Abuse

Isn't the whole premise of the War on Some Drugs that you should only use drugs for a medical condition, not just for fun or convenience? Well, then, how about this?

The U.S. government has injected hundreds of foreigners it has deported with dangerous psychotropic drugs against their will to keep them sedated during the trip back to their home country, according to medical records, internal documents and interviews with people who have been drugged.

* * *

Such episodes are among more than 250 cases The Washington Post has identified in which the government has, without medical reason, given drugs meant to treat serious psychiatric disorders to people it has shipped out of the United States since 2003 -- the year the Bush administration handed the job of deportation to the Department of Homeland Security's new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE.

A few weeks ago my brother invited us to come out and see him play at a popular country & western steakhouse called "San Tan Flat". San Tan Flat is a fun, family place. There is a large outdoor area where you can sit and have dinner, and where the band plays. There's also a small, circular dance floor in front of the stage.

Now, Mrs. Inscrutable and I like to cut a rug now and then, and I was excited to be able to dance with her this time. "Man," I said to my brother, "It's been a while since we've been able to come out and see you play! It'll be fun to dance!"

"You can't dance there," said Mike. "It's against the law."

More below the fold...

Hello, I'm reeling with a lot of new ideas gathered from you people, and this is a rewrite of my first blog entry which basically sucked.

Here's one of the main reasons I came here.

My brain was altered by the Methodists' "dogmagicians" starting when I was almost 6 years old.

Before then, my agnostic dad kept religion out of my life and off my back, but my mother couldn't live with herself, let alone anyone else, so she split and I got moved into her parents' home and church.

Something has to give, when the people you love and trust tell you with a straight face that a guy was killed and then a few days later, he woke up and walked out of the tomb and flew up to heaven where he's been hanging out ever since, waiting for the big day.

So what exactly is it that gives?

Kids in the cult I was forced into get the dogma drill around 5 or 6, by which time they've begun to feel good about their ability to figure things out for themselves.

So, what do you do if your local VFW group hosts events to raise money for charities, to pay their bills, and to provide for a community gatering place for vets?

Well, if you're the Dallas Police Department, you bust in with a SWAT Team, of course! From Reason Magazine:

Maybe Dallas wouldn't be ranked as the 34th most dangerous city in America if Dallas police weren't devoting precious resources to raiding friendly poker games played by veterans. In his latest video for Reason.tv, Drew Carey examines a paramilitary-style raid on a poker game at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1837 in Dallas, which has now been forced to close its doors.

"Poker is about as American as baseball and apple pie," Carey says in theReason.tv video. "It was born here in America. Mark Twain loved it. He's a great American. Until recently, Supreme Court justices had a monthly game. They're great Americans. You'd think playing poker in a VFW hall would be about as American as anything you could do."

We all want a cleaner America, but corporate America wants us to do it for them.

It is interesting what happens when you read American news in foreign publications. I found the following article on the BBC news website. A NYC family stopped using all modern conveniences, including turning off the power in their apartment for one year. I found this intriguing, and started reading up on their progress. The Father created a blog called 'No-Impact Man' to track his progress.

On their blog, there is a post about the organization 'Keep America Beautiful,' which I remember from my youth as the organization with the Indian spokesperson. It always seemed like a good idea, with good motives. However, I found out something very disturbing about this group;

“Keep America Beautiful was founded in 1953 by group of businessmen from the beverage and packaging industries who were concerned that government would make them responsible for solving the litter problem by regulating their industries.”

That is basically the attitude that the Bush administration has, when it comes to its assertion that under the theory of the unitary executive, it can prohibit US Attorneys from pursuing contempt charges on behalf of Congress. From the Washington Post this morning:

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

Matt Sanchez. So, he's a 36-year-old Marine Corporal in the reserves, a Columbia University student, and a Republican. He has been interviewed on Hannity & Colmes because of his allegations of abuse by "anti-military" lefty radicals at Columbia, posed for a picture with Ann Coulter...

...and he's a gay porn star who uses the name Rod Majors (among others) as his stage name.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is about this. He never lied about it, like Gannon and Haggard, and by all accounts seems like a decent, smart guy (except for the Republican part, I suppose.)

Of course, the right wing media machine is going to implode spectacularly. That'll be fun to watch.

(Tip of the ballcap to Hank Fox. Thanks Hank!)

Dahlia Lithwik does what I think is a pretty good job of rounding up this years major civil liberties violations/issues on Slate.

It has been a bad year for civil liberties in the US...or rather a bad 6 years. From the very first time I heard it I disagreed with the statement that, "911 changed everything." It didn't change the US Constitution or Bill of Rights and we shouldn't let it change our freedoms. I'm of the opinion that the terrorists "win" a little with every bit of freedom we give up.

I heard him say it again. It was in the last couple of days, but when he said it doesn't matter. In fact, exactly what he said doesn't matter. He once again equated the war in Iraq with the "War on Terror". If, by some odd chance, you don't recognize who I'm talking about...it's Bush.

Here's my main beef: Why does the public continue to allow Bush to equate the "War on Terror" with the war in Iraq? It's madness. It's more than clear now that the terrorists did not arrive in Iraq until after our attack. No no...let me stop you there. I'm not saying that removing Sadaam wasn't a good thing. But let's call a fish a fish. Removing Sadaam has no bearing on the "War on Terror".

The "War on Terror" started as a response to an atrocity. 9/11 was a tragic, terrible event. The initial response was appropriate. But by allowing the Bush administration to add Iraq to the tally they've been given a free pass. The Taliban is experiencing a resurgence in Afghanistan. If we'd not stopped paying as much attention to our initial objective (The Taliban), who were clearly involved in harboring terrorists, instead of redirecting our efforts towards Iraq, who only had the potential of maybe helping terrorists along the way (and turned out not to have to much to do, if anything, with the attack against the US), perhaps we could have "won" on that front.

The point is that the correlation between Iraq and terrorism is clearly dishonest and should be readily ignored. What should not be ignored is that the Bush administration should not be allowed to make this assertion unchallenged. We've wasted too many resources and lives chasing the phantom of terrorism in Iraq and the waste should be stopped.

We must be honest with ourselves. The "War on Terror" is a nebulous war and one that can never be won. All we can do is work to minimize the threat. Unfortunately, the current American response doesn't come close to mitigating the possible damage. A change in leadership is in order, if only to stifle the damage that could still be done.

Most people from Arizona who watch the news have heard about Sheriff Joe's implementation of yet another tool to protect and serve the folks of Maricopa county. A vast database of digital identification culled from drivers licenses

Most people have the "only criminal's and terrorist's need worry" mindset when it comes to government keeping an eye on what folks are doing. And the court's have long upheld the concept you do not have an expectation of privacy in public places.

I do not have a problem with passive observation technology.
Put a fricking camera on every block if you like, My life is after all already posted, blogged, vlogged, webcamed and otherwise open for who ever cares to observe.

The Sheriff however is using interactive, intrusive none of your dam business kind of surveillance.

The interlinking of every feed from the traffic cam's to the circle K and jack in the box is just plain Orwellian.

A friend who lives in London was at first pleased with the total awareness program they have.

Till he became aware in his neighborhoods it's so pervasive the power company will call to scold you for leaving too many lights on at night.

The police will stop by to see if you were drinking and driving cause your auto was observed weaving quite a lot early in the evening on one of the ten's of thousands of camera's that are literally everywhere, ever watching ever profiling the subjects observed.

My wife received a very disturbing email recently forwarded from a right-wing godder associate. Before I comment I'll let you see it:

The Iranian Ambassador to the UN had just finished giving a speech, and walked out into the lobby where he met President Bush. They shook hands, and as they walked the Iranian said, "You know, I have just one question about what I have seen in America. President Bush replies, "Well, anything I can do to help you, I will."

The Iranian whispered "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there is Chekhov who is Russian, Scotty who is Scottish, and Sulu who is Chinese, but no Arabs. My son is very upset and doesn't understand why there aren't any Arabs on Star Trek." President Bush laughed, leaned toward the Iranian ambassador, and whispered back, "It's because it takes place in the future."

Ha fucking ha. Get it? Cause there won't be any of them there Arab's left in the future. Hilarious.

It amazes me that there are people out there that find this amusing and worth passing on but I suppose it shouldn't.

This morning on my local NPR station there was an interview with a soldier stationed in Germany during the Nuremberg trials. It was a reflection on his feelings as a Jew as he attended the trials. He stated that before the trials he personally wanted to kill Goering (WWI ace and leader of the German Luftwaffe in WWII), but that seeing that he was being awarded a fair trial and would still be brought to justice turned out to be more important to him than personal vengeance.

The point he was making was clear despite the fact that it wasn’t stated in the interview. There is a standard of justice that America isn’t following at the moment, and that all people accused of wrongdoing deserve a fair trial.

It seems to me that an “enemy combatant” no matter what he’s done couldn’t possibly have matched the genocide that Goering managed, yet Goering received a fair trial. Perhaps we should remind our government of that, as the Guantanamo Bay detainees are still being denied that right.

Since several apologists for Israeli atrocities have repeated to me the assertion that most Arabs are homicidal maniacs as if it were fact, here are three different polls that set the record straight.

[Link] * 75% want Hamas to negotiate peace with Israel
* Majority supports the implementation of the Road Map and a majority supports a mutual recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people under conditions of peace and the establishment of a Palestinian state in a two-state solution
* Sharp divisions over collection of arms from armed groups but an overwhelming majority supports the integration of armed groups into PA security services

[Link] Many residents of the Gaza Strip and West Bank think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be solved if two sovereign countries can be established, according to a poll by the Jerusalem Media & Communication Center. 52.4 per cent of respondents prefer a two-state solution.

Conversely, 23.6 per cent of respondents would establish a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights.

[Link] When asked if a Hamas led government should continue with the political negotiations since the PA is committed to the option of political negotiations with Israel, a majority of Palestinians (66.3%) approved while (29.6%) called for stopping the negotiations with Israel.

(...)

When asked why they voted for Hamas, the highest ratio of Palestinians (43%) of those who voted for Hamas said they did so with the hope to end the corruption while (10.7%) said they did so with the hope to see better living conditions. A ratio of (18.8%) said they did so for religious factors while only (11.8%) said they did so because of Hamas political program.

Finally, this report has a poll showing that when asked where they'd like to go, only 10% of Palestinian refugees say Israel, whereas 31% say Palestine and 23% say areas covered by land-swapping agreements. So the argument that Palestinians want the right of return and thus want to destroy Israel is not only racist and ignorant of the idea of negotiation, but also factually wrong.

Reuters has a story about an anti-Semitic shooting in Seattle:

Police stepped up security at Seattle synagogues and mosques on Saturday, a day after a Muslim man who said he was angry at Israel shot dead one woman and wounded five others at a Jewish center.

Naveed Afzal Haq, 31, burst into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on Friday afternoon. He surrendered without a struggle and police arrested him on charges of murder and five counts of attempted murder.

Amy Wasser-Simpson, the federation's vice president, told the Seattle Times the man got past security at the building and shouted, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," before he began shooting.

Note to prospective pro-Israeli commenters who think every criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic: shooting up people because you don't like Israel is anti-Semitic; saying that Israel's committing grave atrocities isn't.

In the US, every woman supposedly has the right to an abortion in the first six months of pregnancy, with possible restrictions in the middle three months. This right means little in South Dakota, or even in Mississippi, where although abortion is legal there is only one clinic in the entire state and even that clinic is being targeted for closure by anti-choice activists. But at least these women can move to another state, assuming they have enough money.

On the other hand, NOW's report on gender inequality in the US shows that female inmates have no reproductive rights to speak of: they often need a court order to be able to abort, and if they don't abort, they give birth in inhuman conditions and have their child taken away from them, often with no possibility for reunification after they're released. On the third hand, a federal judge in Missouri has just ruled that the state must provide transportation to and from a clinic for any inmate seeking an abortion.

Also from NOW's report, the US denies asylum to women fleeing gender-related persecution such as honor killing. Apparently, improving women's rights in the Islamic world is good only when it entails bombing someone.

(All links via Feministing...)

Appletree has several conservative commenters, ranging from thoughtful and rational to incoherent and insane. I'll let you judge where on that spectrum the person who wrote the following comment is:

[Link] In Afghan war there were casualties of war, and so, if at G there are people who are detained who are innocent, then its a casualty of war too.

I wonder if the same standard applies to civilians kidnapped and murdered by terrorists. After all, you can't make omelette without killing people, can you?

Four and a half years ago, a man living in Mississippi named Cory Maye shot to death a police officer who broke into his home, thinking he was an intruder. Other officers proclaimed they were with the police, in response to which Maye immediately disarmed and surrendered, only after Maye killed the officer. Now thanks to American barbarism, Maye is on death row.

Click here to sign the petition to free Cory Maye, an innocent man who killed a person thinking it was self-defense, or here to learn more about the details of the ongoing case.

Instapundit reproduces an email threatening that if the anti-war left continues to publicize the fact that the United States is committing massive atrocities, the warmongers will snap and start committing even more massive atrocities.

[Link] Internationally it is totally irrelevant if the Marines actually violated the rules of war. Our foes are going to say that we've done things if we do them or not, so the only people that it really matters to will be; the people killed (and family) and the people in our own country who support the military.

The real danger is that we who support the war will reach the point that we say "we might as well be taken as wolves then as sheep". At that point the left can celebrate that they have made our military and those who support it the people they claim we are. Once that happens however any compunction about respecting them will be gone, and remember one side is armed and one is not.

Lindsay has already blasted Instapundit and Peter Ingemi, who wrote the above excerpted email, for the eliminationist rhetoric. But there are three additional points that she doesn't make: one about Instapundit's reaction to the initial round of attacks, one about his indifference to the atrocity, and one about the domestic abuse angle.

It seems that not only Scooter Libby but also his (ex-)boss is in trouble. Cheney may be called to testify in Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation of the Plame leak. Now obviously it's not an indictment, but given the link between Cheney and the leak, it will probably lead to an indictment. Libby quoted Cheney as saying "Let's get everything out," so count on an indictment in 2006.

Libby also told the grand jury that Cheney raised as an issue that the former ambassador's wife worked at the CIA and that she allegedly played a role in sending him to investigate the Iraqi government's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons materials. That issue formed the basis of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's published critique.

In the court filing that included the formerly secret testimony, Fitzgerald did not assert that Cheney instructed Libby to tell reporters the name and role of Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. But he said Cheney's interactions with Libby on that topic were a key part of the reason Libby allegedly made false statements to the FBI about his conversations with reporters around the time her name was disclosed in news accounts.

Fitzmas was just the prelude. The indictment of Libby eroded Bush's support a bit, but Libby was a nameless figure who nobody had heard of before. An indictment of Rove would be much more damaging; an indictment of Cheney would send Bush's approval rate below Nixon's trough. Bush's insistence on rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg will cost him dearly in 2006, and his party in 2008.

The (liberal) Girl Next Door talks about voter fraud in the US, but then segues to the rigged election in Ukraine and the subsequent Orange Revolution. She talks of American involvement in the events:

[link] When US policy demands that a democratic election be overturned in a foreign country (on those rare occasions when we are unable to rig it before hand) we use exit polls and immediate activation of organized “protests” by the people to do it. One must only look to the election in the Ukraine to see how it works and how effective it can be.

Now, I understand that the US has claimed some credit for the Orange Revolution - for example, the National Endowment for Democracy's Allen Weinstein said, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." But in fact, the US government's role in every color revolution was marginal at best; in Ukraine, the most important outside actors were neighboring countries, most prominently Poland and Russia. The Open Society Institute provided a bit of help, but the bulk of the work was internal.

Usually, the US government wants to hide or downplay its influence, since it doesn't want people to know that it overthrows democratic regimes and installs fascistic ones in their stead. But in cases of democratic revolutions, it's easy to see why pro-American elements would take credit: if the work of the Velvet or Rose or Orange Revolution was just like CIA covert ops in the Cold War, then clearly CIA covert ops were a good thing.

In reality, the CIA has never needed to manufacture democratic movements. Its coups invariably produced governments that were more authoritarian than those they replaced. In 2004 the US simply jumped on the orange bandwagon and pretended that it could legitimize the CIA's past atrocities. The Orange Revolution was not some manufactured attempt to discredit an anti-American leader, but a popular movement for democracy that the US backed with words more than with actions.