Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Rights and Liberties
The Ugly Politics of Mass Killings
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 7, 2009 at 2:13 PM.
FUNNY THING ABOUT RIGHT WINGERS
So far, I haven't heard anyone on the right saying that the authorities shouldn't charge Malik Nidal Hassan with a hate crime because doing so would be a totalitarian, Orwellian criminalization of a thoughtcrime. But surely they'll want to make that point firmly and decisively in the days to come ... right?
****
And I'm confused. Right-wingers (NewsBusters in particular) have told us for years that the "liberal media" doesn't like to acknowledge certain demographic information about certain suspects in horrible crimes ... but right now CNN is prominently highlighting a convenience-store surveillance video showing Hasan in a traditional Middle Eastern robe and skullcap (the story is headlined "Fort Hood Suspect Seemed 'Cool, Calm, Religious'"), while the front pages of Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post prominently feature stories that claim Nidal shouted "Allahu akbar!" before shooting (a claim made by Fort Hood's commanding officer in an interview on the allegedly arch-liberal NBC). How can this be? Where's the liberal cover-up? And if there's no cover-up, gosh, why isn't NewsBusters heaping these news outlets with praise?
(The same right-wingers, of course, went to great pains to make the case that James von Brunn, the man charged with shooting up the Holocaust Museum, was a liberal. But our side, naturally, is the guilty side.)
(VIDEO) More Torture by Taser: Cops Zap Man Offering No Resistance
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 7, 2009 at 12:00 AM.
Police officers commonly say that tasers are needed to get people under control for their own and everyone else's safety. And they insist they they don't use it as a form of punishment.
Right-Bloggers React to Fort Hood Exactly as Expected
Posted by Roy Edroso, Alicublog on November 6, 2009 at 10:26 AM.
FIGHTIN' KEYBOARDERS CALLED BACK INTO ACTION. We'll probably be reading a lot of idiotic stuff about Fort Hood, but it'll be hard to top this from Robert Stacy McCain:
The people who want to kill you are not Tea Party protesters or accountants from Saranac Lake, N.Y. They're not Kentucky populists or Belgian radicals.Anyone who wants to distract you from real dangers by telling you to fear this week's pet bogeyman -- global warming! creationists! Ron Paul! -- is not your friend. They are fools and liars who cannot be trusted. They are objectively evil.
The only through-line I can detect in this incoherent gush is this: Liberals are trying to distract you so their friend the Arab terrorist can kill you. So don't shit your pants like they want you to -- shit your pants like Robert Stacy McCain wants you to!
There are other contenders. For example, there's Linda Chavez at Commentary, who attempts to portray President Obama's delivery of planned remarks to a Native American affairs conference before announcing the Fort Hood situation as the equivalent of "President Bush’s 'Pet Goat' moment on 9/11." First of all, Obama was, in the face of crisis, taking care of business rather than, as our last President did, shitting his pants; second, how refreshing to hear a conservative acknowledge there was something weird about "President Bush’s 'Pet Goat' moment on 9/11."
There will be plenty of small-time nutcakes making fools of themselves (like Mad Americans Club, which raves "Obama wants to honor these type of actions with a United States Stamp! USPS New 44-Cent Stamp!!! Celebrates Muslim holiday," apparently referring to this), but the more well-known and respectable rightbloggers are soiling themselves as badly as any of those.
The reason's simple, and the same as it was during 9/11: they think soiling oneself is a sign of patriotism, and consider those who pants are not full of shit to be traitors.
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Who's Been Held Accountable for the Crimes of Bush's "War on Terror"? Four Italians ... Sort of
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM.
I may be wrong, but setting aside a handful of low-level prison guards convicted for brutalizing or killing detainees, I think that despite many well documented violations of both international and various countries’ domestic laws committed in the “war on terror”, the total number of people who have been prosecuted -- not counting those tried in absentia -- is now 4 (correct me in the comments if I’m overlooking something!).
All were Italians. Two were convicted yesterday in an Italian court and sentenced to three-year terms for kidnapping a man named Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr off the streets of a liberal democracy, depriving him of any semblance of due process despite its fully functional judiciary and sending him to a country that would torture him for information they believed he was holding.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
MSNBC's Brewer Adopts Anti-Gay Rhetoric
Posted by Jamison Foser, Media Matters for America on November 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM.
I have frequently noted that, in addition to the three hours a day in which MSNBC is hosted by a former Republican congressman, the cable channel's daytime news reporters often adopt conservative framing. Here's an example, from anchor Contessa Brewer's introduction of a segment about Maine's repeal of a law allowing same-sex marriage:
Contessa Brewer: "And today you can add Maine to a long line of states, about 30 so far, where voters have chosen to define marriage traditionally: The union between one man and one woman."
"Define marriage traditionally" is straight out of the anti-gay movement's talking points. They work the phrase (and variations of it) into everything they say about the subject.
And it isn't accurate or neutral language.
It is telling that the construction "Define marriage traditionally" is a relatively new one. If you go back a decade, you'll be hard-pressed to find many uses of it (or variations of it) in the media. A Nexis search for "marriage w/5 tradition! w/5 defin!" returns only 317 hits from prior to the past 10 years.
No, the phrase is new -- cooked-up by anti-gay activists, because they know "deny gay couples the right to marry" doesn't poll as well. So why is an MSNBC anchor adopting it?
It's not like it's accurate. It wasn't too long ago, after all, when laws in America defined marriage as the union of one white man and one white woman, or of one black man and one black woman. That was the "traditional" definition of marriage in America, until people saw the light. Now they want you to believe marriage has always been defined the same way, so they can claim tradition is on their side. It isn't true -- but MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer parrots their rhetoric
If Brewer had introduced the segment by saying that Maine voted to "discriminate against gays," you can be sure the Right would be apoplectic -- and other reporters would point to it as evidence that MSNBC is a left-wing channel.
But that isn't what happened. What actually happened was that Brewer adopted anti-gay talking points as though they were neutral descriptions.
And Howard Kurtz, Campbell Brown, Ruth Marcus, David Zurawick and the rest of the "MSNBC-is-the-liberal-Fox" crowd won't say a word about it.
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
"America's Toughest Dictator"? FBI Investigating Joe Arpaio for Using Office to Bully Opponents
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 3, 2009 at 12:27 PM.
Fox News' show-boating Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a thuggish right-wing clown with aspirations to higher office and a police force of his own (he's reportedly weighing a run to become Arizona governor next year). His use of the latter to advance the former may just prove to be his undoing.
According to local CBS affiliate KBHO (via TPM):
The FBI is looking into accusations that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is using his position to settle political vendettas.
Over the past year, 5 Investigates examined more than two dozen complaints against the sheriff from business owners, government workers, mayors and law-enforcement officials.
They claim they spoke out against Arpaio, and shortly after, deputies paid them unwelcome visits.
Arpaio has gotten into hot water before as a result of his harsh, publicity-grabbing campaign against undocumented immigrants. There was a very public fracas with then-Governor Janet Napolitano in 2007, and his office lost a chunk of funding as a result. Earlier this year, in a high-profile spat with the DHS, he lost some of his federal immigration enforcement powers.
But this is different -- here he's charged not only with abusing the powers of his office to go after marginal groups like unauthorized immigrants, but citizens who dare criticize his actions, including political opponents and the media -- influential members of the community. As such, this might not end as well for the sheriff as his earlier controversies.
Consider a few of the people on whom he's reportedly sicced his deputies ...
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Joe Lieberman: Swine Flu is Either with Us or the Terrorists!
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 3, 2009 at 5:42 AM.
I wish the exact quote were available, but for now we have this from Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard's blog:
... a source who was present at the scene reports:
In the stakeout after Face the Nation, Joe Lieberman excoriated the decision to give the vaccine to GITMO terrorists and not to pregnant women.
Really, Joe? Best you can do?
Yeah, we're giving swine flu vaccine to Guantanamo prisoners.
Can't think of a reason why, Joe? I won't even bother bringing up the Geneva Conventions, or our military's long tradition of humane treatment of prisoners -- I know you don't believe in any of that crap, Joe.
Still can't come up with a reason? Here, I'll give you a big fat hint:
Who's guarding Gitmo prisoners?
Right: our troops.
I know you think the prisoners are subhuman scum, vile worms who can't be compared to decent human beings on any level whatsoever. But guess what, Joe?
Viruses don't give a crap.
A virus can easily spread from your scum to our brave youth. Vaccinating these prisoners is a way of protecting our men and women in uniform.
Hey, Joe, why do you hate the troops?
Immigration: There's a Human Rights Crisis Within Our Borders
Posted by Jill Garvey, Imagine 2050 on November 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM.
Treatment of immigrant detainees tells of the shameless brokenness of America’s immigration system. Even the valiant efforts by some to lessen the suffering of families caught in the immigration web are stymied by the lack of rational immigration reform.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Cops Murder Drunk Trying to Avoid Tasering
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM.
A drunk man tries to get away from the tasering and so they shot him dead:
“We’re really concerned about a guy leaving the parking lot of Chuckwagon [Inn] on Evergreen Way — in a white Corvette, he’s extremely intoxicated,” Tribble told the dispatcher.
Several officers from the Everett Police Department soon arrived; among them were Troy Meade, an 11-year-veteran, and Officer Steven Klocker. Meade arrived at about 11:39 PM; Klocker reached the scene a little less than five minutes later.
At the time Officer Meade arrived, Meservey was hedged in by cars on either side of his Corvette, and cut off by a parking lot fence in front of him. Meade pulled up behind Meservey’s car, effectively boxing him in.
Joanne Hancock, who was smoking outside the Chuckwagon Inn when the police arrived, went inside to tell others concerned about Meservey that “They’ve got him!” The news prompted a small group of people to go outside to watch the arrest.
By the time Klocker arrived to provide “backup,” Meade had spent perhaps five minutes trying to convince Meservey to get out of the car. Klocker would later report that Meade’s tone and attitude toward the intoxicated man were “belligerent,” and that he “used language which made him [Klocker] uncomfortable because of the nearby civilians.”
“I don’t know why the f**k I am trying to save your dumb ass,” Meade snarled at Meservey, according to Klocker’s account.
Both Meade and Klocker withdrew their portable electro-shock torture devices (more commonly called Tasers). Meade, who was closest to the driver, shot Meservey with his Taser through the open driver’s side window, inflicting two separate strikes — one five seconds long, the other six seconds’ duration.
“Why in the f**k did you do that?” muttered the drunken man, who — predictably enough — didn’t want to stick around for any more abuse. He reached for his keys and started the car, but he had nowhere to go: It lurched over a concrete curb and ran into an unyielding chain-link fence.
Bear in mind, once again, that Meservey was entirely boxed in. It was possible, albeit with some difficulty, for Officer Meade to reach through the window and seize the car keys, rather than escalating the situation by using potentially deadly force.
But Meade’s pointless escalation didn’t stop with the two Taser strikes. After Meservey’s brief attempt to drive away, Meade — according to the official police account — took up a position near the left rear wheel of the Corvette, and pulled his gun. “Time to end this,” bellowed Meade, according to Klocker. “Enough is enough.” From a distance of six to seven feet, Meade fired eight shots into the car, murdering Meservey.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Packed Supreme Court Likely to Allow MORE Corporate Money in Politics
Posted by Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future on November 2, 2009 at 2:12 PM.
The Supreme Court may decide as soon as tomorrow on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case involving a corporate-funded anti-Hillary smear ad. It is likely the conservative-dominated activist court will overturn precedent and rule in favor of removing restrictions on corporate spending in elections, with terrible consequences. The 5-4 ruling will say that large companies injecting vast sums to sway election results is “free speech.” Imagine, vocal cords on a Cayman Islands post office box!
Common Cause has a report out, titled, Corporate Democracy: Potential fallout from a Supreme Court decision on Citizens United. "Lifting the ban on corporate political spending could unleash a flood of money into the political system and further diminish the public’s voice," the report says.
Really, imagine regular people trying to run for office while competing with the massive aggregated financial power of the biggest corporations. And imagine what will happen to anyone who dares to try to go up against their interests when they are able to openly spend any amount needed to get their way. I have come up with some examples of what to expect:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Rape Victim Confronts Vitter Over Vote for Impunity for Contractors
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 2, 2009 at 1:06 PM.
In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones’ Halliburton/KBR co-workers gang-raped her while she was working in Baghdad. The company then detained her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would be heard in private arbitration only.
Last month, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts if companies “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Although the amendment passed, 30 Republican senators voted against it.
One of the Republicans singled out for especially harsh criticism following the vote was Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who has a track record of siding against women’s rights. The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that at a town hall meeting this past weekend, a constituent confronted Vitter about his vote. The woman, a rape victim, demanded that he explain why he opposed Franken’s amendment. Vitter refused to give her a straight answer:
WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen
VITTER: And I’m absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law. [...]
WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?
VITTER: Ma’am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.
WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.
Vitter then tried to deflect blame to the Obama administration, saying that it was also against the amendment. When the woman replied, “But I’m not asking Obama. I’m asking you,” Vitter retorted, “Do you think he’s in favor in rape?”
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
400,000 People Landed on FBI's Terrorism 'Watch-List'?
Posted by Steven D., Booman Tribune on November 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM.
The FBI has a Terror Watch List of 400,000 names on it. Does that seem extreme to you? Because it seems absolutely insane to me.
Newly released FBI data offer evidence of the broad scope and complexity of the nation's terrorist watch list, documenting a daily flood of names nominated for inclusion to the controversial list.
During a 12-month period ended in March this year, for example, the U.S. intelligence community suggested on a daily basis that 1,600 people qualified for the list because they presented a "reasonable suspicion," according to data provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the FBI in September and made public last week. [...]
The ever-churning list is said to contain more than 400,000 unique names and over 1 million entries. The committee was told that over that same period, officials asked each day that 600 names be removed and 4,800 records be modified. Fewer than 5 percent of the people on the list are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Nine percent of those on the terrorism list, the FBI said, are also on the government's "no fly" list.
I have to wonder if we are slowing turning our "security forces" into the equivalent of East Germany's notorious Stasi where everyone informs on everyone else and thee FBI keeps a record on everyone for any possible "anti-government" comment or association.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Do Pregnant Women Have Fewer Rights?
Posted by Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, Blog of Rights on October 30, 2009 at 1:15 PM.
In March, a Florida judge forced a pregnant woman to stay on bed rest and undergo all medical treatments deemed necessary to save her fetus, virtually imprisoning her at a hospital. In June, a federal judge in Maine sentenced a pregnant woman living with HIV to spend the duration of her pregnancy in jail solely because she was HIV-positive and pregnant (her sentence was later vacated). And just last week, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a case where local probation officers admitted they threw a probationer who failed a drug test into jail because she was pregnant; if she had not been pregnant they would have taken less drastic measures.
In a blog post on Double X, Beth Schwartzapfel does a great job of discussing this unlawful and discriminatory treatment of pregnant women. She writes:
One reason these cases keep coming up, despite their clear illegality, is simple paternalism -- overzealous prosecutors and judges think they know what’s best for a healthy pregnancy, as if that’s separate from what’s good for the pregnant woman. This is particularly troubling when judges assume that the woman must be confined or coerced in order to take good care of her child. . . . And the effect of prosecuting pregnant women who use drugs may be to deter other women with addictions from going to doctors’ offices and social service agencies -- precisely the places they need to be. If going to the emergency room might get you arrested, would you go?
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
The New Yorker Has a Laugh Over Cell Phone Sniffing Dogs In Prison
Posted by Just A Guy, Prisonmovement on October 30, 2009 at 7:15 AM.
Shame on Ian Frazier and The New Yorker.
Frazier is a writer for that bastion of liberal magazines, and he published an article (puff piece) about cell-phone sniffing dogs in the New Jersey correctional system.
No, it’s not really a puff piece -- “puff pieces” generally don’t have a deleterious affect on people or segments of society, as Frazier’s piece does on inmates throughout the country.
The piece does a great job of allowing New Jersey corrections officials to laud their own efforts to overthrow that most evil beast, the cell phone in prison. The piece goes on to report about New Jersey corrections training its own dogs on how to sniff out cell phones, and the wonderful results of that training, which is the seizure of more than 130 cell phones from us dastardly, evil inmates.
New Jersey corrections ballyhoos itself quite well about how much the agency is saving over states like California, which has contracted cell phone sniffers to come in at exorbitant rates, depleting our already woefully depleted budget. At least the New Jersey corrections folks got something right.
The corrections agency goes on to say how dangerous and threatening all us inmates are with cell phones, how it’s pretty much only gang members and drug dealers who purchase the phones and call out hits on unsuspecting witnesses and victims.
The puff piece, uh, I mean, article, quotes a staff member/trainer who doesn't want to say what the dogs smell while sniffing for the phones but says it’s something organic.
I say, boink. Lets think about what’s in a cell phone that’s not in a TV or radio -- and that’s organic. Wow, tough one ….
And behind door number one we have the lithium ion battery! Lithium batteries use an organic alkali. Smell your battery, people; it has it’s own distinct and somewhat earthy scent. But I am no scientist and am purely guessing.
Shame on Frazier for not finding out the answers to some key questions -- and shame on the editorial staff of The New Yorker for not pushing Frazier to ask some of these questions:
1. How much does it cost an inmate in New Jersey to make a collect call?
2. How often are inmates allowed to make phone calls?
3. Are the visitors really the main way cells phones are coming in? And how do the inmates deposit cell phones and chargers into their body cavities in the visiting room anyway? (They must have lax visiting standards in New Jersey).
4. How much does a cell phone cost an inmate in New Jersey?
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
An Early Halloween Scare: Immigration Agents Attacking Workers' Rights!
Posted by Amy Traub, DMI Blog on October 30, 2009 at 3:54 AM.
In our recent report on immigration policy and the middle class, I made the case that the exploitation of undocumented immigrant workers threatens to drive down wages, benefits and working conditions for middle-class workers and low-income Americans striving to earn a middle-class standard of living. The solution, I argue, is to provide a path to legal status for the undocumented immigrants: this would maximize the economic benefits undocumented workers, consumers, and taxpayers already bring to the nation and help ensure that exploitation doesn't harm the rest of us.
Unfortunately, that's not the direction the country is going. Instead, a new study by researchers from the AFL-CIO, American Rights at Work and the National Employment Law Project documents a decline in the enforcement of labor standards at the same time the nation has experienced an immigration crackdown in the workplace. The result only worsens workplace exploitation. As the study points out:
"The single-minded focus on immigration enforcement without regard to violations of workplace laws has enabled employers with rampant labor and employment violations to profit by employing workers who are terrified to complain about substandard wages, unsafe conditions, and lack of benefits, or to demand their right to bargain collectively... ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency] actions have created incentives for shady employers to continue hiring and abusing undocumented workers, since the deportation of their employees may excuse those employers from complying with labor laws."
It's fitting that the report was released a week before Halloween, since it's full of frightening stories of immigration agents - or local police enforcing immigration law - intervening in ways that facilitate workplace abuses. We read of ICE helicopters hovering menacingly above picket lines; immigration agents who came promptly to arrest workers who had complained about workplace safety; and one story of a worker suffering from a horrific workplace injury, swept up by immigration agents as he entered the courthouse to press a workers' compensation claim. His employer, apparently delighted that he might not have to pay for an injury caused by his business' negligent practices, called out: "I'm sending you back to Mexico... I have no use for you now." If that's not haunting, I don't know what is.
One quibble: the authors offer suggestions for more thoughtful enforcement of both immigration and labor laws, but these horror stories call for bolder solutions. An overhaul of immigration and labor laws would be a better solution still.
EMAIL
PRINT
1 COMMENT
PERMALINK
