The casual use of force

The Robert Dziekanski tragedy is shining a light on some frightening little factoids about police use of tasers. Like this: Out of 563 cases recently reviewed, more than 3/4 of the people who were blasted with the 50,000 volt cop-toy were unarmed:

"Three out of four suspects stun-gunned by the RCMP were unarmed, indicates a review of 563 cases that shows Tasers are often used for compliance rather than to defuse major threats.

A Canadian Press analysis of Taser incidents reported by the Mounties reveals that more than 79 per cent of those zapped were not brandishing a weapon.

In just over one-fifth of cases, the suspect had a knife, bottle, club or other weapon."

That means the cops don't even have to feel like a situation is particularly threatening before they use a taser -- they could just be pissed off that you're not following their orders quickly enough. "Move along. I said move..." *ZAP* "along!" *ZAP* Hey, it works with cattle, doesn't it? Are we not cattle?? If not, we need to revisit the parameters of this weapon's use.

For the confused (ie. Toronto Sun)

Here's a little primer on the so-called "coercive interrogation" (read: torture) technique known as waterboarding, from a Navy instructor, Malcolm Nance, who personally supervised hundreds of waterboarding sessions done to teach Navy Seals how to resist torture:

"1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator. Our service members have to learn that the will to survive requires them accept and understand that they may be subjected to torture, but that America is better than its enemies and it is one’s duty to trust in your nation and God, endure the hardships and return home with honor.

2. Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.

Call it “Chinese Water Torture,” “the Barrel,” or “the Waterfall,” it is all the same. Whether the victim is allowed to comply or not is usually left up to the interrogator. Many waterboard team members, even in training, enjoy the sadistic power of making the victim suffer and often ask questions as an after thought. These people are dangerous and predictable and when left unshackled, unsupervised or undetected they bring us the murderous abuses seen at Abu Ghraieb, Baghram and Guantanamo. No doubt, to avoid human factors like fear and guilt someone has created a one-button version that probably looks like an MRI machine with high intensity waterjets." (emphasis mine)

Does that sound like competitive swim training to you?

(from TPM Muckraker)

What a relief

No need to worry about the implications of the Conservative government's sudden refusal to ask for clemency on behalf of Canadians facing the death penalty in other countries, because -- "Tories deny hidden agenda on death penalty":

"The Harper government scrambled yesterday to clarify its position on capital punishment amid opposition accusations that the Tories are harbouring a hidden agenda to bring back the death penalty in Canada.

The accusations followed Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day's surprise announcement Thursday that Canada will no longer seek clemency for Canadian murderers sentenced to death in other democratic countries after a fair trial.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper insisted the new policy is not a prelude to bringing back the death penalty in Canada. "We have no desire to open the debate on capital punishment here in Canada," he told reporters in Halifax."

Well of course they deny it; it wouldn't be a very "hidden" agenda if they fessed up to it, would it now? But seriously... one couldn't be blamed for wondering what's up with the sudden reversal in what's become standard procedure for such cases. Opposition to the death penalty being a Canadian principle, when a citizen -- no matter how much of a douchebag he may be -- is so sentenced in another jurisdiction, our government seeks clemency. This isn't interference in another country's due process, it's standing up for a Canadian principle.

I wondered if this was a way of gauging public opinion of capital punishment, especially when Stockie, in that sly, stupid way of his, insinuated that asking for clemency wouldn't send a good law and order message. Red herring alert!!! -- capital punishment has nothing to do with Canadian law and order. But it's hard to believe that even this current crop of Yeehaw Conservatives would consider a move as negative and controversial as bringing back capital punishment. It has little support even among Conservatives... or does it?

There's no better place to get a reading on the pulse of wingnut opinion than the good old Western Standard. If the Standard isn't grunting out its unequivocal support for capital punishment, it's safe to say none exists. Over at the Shitgun, I mean Snotgun, I mean Shotgun Blog, they're talking about it. But as I read through the comments I was surprised to find that although most felt the convict "had it coming to him", there was little enthusiasm for reviving capital punishment here. ("Little" meaning there was some -- "The death penalty saves lives!" squealed one character -- and Irony is alive and well at the Shotgun.)

So. Breathe a cautious sigh of relief. Judging by response at the Shotgun, it's unlikely that there's any hidden agenda to reintroduce the death penalty -- support for it would certainly be strongest in that rabid venue.

But it doesn't hurt to keep an eye on things!

UPDATE: On the other hand...

UPDATE 2: Mike has a more eloquent explanation than I'm capable of as to why the refusal to seek clemency is so wrong.

Calling all Catholics

Especially the Conservative-voting ones... here's a chance to prove your so-called "pro-life" cred. Mobilize Catholic opposition to the Harper government's decision to allow Canadian citizens to be executed in death penalty countries rather than fighting for commutation of death sentences:

"Canada's Conservative government said Thursday it will no longer fight to commute the death sentences of Canadians facing execution in a foreign country.

Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 and the government has long opposed use of the death penalty abroad in cases involving its citizens.

But Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said they will not plead for the life of Ronald Allen Smith, who faces lethal injection in Montana for the 1982 murder of two men."

...and it's not unreasonable to expect Canadian Catholics to ask the big cheeses at the Vatican to make the same threats of excommunication, denial of communion etc. that they've been making against pro-choice and pro-gay marriage politicians.

EDIT: Vanity Press sums it up.

UPDATE: Via SUZANNE in the comments, an article from just a couple of days ago that states the Vatican's position on working to eliminate torture and the death penalty. Will Catholic Conservative politicians step up? Afterthought: And if not, will they be reprimanded?

$9.11 for Rudy

It's no surprise that GOP preznitial nominee Rudy Giuliani has been flogging the 9/11 horse all through his campaign, but it may have reached past the ridiculous and into the realm of the absurd with this latest gimmick: a fundraising party that asks attendees for -- are you ready for it -- $9.11 per person. Shame, shame. How tacky can you get?:

"A supporter of Rudy Giuliani's is throwing a party that aims to raise $9.11 per person for the Republican's presidential campaign. Abraham Sofaer is having a fundraiser at his Palo Alto, Calif., home on Wednesday, when Giuliani backers across the country are participating in the campaign's national house party night." [...]

"According to the invitation, "$9.11 for Rudy" is an "independent, non-denominational grass-roots campaign to raise $10,000 in small increments to show how many individual, everyday Americans support `America's Mayor.'""

I've always felt that the Republicans' ongoing exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy for political gain is sick and sad, twisted and macabre, but that feeling has really reached critical mass with Giuliani's campaign, and especially this tacky idea for a party. Here's someone else who's disgusted:

"The International Association of Fire Fighters accused Republican Rudy Giuliani of exploiting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because a supporter is holding a $9.11-per-person fundraiser for the presidential candidate. The union — already a vocal critic of Giuliani's — said Tuesday that the fundraiser's "$9.11 for Rudy" theme is an abuse of the image and symbols of the 2001 attacks.

"It is nothing short of disrespectful to the legacy of the thousands of civilians and 343 brave firefighters who died at ground zero," IAFF president Harold Schaitberger said.

The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd called the theme "unconscionable, shameless and sickening." The firefighters' union has endorsed Dodd."

Why doesn't he just change his middle name to "9/11"? Then it's right there in bold type for everyone to see, no fancy fundraising parties or slick ad campaigns required. Cut out the middleman, so to speak -- wouldn't that be the fiscally conservative thing to do?!

Media bias and goring Gore in 2000

Ellroon at Rants from the Rookery links to an excellent Vanity Fair article about the media's culpability in the world's current sad state of affairs. In the 2000 election campaign, Al Gore was treated very unfairly by the media, which for some inexplicable reason was over the moon about the insipidly brainless little creep who was running against him. Ellroon points out everything that might and might not have been, had the media done their jobs properly.

Because a dead fetus trumps a dead soldier

Here's a little pukefest of an item courtesy of the whacked-out fetus fetishists of "Operation Rescue".

At a recent convention of Gold Star Mothers, the organization of mothers who've lost a soldier son or daughter in war, the group's outgoing president was harassed by Operation Rescue nitwits intent on "exposing" her as a worker at Dr. George Tiller's abortion clinic. Interrupting the Gold Star Mothers while they were visiting a local museum in Wichita, OR nutbars handed out fliers vilifying Betty Pulliam, whose son died in Viet Nam.

And then they all got in their yellow-ribbon-festooned SUVs and drove off to find some other dead soldier's mom to harass. Is it just me or are these anti-abortionists getting more and more like Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, "Our Lady of the Perpetually Inbred"?

Rape Me Elmo

All week long, people have been asking what makes kids grow up with such profound disrespect for the lives of others and such an unhealthy ambivalence towards violence. Meet "Rapist Number One":

"A doll of Quentin Tarantino portraying a rapist in his new film is reportedly being sold in US children's store Toys R Us.

"The director has a small role in his new Grindhouse film, Planet Terror, playing a character called Rapist Number One. And a lifelike miniature of Rapist Number One is on sale at Toys R Us stores across America where, unsurprisingly, there's been a few complaints..."

Toys R Us??? And Amazon, for fuck sake. I'm not suggesting this *cute little action figure guy* may be responsible for the next VTech or the next slew of missing women from the streets of Vancouver. In fact I adore Tarantino's movies, as politically incorrect as that may be, but I probably wouldn't let kids watch them. Regardless of what movie it comes from, I question the wisdom of producing an action figure, something targeted at kids under 12, of a rapist. I'm not saying this is the cause of all society's ills, just that it's Not Helpful. The portrayal of movie bad guys in the form of action figures should stop at Darth Vader. Or Preznit Chimpy McFlightsuit.

Five men

confirmed their ownership over the degree of sovereignty women have over their own bodies today, as the US Supreme Court upheld the so-called "Partial-Birth" (fundiespeak to sane person language translation: "late term") abortion ban, 5-4. I love it:

"April 18 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law that makes it a crime to perform ``partial birth'' abortions, allowing the first nationwide ban on a procedure as two justices named by President George W. Bush tipped the balance.

The justices, voting 5-4, said the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is constitutional even though it lacks an exception for cases posing a risk to the mother's health. The court also rejected claims that the law is so vaguely worded it would force doctors to forgo a commonly used, constitutionally protected abortion technique for fear of prosecution." (emphasis mine)

The late-term abortion procedure has become a hot issue because the fundies would have us believe that after carrying a pregnancy for 36 weeks, "frivolous" women wake up one day in a bad mood, decide "I don't want to do this anymore" and have an abortion. This is such a stenchy, steaming crock of bullshit. Late-term abortions are performed only in the most extreme cases, where there's a threat to the health of the mother or the fetus is so damaged that it will be stillborn. This law helps nobody, and harms women: there can be no doubt that women will die because of it. To say nothing of the psychological trauma of being forced to carry a dead fetus to "term".

I'm too disgusted to delve into what the wider impact this decision might be, but it's a step in the wrong direction. They call the Taliban backwards? Look in a fucking mirror, assholes!