chair on a sandy hilltop on Gaza's border, peering through a pair of binoculars at distant plumes of smoke rising from the besieged territory.
An unemployed factory worker, he comes here each morning to watch Israel's assault on Hamas from what has become the war's peanut gallery -- a string of dusty hilltops close to the border that offer panoramic views across northern Gaza.
He is one of dozens of Israelis who have arrived from all over Israel, some with sack lunches and portable radios tuned to the latest reports of the battle raging in front of them. Some, like Mr. Danino, are here to egg on friends and family members in the fight.
Others have made the trek, they say, to witness firsthand a military operation -- so far, widely popular inside Israel -- against Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip.
Over the weekend, four teenagers sat on a hill near Mr. Danino's, oohing and aahing at the airstrikes. Nadav Zebari, who studies Torah in Jerusalem, was eating a cheese sandwich and sipping a Diet Coke.
"I've never watched a war before," he said. A group of police officers nearby took turns snapping pictures of one another with smoking Gaza as a backdrop. "I want to feel a part of the war," one said, before correcting himself with the official government designation for the assault. "I mean operation. It's not a war." [In Full @ WSJ Online]
Monday, March 31, 2008
Enquiring Minds: Where are the Iraqis in the Iraq War? - Ramzy Baroud, Atlantic FreePress
from Atlantic Free Press - Hard Truths for Hard Times
by Ramzy Baroud
March 31 2008
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
Five years after the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, mainstream media is once more making the topic an object of intense scrutiny. The costs and implications of the war are endlessly covered from all possible angles, with one notable exception— the cost to the Iraqi people themselves.
Through all the special coverage and exclusive reports, very little is said about Iraqi casualties, who are either completely overlooked or hastily mentioned and whose numbers can only be guesstimated. Also conveniently ignored are the millions injured, internally and externally displaced, the victims of rape and kidnappings who will carry physical and psychological scars for the rest of their lives.
We find ourselves stuck in a hopeless paradigm, where it feels necessary to empathise with the sensibilities of the aggressor so as not to sound unpatriotic , while remaining blind to the untold anguish of the victims.
Some actually feel the need to go so far as to blame the Iraqis for their own misfortune.
Both Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have expressed their wish for Iraqis to take responsibility for the situation in their country, with the former saying, we cannot win their civil war. There is no military solution.
It would have been helpful if Clinton had reached her astute conclusion before she voted for the Senate's 2002 resolution authorising President Bush to attack Iraq.
For the sake of argument, let's overlook both Clinton's and Obama's repeated assertions that all options, including military ones, are on the table regarding how to deal with Iran's alleged ambition to acquire nuclear weapons.
But to go so far as blaming the ongoing war on the Iraqis' lack of accountability is a new low for these antiwar candidates...
In Full.
.
.
Thanks For Stopping By
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Selling Democracy – De Lux Model with Double-Standards Built In- THE WORLD ACCORDING TO BILL FISHER
The US position on promoting democracy while turning a blind eye to blatant and widespread human rights abuses in the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere has made America vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy and has doubtless contributed to the precipitous fall in the world’s respect for the US.Sunday, March 30, 2008
Selling Democracy – De Lux Model with Double-Standards Built In
By William Fisher
- WILLIAM FISHER
- Old Chatham, New York, United States
- William Fisher has managed economic development programs for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development in the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere for the past 25 years. He served in the administration of President John F. Kennedy.
This case is unremarkable given the recent history of Egypt’s contempt for press freedom – in fact, for all the freedoms we Americans still regard as our inalienable rights. It is arguably more remarkable in that, if the test of “spreading false information” were applied to American journalists, building more jails would be a higher priority than building new homes for Katrina victims.
That said, however, the news of Mr. Eissa’s conviction gives us yet another example of the embarrassing double standards built into US foreign policy. Our State Department produces an annual report on human rights abuses around the world, but neglects to assess our own performance.
So Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, renditions and waterboarding, are absent. Instead, the Bush Administration continues to bury us in empty bromides about democracy promotion.
But the democracy-promotion mantra didn’t start with George W. Bush. It started as long ago as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. It was significantly ratcheted up during the Cold War administration of President Ronald Reagan (1981-89), when the US policy of Soviet containment made friends of the enemies of our enemy.
In 1982, Reagan told the British Parliament of a "democratic revolution" gathering force around the globe. Reagan announced that the US would “foster the infrastructure of democracy" — a free press, independent unions, truly representative political parties, and the many other institutions essential to a functioning democracy.
Bush 41, considered a foreign policy “realist,” continued the theme, though somewhat less stridently. And the Clinton Administration embraced much the same themes during the 1990s, to make its case for our embrace of globalization.
But post-9/11, the Bush Administration raised the promotion of democracy and freedom – particularly in the Middle East -- to a historically higher rhetorical priority. In his second inaugural address, Bush said, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
Bush said the "resentment and tyranny"...
In Full
Friday, March 28, 2008
Patriots, Refugees, and Terrorists: "Was George Washington a terrorist?" - Findlaw Writ
By JOANNE MARINER
Wednesday, Mar. 26, 2008
"Was George Washington a terrorist?" asked Bill Frelick, Human Rights Watch's refugee policy director, only semi-facetiously.
What sparked his question was the exceedingly broad definition of terrorist activity employed in U.S. immigration law. That definition, as expanded in the USA PATRIOT Act and REAL ID Act, applies to "any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed," when that activity involves the use of a weapon or "dangerous device" with the intent "to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property." The actions of a present-day George Washington would most certainly be covered.
A concrete reason why this broad definition is worrying is that under current U.S. law, people who have engaged in terrorist activities, or who have provided support for terrorist activities--in many cases, even involuntary support--are presumptively barred from resettlement in the United States as refugees. Among the thousands of people negatively affected by this rule in recent years have been Colombians who paid small bribes under duress to paramilitary groups, Burmese who were forcibly conscripted into rebel armies, and Cubans who supported "counter-revolutionary" groups funded by the US government.
The patent unfairness of this broad ban has garnered congressional attention and, as of last year, the problem was supposed to have been remedied. In December, Congress passed legislation that broadened executive authority to grant waivers to deserving refugees who would otherwise be barred under the law's overly broad "terrorism"-related bans.
Yet the reform does not seem to have worked. In recent months it has become clear that, despite the changes in the terms of the law, the Department of Homeland Security is continuing to bar refugees who should benefit from the expanded waiver authority. These people have fled their countries to escape persecution, and they're being told that they're terrorists. What is going on?
Democrats and Mujahideen
Since the December amendments to the immigration laws, a number of refugees have received letters from the Department of Homeland Security informing them that they are being denied permanent residence in the United States because of facts that they stated on their applications for refugee status.
Among those who have received such letters are:
. Iraqi refugees who took part in failed efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the 1990s;
. Afghans who supported the mujahideen groups that fought the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, including groups that the United States funded;
. Sudanese who belonged to the Democratic Unionist Party, a democratic party opposed to the current Sudanese government and a partner in U.S. negotiations in the region.
In rejecting these people's applications for permanent residence, DHS is relying on facts that, in many cases, were fully disclosed in their initial refugee applications. Circumstances that, in other words, were deemed acceptable under what were supposed to be tougher rules are now being relied upon to bar people from staying in the United States. In some instances, moreover, the department appears to be characterizing First-Amendment-protected speech as support of terrorism.
Politicians and Bureaucrats
Although the omnibus appropriations bill that was passed by Congress last December was lauded as an important immigration law reform, the officials at the Department of Homeland Security charged with implementing the new rules don't seem to have gotten the message. Before too many deserving refugees are barred from the United States as terrorists, there needs to be clear and authoritative guidance from on high.
Senior DHS officials need to review the rules being applied in these cases to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is actually implementing the statutory waiver authority that it has been granted. Congress has spoken and the law has changed: "Terrorism"-related immigration bans should not be applied to refugees who do not pose any threat to the United States.
In the longer term, of course, the law's definition of terrorism should be narrowed to reflect a more meaningful, common-sense understanding of the term. While expanding DHS's waiver authority was a step forward, it is still absurd that a present-day George Washington would require a waiver to settle in the United States.
Joanne Mariner is a human rights attorney. Her previous columns on the detainee cases and the "war on terrorism" are available in FindLaw's archive.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
