From Twitter 12-16-2010

( I tweet, therefore I am a twit. )

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

From Twitter 12-16-2010

( I tweet, therefore I am a twit. )

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

Torture- Alive and Well in the Obama Administration

Glenn Greenwald reports on the Department of Justice's legal theory for prosecuting Julian "Wikileaks" Assange:

Federal investigators are "are looking for evidence of any collusion" between WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning -- "trying to find out whether Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped" the Army Private leak the documents -- and then "charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them." To achieve this, it is particularly important to "persuade Private Manning to testify against Mr. Assange."

. . .

... the Obama administration faces what it perceives to be a serious dilemma: it is -- as Savage writes -- "under intense pressure to make an example of [Assange] as a deterrent to further mass leaking," but nothing Assange or WikiLeaks has done actually violates the law. Moreover, as these Columbia Journalism School professors explain in opposing prosecutions, it is impossible to invent theories to indict them without simultaneously criminalizing much of investigative journalism. Thus, claiming that WikiLeaks does not merely receive and publish classified information, but rather actively seeks it and helps the leakers, is the DOJ's attempt to distinguish it from "traditional" journalism. As Savage writes, this theory would mean "the government would not have to confront awkward questions about why it is not also prosecuting traditional news organizations or investigative journalists who also disclose information the government says should be kept secret — including The New York Times."

And by what means are they trying to persuade Private Manning?

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime . . .has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture.

. . .

For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed. . .

. . .the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.

. . .

Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture. . . A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that "solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture."

. . .

"It’s an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. “It crushes your spirit." As Gawande documented: "A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered."

. . .

It's one thing to impose such punitive, barbaric measures on convicts who have proven to be violent when around other prisoners; at the Supermax in Florence, inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes and who pose a threat to prison order and the safety of others are subjected to worse treatment than what Manning experiences. But it's another thing entirely to impose such conditions on individuals, like Manning, who have been convicted of nothing and have never demonstrated an iota of physical threat or disorder.

So: on the face of it, Obama has ordered the torture of a non-terrorist who is not convicted or even tried for any crime, for the singular purpose of extorting testimony against someone else.

This is not just indefensible: this is saying that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution are dead letters.

This is not what I voted for.

And I will not vote for Obama, the torturer, again.

Torture- Alive and Well in the Obama Administration

Glenn Greenwald reports on the Department of Justice's legal theory for prosecuting Julian "Wikileaks" Assange:

Federal investigators are "are looking for evidence of any collusion" between WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning -- "trying to find out whether Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped" the Army Private leak the documents -- and then "charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them." To achieve this, it is particularly important to "persuade Private Manning to testify against Mr. Assange."

. . .

... the Obama administration faces what it perceives to be a serious dilemma: it is -- as Savage writes -- "under intense pressure to make an example of [Assange] as a deterrent to further mass leaking," but nothing Assange or WikiLeaks has done actually violates the law. Moreover, as these Columbia Journalism School professors explain in opposing prosecutions, it is impossible to invent theories to indict them without simultaneously criminalizing much of investigative journalism. Thus, claiming that WikiLeaks does not merely receive and publish classified information, but rather actively seeks it and helps the leakers, is the DOJ's attempt to distinguish it from "traditional" journalism. As Savage writes, this theory would mean "the government would not have to confront awkward questions about why it is not also prosecuting traditional news organizations or investigative journalists who also disclose information the government says should be kept secret — including The New York Times."

And by what means are they trying to persuade Private Manning?

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime . . .has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture.

. . .

For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed. . .

. . .the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.

. . .

Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture. . . A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that "solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture."

. . .

"It’s an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. “It crushes your spirit." As Gawande documented: "A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered."

. . .

It's one thing to impose such punitive, barbaric measures on convicts who have proven to be violent when around other prisoners; at the Supermax in Florence, inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes and who pose a threat to prison order and the safety of others are subjected to worse treatment than what Manning experiences. But it's another thing entirely to impose such conditions on individuals, like Manning, who have been convicted of nothing and have never demonstrated an iota of physical threat or disorder.

So: on the face of it, Obama has ordered the torture of a non-terrorist who is not convicted or even tried for any crime, for the singular purpose of extorting testimony against someone else.

This is not just indefensible: this is saying that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution are dead letters.

This is not what I voted for.

And I will not vote for Obama, the torturer, again.

EGAD! It's NOT a post about politics!

There have been a few people who remark that, because I write and publish stuff about women with absurdly large breasts, I am a misogynist.

Long story short, I'm not- or at least I don't think I am one. I definitely have a number of blind spots and strange things that don't stand up well in polite company, but I don't hate women. I firmly believe that a woman's place is wherever the hell she damn well wants to be, and it's nobody's business but hers. I'm a bit of a misanthrope, but if I have any particular contempt or animus for a gender it's the male side, not the female.

That said- if you don't want to see what misogyny looks like, then don't read this book review.

I did- and it is appalling. What. The. Fuck. appalling. I'm not actually surprised, as such, that nobody called the dickhead who wrote the book being reviewed on his behavior (like, say, an EDITOR) before it was published. I AM surprised, however, that this shining example of love and consideration stayed married after impregnating his wife without her consent.

This is the sort of thing starcat_jewel is talking about when she refers to "the rape society." This is the kind of behavior that, if you condone it, if you joke about it, if you even TOLERATE it without at least calling it out as wrong, then you're not just an asshole, you're an irredeemable dickhead. The very knowledge that such attitudes are not only tolerated but accepted by a large enough portion of the public to float a bestselling sports book is an affront to morals.

Read the article. Then do NOT buy the book. If, by some strange circumstance, someone gives you the book as a present, decline it and tell them why: the author believes that women are nothing more than vaginas waiting to be filled, not really human and CERTAINLY not equal to a man- and that belief is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE.

I'm dead serious. Even the handful of excerpts in the review are DISGUSTING. I don't want to THINK about the rest of the book.

And if Bill Simmons gets a commentator slot on any sports program I watch henceforth- CLICK. Off. I'm too casual a sports fan to give my ratings to any network that would employ such a dick.

And if any of you found any part of any of the quotes in the review funny, amusing, or resonant in any way whatever- do NOT tell me, because if you do I do NOT want to know you.

EGAD! It's NOT a post about politics!

There have been a few people who remark that, because I write and publish stuff about women with absurdly large breasts, I am a misogynist.

Long story short, I'm not- or at least I don't think I am one. I definitely have a number of blind spots and strange things that don't stand up well in polite company, but I don't hate women. I firmly believe that a woman's place is wherever the hell she damn well wants to be, and it's nobody's business but hers. I'm a bit of a misanthrope, but if I have any particular contempt or animus for a gender it's the male side, not the female.

That said- if you don't want to see what misogyny looks like, then don't read this book review.

I did- and it is appalling. What. The. Fuck. appalling. I'm not actually surprised, as such, that nobody called the dickhead who wrote the book being reviewed on his behavior (like, say, an EDITOR) before it was published. I AM surprised, however, that this shining example of love and consideration stayed married after impregnating his wife without her consent.

This is the sort of thing starcat_jewel is talking about when she refers to "the rape society." This is the kind of behavior that, if you condone it, if you joke about it, if you even TOLERATE it without at least calling it out as wrong, then you're not just an asshole, you're an irredeemable dickhead. The very knowledge that such attitudes are not only tolerated but accepted by a large enough portion of the public to float a bestselling sports book is an affront to morals.

Read the article. Then do NOT buy the book. If, by some strange circumstance, someone gives you the book as a present, decline it and tell them why: the author believes that women are nothing more than vaginas waiting to be filled, not really human and CERTAINLY not equal to a man- and that belief is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE.

I'm dead serious. Even the handful of excerpts in the review are DISGUSTING. I don't want to THINK about the rest of the book.

And if Bill Simmons gets a commentator slot on any sports program I watch henceforth- CLICK. Off. I'm too casual a sports fan to give my ratings to any network that would employ such a dick.

And if any of you found any part of any of the quotes in the review funny, amusing, or resonant in any way whatever- do NOT tell me, because if you do I do NOT want to know you.