curate:

rekomuse:tjjourian:teflonwonton:hahaihateeveryonehaha:del-corona:lakrymosa

Democracy Now, November 29, 2011: Battlefield America: U.S. Citizens Face Indefinite Military Detention in Defense Bill Before Senate

AMY GOODMAN: Here in this country. U.S. citizens abroad as well as others abroad and others abroad in this country as well as U.S. citizens.

DAPHNE EVIATAR: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re picked up off the street and you have no trial.

AMY GOODMAN: And it could be for things you’ve done here in this country. If you communicate with Al Qaeda, you’re suspected of being even a supporter of Al Qaeda in some way or of Al Qaeda’s associated forces. And the U.S. gets to decide who they think is associated with Al Qaeda, and that list grows longer almost every day.

AMY GOODMAN: Now again, suspected. This is not that you’ve been convicted.

DAPHNE EVIATAR: Suspected. And this is military custody without trial. So, this is for example what we have in Guantanamo Bay and at Bagram only you’re now expanding the battlefield, as you said, to the United States. And, explicitly, some members of congress have said recently, yes, the battlefield now is the United States as well and the U.S. military ought to be able to operate here as well. And one other point, another very controversial provision in the bill and what the administration has particularly objected to, is the mandatory military custody provision which would say anyone suspected of terrorism in any way connected to Al Qaeda would have to be put into military custody. So, the government wouldn’t even have the option. So, all these FBI investigations that are thwarting terrorist attacks and local police investigations, immediately that would have to be turned over to the U.S. military, and that would become a military action here in the United States, on U.S. soil.

curate:

On March 8, 2011, Governor Beverly Perdue established the five-member, Governor’s Task Force to Determine the Method of Compensation for Victims of North Carolina’s Eugenics Board. The following is the testimony of Elaine Riddick who was sterilized at the tender age of 14 when she became pregnant after being raped by a much older neighbor.  Not only was she sterilized but she was deemed promiscuous.

Transcript

Elaine Riddick: I had to have a child at the age of 14 and when I had my son, they went into me at the same time they gave me a cesarean birth and they took my child they sterilized me.  What do you think I’m worth? What do you think I’m worth?
Reporter: Elaine Riddick was just 13 when a neighbor raped her, then she endured what she refers to as her second rape.  State officials declared Riddick feebleminded and unfit to have children.
Elaine Riddick: The main reason, reasons is because I was poor and out and Black. I believe that with all of my heart.
Reporter: Based on the pseudo science of eugenics, over 30 states passed laws regarding the sterilization of so-called defectives. The goal was to rid society of certain undesirable traits.
Charmaine Fuller Cooper (victim advocate): Some of those traits that they listed were epilepsy, feeblemindedness, promiscuity, criminal mentalities.
Reporter: Researches believe that as many as one hundred thousand Americans were victimized. By the time that North Carolina ended its own eugenics program in 1974, it had taken away the reproductive rights of 7,600 people - most like Riddick were poor. Tony Riddick still lives close to his mother’s town in the coastal plane. He says she doesn’t come home often.
Tony Riddick: They used to call it little Korea, yeah little Korea. The reason why is cause it was very violent you know, coming up.  She grew up in a very very abusive home. My mother’s life and my life by any measure would have been, should have been, could have been totally written off, but the fact of the matter is God still prevails and I’m grateful for that, very grateful.
Reporter: Riddick’s mother would be grateful for justice. She drove from her adopted home in Georgia to testify before a North Carolina task force considering compensation for sterilization victims.
Elaine Riddick: There’s nothing that the state of North Carolina can do to justify what they did to me, what they did to these other victims.  You know, it’s not my grandmother’s fault that she uneducated. It’s not my mother’s fault that she was abused by her husband. It wasn’t my fault that my environment that I was raised in - that I was brought up in this kind of environment; I had nothing to do with that. I was a victim. God said, be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth in his image you know.  I always told everybody, “how can you ever get to see the image of God when you are killing it off”?
Reporter: Riddick is tired of feeling like the victim but she’ll have to wait until next February to see if the tar heel state will give her and 2, 000 other eugenics survivors justice.

curate:

(vía CENSORED NEWS: Police Pepper Spray Peaceful UC Davis Protesters Nov. 18)

nickgerber:

I’m in a place I don’t often find myself. I’m equally horrified and proud. I’m disgusted with the police for beating non violent protestors and I’m so amazed at the resilience of the protesters who have been maced, beaten, arrested, denied due process, and generally fucked over by the police…

nickgerber:

paradoxolojest:

alelepants:

allthewaydown:

thenewbestthing:

kateoplis:

This is Lt. John Pike. 530-752-3989. japikeiii@ucdavis.edu (via: motherjones)

“I am writing to tell you in no uncertain terms that there must be space for protest on our campus. There must be space for political dissent on our campus. There must be space for civil disobedience on our campus. There must be space for students to assert their right to decide on the form of their protest, their dissent, and their civil disobedience—including the simple act of setting up tents in solidarity with other students who have done so. There must be space for protest and dissent, especially, when the object of protest and dissent is police brutality itself…”

— Assistant Professor Brown 

This is what a police state looks like

This is what a police state looks like.

This is what a police state looks like.

This is what a police state looks like.

I’m sorry, but in what context is this possibly right? I’ve been watching the protests in New York, Oakland, Berkley, etc. and I just do not understand why the police feel like this is the image they want to be projecting. THE POLICE WORK FOR THE PEOPLE. OUR TAXES PAY THEIR SALARIES. AS THEIR BOSS WE HAVE A SAY IN WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN NOT DO. I implore the residents of the places where protests have been violently stomped on to call their local government officials and tell them they will not be re-elected if they sit idly by and let this happen. The government is for, of and by the people and by God we should be able to put our foot down when enough is enough. 

As for Lt. John Pike, I demand his job. I don’t think this man should be a mall security officer by the time the public is done with him. He and the people who told him this was the way to deal with non-violent protesters should be shuffled loose of their badges and ‘authority’. The worst part being - the people he’s pepper spraying are standing up for his rights too. 

killanois:

yourunlikelyhero:

mangosupasonic:

faineemae:

cherriesinchocolate:

The #ItsNotRape Twitter tag.

Things are pixelated and censored because I’m using this picture for a school presentation, but really. Ugh.

To them, it’s “it’s not rape until it happens to me.”
fuck that, especially the “dark skin girl.”
FUCK ALL OF THAT. 

Fuck everyone on that list.

ugh. To everyone on that list

I fucking hate humanity.

curate:

Oscar Grant’s photograph of Johannes Mehserle

Oscar Grant’s photograph of transit police officer Johannes Mehserle is rare: a portrait of the photographer’s killer. Unlike the recent photograph that a politician captured in the Philippines, Grant’s photograph, taken moments before Mehserle shot him in the back, was intentional.

Much of the media attention given to the Oscar Grant case focused on a handful of videos made by other passengers on the BART train, some of which show Grant being shot. While being detained by BART police, Grant called his ex-girlfriend Sophina Mesa twice from the platform. During this time he also took the photo of Mehserle and sent it to Mesa. Grant’s photograph of Mehserle did not get as much coverage as the videos, as it wasn’t released until the trial began.

Grant’s photograph raises an important issue that faces every American: the right to photograph, videotape and document while being detained or arrested by the police. Many of us assume we have this right, but with existing wiretapping laws, you can still be arrested and your camera confiscated. Radley Balko’s Reason.com article “The War on Cameras” is essential reading on this subject.

Demian Bulwa is a reporter and editor for the San Francisco Chronicle, who has covered the Oscar Grant case since the shooting, through the entire Mehserle trial. I asked him a few questions over the phone about this photograph.

How did the prosecution and defense use this photograph as evidence in the trial?

Both sides used flat screen TVs, multimedia, everything was timed and choreographed. It seemed they felt they might lose credibility if they weren’t sharp with multimedia. At times the arguments felt like PowerPoint presentations. There were photos, quotes, videos, video of the Taser training.

It was used by prosecution to show two things: 1. that he [Mehserle] knew his Taser from his gun, that he had actually taken out his Taser twice, that he knew full well between the two weapons. 2. That Oscar was being abused and was concerned about it.

It was one of many pieces of evidence. It’s part of the puzzle, and hard to tell which ones stuck with the jury.

What facts were presented about the photograph, when it was taken? Did he take it while face down, turning around?

Grant was sitting on the ground. The guys were sitting on the edge of the platform for a while. He wouldn’t have had the opportunity in the last moments, the officers were on top of him, with his arms behind him.

Was there any suggestion by either side that taking this photograph provoked Mehserle, or was some form of resisting arrest?

I don’t recall.

Based on the evidence in the trial, and your own speculation, why do you think Oscar Grant took this photograph?

Most likely he was documenting unfair treatment. He said something to his girlfriend [during the phone call], like “I’m getting beat up here.” It was a way of documenting that, and putting Mehserle on notice. If you take a picture of someone you are saying: I’m watching your behavior. You’re accountable. You are expressing your concern and putting them on notice.

via bremser