New York Times
November 18, 2010
A Chinese woman was sentenced to one year in a labor camp on Wednesday after she forwarded a satirical microblog message that urged recipients to attack the Japanese Pavilion at the Shanghai World Expo, human rights groups said Thursday.
The woman, Cheng Jianping, 46, was accused of “disturbing social order” for resending a Twitter message from her fiancé that mocked young nationalists who held anti-Japanese rallies in several cities last month. The original message sarcastically goaded protesters to go beyond the smashing of Japanese products and express their fury at the heavily policed expo site.
Ms. Cheng added the words: “Charge, angry youth.”
More
This blog is dedicated to the worldwide struggle for freedom, individual liberties, personal autonomy and the right to self-ownership - against any kind of legal paternalism, legal moralism and authoritarianism. Its aim is to post related news and commentary published mainly in the major U.S., European and Greek media. It was created by Prof. Aristides Hatzis of the University of Athens.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Nobel Winner’s Absence May Delay Awarding of Prize
Wall Street Journal
November 18, 2010
During the depths of the cold war, when the Soviet physicist and human rights advocate Andrei D. Sakharov was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Kremlin barred him from leaving the country. But the authorities allowed his wife to collect the award in his stead.
Confronted with a similar challenge in 1983, the Polish authorities permitted the wife of the trade unionist Lech Walesa to travel to Oslo on his behalf. In 1991, the son of the Burmese opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi delivered the acceptance speech for his mother, who was being held under house arrest.
But the Chinese government has come up with a less magnanimous approach to the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to give the peace prize to the dissident Liu Xiaobo, 54, who is serving an 11-year sentence for subversion. Mr. Liu’s wife, Liu Xia, has been held incommunicado since news of the award broke last month, and the government has been waging a muscular offensive to rebrand the prize as a Western ploy to undermine the Chinese Communist Party’s hold on power.
More
November 18, 2010
During the depths of the cold war, when the Soviet physicist and human rights advocate Andrei D. Sakharov was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Kremlin barred him from leaving the country. But the authorities allowed his wife to collect the award in his stead.
Confronted with a similar challenge in 1983, the Polish authorities permitted the wife of the trade unionist Lech Walesa to travel to Oslo on his behalf. In 1991, the son of the Burmese opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi delivered the acceptance speech for his mother, who was being held under house arrest.
But the Chinese government has come up with a less magnanimous approach to the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to give the peace prize to the dissident Liu Xiaobo, 54, who is serving an 11-year sentence for subversion. Mr. Liu’s wife, Liu Xia, has been held incommunicado since news of the award broke last month, and the government has been waging a muscular offensive to rebrand the prize as a Western ploy to undermine the Chinese Communist Party’s hold on power.
More
Thank the Courts
by Linda Greenhouse
New York Times
November 18, 2010
“America has reached a fork in the road, and the time has come to make a decisive choice,” Daniel J. Popeo, chairman of the Washington Legal Foundation, wrote this week in his monthly column in The Washington Examiner. The choice he posited was between continuing to endure judicial intervention in the conduct of the war on terrorism and “returning control over national and homeland security decisions to the executive and legislative branches.”
I don’t mean to single out the Washington Legal Foundation, a respected conservative research and litigation organization. It is hardly alone in its ritualized framing of a dichotomy between law and national security.
And that’s the point. That the courts — and the lawyers who bring cases to them — are a threat to the country is a trope that has penetrated deep into public consciousness. The typical accompanying warning against “Miranda rights for terrorists” resonates with the doom-saying of an earlier generation of conservatives to the effect that courts make it impossible to keep the streets safe from common criminals.
Now, as then, politicians who would stand up for the courts do so at their peril, or presumed peril. Mark the Obama administration’s painful indecision about what to do with the self-described mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, as Exhibit A. A New York jury’s acquittal this week of Ahmed Ghailani, the accused embassy bomber, on all but one of many charges provided an utterly predictable platform for Republican politicians to denounce the use of civilian courts to try terrorism cases.
More
New York Times
November 18, 2010
“America has reached a fork in the road, and the time has come to make a decisive choice,” Daniel J. Popeo, chairman of the Washington Legal Foundation, wrote this week in his monthly column in The Washington Examiner. The choice he posited was between continuing to endure judicial intervention in the conduct of the war on terrorism and “returning control over national and homeland security decisions to the executive and legislative branches.”
I don’t mean to single out the Washington Legal Foundation, a respected conservative research and litigation organization. It is hardly alone in its ritualized framing of a dichotomy between law and national security.
And that’s the point. That the courts — and the lawyers who bring cases to them — are a threat to the country is a trope that has penetrated deep into public consciousness. The typical accompanying warning against “Miranda rights for terrorists” resonates with the doom-saying of an earlier generation of conservatives to the effect that courts make it impossible to keep the streets safe from common criminals.
Now, as then, politicians who would stand up for the courts do so at their peril, or presumed peril. Mark the Obama administration’s painful indecision about what to do with the self-described mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, as Exhibit A. A New York jury’s acquittal this week of Ahmed Ghailani, the accused embassy bomber, on all but one of many charges provided an utterly predictable platform for Republican politicians to denounce the use of civilian courts to try terrorism cases.
More
Αφγανός μετανάστης κατήγγειλε ξυλοδαρμό από αστυνομικούς
Τα Νέα
19 Δεκεμβρίου 2010
Τον ξυλοδαρμό του από αστυνομικούς καταγγέλλει Αφγανός μετανάστης και δηλώνει ότι θα καταθέσει εναντίον τους μήνυση. Ο 43χρονος Αφγανός συνελήφθη μαζί με το 2,5 χρονών παιδί του έξω από σούπερ μάρκετ στο Περιστέρι και οδηγήθηκε στο ΑΤ Περιστερίου, όπου υπέστη το βασανισμό. Οι αντιρατσιστικές οργανώσεις έχουν ενημερώσει για το περιστατικό την Ύπατη Αρμοστεία του ΟΗΕ για τους Πρόσφυγες και τη Διεθνή Αμνηστία και ζητούν την διεξαγωγή έρευνας και την απόδοση ευθυνών.
Περισσότερα
19 Δεκεμβρίου 2010
Τον ξυλοδαρμό του από αστυνομικούς καταγγέλλει Αφγανός μετανάστης και δηλώνει ότι θα καταθέσει εναντίον τους μήνυση. Ο 43χρονος Αφγανός συνελήφθη μαζί με το 2,5 χρονών παιδί του έξω από σούπερ μάρκετ στο Περιστέρι και οδηγήθηκε στο ΑΤ Περιστερίου, όπου υπέστη το βασανισμό. Οι αντιρατσιστικές οργανώσεις έχουν ενημερώσει για το περιστατικό την Ύπατη Αρμοστεία του ΟΗΕ για τους Πρόσφυγες και τη Διεθνή Αμνηστία και ζητούν την διεξαγωγή έρευνας και την απόδοση ευθυνών.
Περισσότερα
U.S. Worries Over Nobel Pick's Wife
Wall Street Journal
November 19, 2010
The top U.S. diplomat in Hong Kong said the continued silence of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo's wife, held under virtual house arrest in Beijing, was a "cause for concern."
Liu Xia, Mr. Liu's wife, has been under increasingly strict surveillance by police since the announcement of the award last month. Chinese authorities appear unwilling to allow Ms. Liu to go to Oslo to accept the award on behalf of her husband in December.
Authorities have cut off her phone and Internet access, and U.S. Embassy officials say they hadn't heard from her in several weeks.
A prominent dissident writer, Mr. Liu is serving an 11-year sentence for subversion handed down after he cowrote a call for an overhaul of China's authoritarian, one-party political system.
A spokeswoman for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the matter is an internal one.
More
November 19, 2010
The top U.S. diplomat in Hong Kong said the continued silence of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo's wife, held under virtual house arrest in Beijing, was a "cause for concern."
Liu Xia, Mr. Liu's wife, has been under increasingly strict surveillance by police since the announcement of the award last month. Chinese authorities appear unwilling to allow Ms. Liu to go to Oslo to accept the award on behalf of her husband in December.
Authorities have cut off her phone and Internet access, and U.S. Embassy officials say they hadn't heard from her in several weeks.
A prominent dissident writer, Mr. Liu is serving an 11-year sentence for subversion handed down after he cowrote a call for an overhaul of China's authoritarian, one-party political system.
A spokeswoman for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the matter is an internal one.
More
AZ boycott over immigration law sees mixed results
Associated Press
November 18, 2010
A boycott brought on by Arizona's controversial immigration crackdown raised the specter of vacant convention centers, desolate sports arenas and struggling businesses throughout the state.
Seven months later, the boycott's effects are coming into focus, showing it has been a disruptive force but nowhere near as crippling as originally feared.
Businesses have lost lucrative contracts and conventions have relocated, performers called off concerts, and cities and counties in about a dozen states passed resolutions to avoid doing business with Arizona. A report released Thursday says the boycott has cost the state $141 million in lost meeting and convention business since Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law in April.
More
November 18, 2010
A boycott brought on by Arizona's controversial immigration crackdown raised the specter of vacant convention centers, desolate sports arenas and struggling businesses throughout the state.
Seven months later, the boycott's effects are coming into focus, showing it has been a disruptive force but nowhere near as crippling as originally feared.
Businesses have lost lucrative contracts and conventions have relocated, performers called off concerts, and cities and counties in about a dozen states passed resolutions to avoid doing business with Arizona. A report released Thursday says the boycott has cost the state $141 million in lost meeting and convention business since Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law in April.
More
Thursday, November 18, 2010
TSA is delivering naked insecurity
by Ralph Nader
USA Today
November 18, 2010
To airline passengers: Get ready for naked insecurity.
To the Department of Homeland Security: If you thought this week was bad, brace yourself for a tsunami of protests in the days ahead.
This month Homeland Security has implemented a new rule calling for extremely invasive pat-downs of commercial airline passengers who decline to use full-body, "backscatter technology" scanners that use low-level X-rays. Pregnant women, parents with young children, adherents of religions, amputees and people with wireless insulin pumps or embedded medical devices are increasingly saying, "No thanks." They do not believe they should be exposed to technology that could pose risks, may malfunction, and certainly invades their privacy. So Homeland Security has doubled its trouble by turning to the invasive pat-downs. What the department should do is reconsider its use of these scanners, but after reading Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's full-throated defense of the technology and procedures on this page this past Monday, I'm not hopeful.
More
USA Today
November 18, 2010
To airline passengers: Get ready for naked insecurity.
To the Department of Homeland Security: If you thought this week was bad, brace yourself for a tsunami of protests in the days ahead.
This month Homeland Security has implemented a new rule calling for extremely invasive pat-downs of commercial airline passengers who decline to use full-body, "backscatter technology" scanners that use low-level X-rays. Pregnant women, parents with young children, adherents of religions, amputees and people with wireless insulin pumps or embedded medical devices are increasingly saying, "No thanks." They do not believe they should be exposed to technology that could pose risks, may malfunction, and certainly invades their privacy. So Homeland Security has doubled its trouble by turning to the invasive pat-downs. What the department should do is reconsider its use of these scanners, but after reading Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's full-throated defense of the technology and procedures on this page this past Monday, I'm not hopeful.
More
When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage
by M.V. Lee Badgett
Winner of the 2010 Distinguished Book Award from the American Psychological Association’s 44th Division (the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues)
The summer of 2008 was the summer of love and commitment for gays and lesbians in the United States. Thousands of same-sex couples stood in line for wedding licenses all over California in the first few days after same-sex marriage was legalized. On the other side of the country, Massachusetts, the very first state to give gay couples marriage rights, took the last step to full equality by allowing same-sex couples from other states to marry there as well. These happy times for same-sex couples were the hallmark of true equality for some, yet others questioned whether the very bedrock of society was crumbling. What would this new step portend?
In order to find out the impact of same-sex marriage, M.V. Lee Badgett traveled to a land where it has been legal for same-sex couples to marry since 2001: the Netherlands. Badgett interviews gay couples to find out how this step has affected their lives. We learn about the often surprising changes to their relationships, the reactions of their families, and work colleagues. Moreover, Badgett is interested in the ways that the institution itself has been altered for the larger society. How has the concept of marriage changed? When Gay People Get Married gives readers a primer on the current state of the same-sex marriage debate, and a new way of framing the issue that provides valuable new insights into the political, social, and personal stakes involved.
The experiences of other countries and these pioneering American states serve as a crystal ball as we grapple with this polarizing issue in the American context. The evidence shows both that marriage changes gay people more than gay people change marriage, and that it is the most liberal countries and states making the first move to recognize gay couples. In the end, Badgett compellingly shows that allowing gay couples to marry does not destroy the institution of marriage and that many gay couples do benefit, in expected as well as surprising ways, from the legal, social, and political rights that the institution offers.
M. V. Lee Badgett is Professor of Economics and director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and also serves as research director of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA School of Law. She is the author of Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men and co-editor of Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective.
More
Winner of the 2010 Distinguished Book Award from the American Psychological Association’s 44th Division (the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues)
The summer of 2008 was the summer of love and commitment for gays and lesbians in the United States. Thousands of same-sex couples stood in line for wedding licenses all over California in the first few days after same-sex marriage was legalized. On the other side of the country, Massachusetts, the very first state to give gay couples marriage rights, took the last step to full equality by allowing same-sex couples from other states to marry there as well. These happy times for same-sex couples were the hallmark of true equality for some, yet others questioned whether the very bedrock of society was crumbling. What would this new step portend?
In order to find out the impact of same-sex marriage, M.V. Lee Badgett traveled to a land where it has been legal for same-sex couples to marry since 2001: the Netherlands. Badgett interviews gay couples to find out how this step has affected their lives. We learn about the often surprising changes to their relationships, the reactions of their families, and work colleagues. Moreover, Badgett is interested in the ways that the institution itself has been altered for the larger society. How has the concept of marriage changed? When Gay People Get Married gives readers a primer on the current state of the same-sex marriage debate, and a new way of framing the issue that provides valuable new insights into the political, social, and personal stakes involved.
The experiences of other countries and these pioneering American states serve as a crystal ball as we grapple with this polarizing issue in the American context. The evidence shows both that marriage changes gay people more than gay people change marriage, and that it is the most liberal countries and states making the first move to recognize gay couples. In the end, Badgett compellingly shows that allowing gay couples to marry does not destroy the institution of marriage and that many gay couples do benefit, in expected as well as surprising ways, from the legal, social, and political rights that the institution offers.
M. V. Lee Badgett is Professor of Economics and director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and also serves as research director of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA School of Law. She is the author of Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men and co-editor of Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective.
More
Against Health: How Health Became the New Morality
edited by Jonathan M. Metzl and Anna Kirkland
You see someone smoking a cigarette and say,“Smoking is bad for your health,” when what you mean is, “You are a bad person because you smoke.” You encounter someone whose body size you deem excessive, and say, “Obesity is bad for your health,” when what you mean is, “You are lazy, unsightly, or weak of will.” You see a woman bottle-feeding an infant and say,“Breastfeeding is better for that child’s health,” when what you mean is that the woman must be a bad parent. You see the smokers, the overeaters, the bottle-feeders, and affirm your own health in the process. In these and countless other instances, the perception of your own health depends in part on your value judgments about others, and appealing to health allows for a set of moral assumptions to fly stealthily under the radar.
Against Health argues that health is a concept, a norm, and a set of bodily practices whose ideological work is often rendered invisible by the assumption that it is a monolithic, universal good. And, that disparities in the incidence and prevalence of disease are closely linked to disparities in income and social support. To be clear, the book's stand against health is not a stand against the authenticity of people's attempts to ward off suffering. Against Health instead claims that individual strivings for health are, in some instances, rendered more difficult by the ways in which health is culturally configured and socially sustained.
The book intervenes into current political debates about health in two ways. First, Against Health compellingly unpacks the divergent cultural meanings of health and explores the ideologies involved in its construction. Second, the authors present strategies for moving forward. They ask, what new possibilities and alliances arise? What new forms of activism or coalition can we create? What are our prospects for well-being? In short, what have we got if we ain't got health? Against Health ultimately argues that the conversations doctors, patients, politicians, activists, consumers, and policymakers have about health are enriched by recognizing that, when talking about health, they are not all talking about the same thing. And, that articulating the disparate valences of “health” can lead to deeper, more productive, and indeed more healthy interactions about our bodies.
Jonathan M. Metzl is associate professor in the women’s studies department and the department of psychiatry at the University of Michigan, where he also directs the program in culture, Health, and medicine. He is the author of Prozac on the Couch: Prescribing Gender in the Era of Wonder Drugs and Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease.
Anna Kirkland is Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and Political Science at the University of Michigan. She is the author of Fat Rights: Dilemmas of Difference and Personhood (NYU Press).
You see someone smoking a cigarette and say,“Smoking is bad for your health,” when what you mean is, “You are a bad person because you smoke.” You encounter someone whose body size you deem excessive, and say, “Obesity is bad for your health,” when what you mean is, “You are lazy, unsightly, or weak of will.” You see a woman bottle-feeding an infant and say,“Breastfeeding is better for that child’s health,” when what you mean is that the woman must be a bad parent. You see the smokers, the overeaters, the bottle-feeders, and affirm your own health in the process. In these and countless other instances, the perception of your own health depends in part on your value judgments about others, and appealing to health allows for a set of moral assumptions to fly stealthily under the radar.
Against Health argues that health is a concept, a norm, and a set of bodily practices whose ideological work is often rendered invisible by the assumption that it is a monolithic, universal good. And, that disparities in the incidence and prevalence of disease are closely linked to disparities in income and social support. To be clear, the book's stand against health is not a stand against the authenticity of people's attempts to ward off suffering. Against Health instead claims that individual strivings for health are, in some instances, rendered more difficult by the ways in which health is culturally configured and socially sustained.
The book intervenes into current political debates about health in two ways. First, Against Health compellingly unpacks the divergent cultural meanings of health and explores the ideologies involved in its construction. Second, the authors present strategies for moving forward. They ask, what new possibilities and alliances arise? What new forms of activism or coalition can we create? What are our prospects for well-being? In short, what have we got if we ain't got health? Against Health ultimately argues that the conversations doctors, patients, politicians, activists, consumers, and policymakers have about health are enriched by recognizing that, when talking about health, they are not all talking about the same thing. And, that articulating the disparate valences of “health” can lead to deeper, more productive, and indeed more healthy interactions about our bodies.
Jonathan M. Metzl is associate professor in the women’s studies department and the department of psychiatry at the University of Michigan, where he also directs the program in culture, Health, and medicine. He is the author of Prozac on the Couch: Prescribing Gender in the Era of Wonder Drugs and Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease.
Anna Kirkland is Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and Political Science at the University of Michigan. She is the author of Fat Rights: Dilemmas of Difference and Personhood (NYU Press).
Love of Country Lost and Found
by Rick Zedník
Wall Street Journal
November 17, 2010
Young Juraj did not think he was leaving Czechoslovakia for good in 1968. For an educated, ambitious 22-year-old, the country held his past, but he soon decided that the regime did not offer a future.
To be sure, a boy's life in Bratislava in the 1950s and 1960s had its charms: After-school ice-hockey games on the frozen ponds of the Carpathian foothills. Friday nights strolling and flirting with girls along the Danube's left bank, weekend train trips to hike or ski in the Tatra mountains.
But there were limits, and they were close at hand and they were harsh. From Bratislava's castle hill, Juraj and his friends could see Austrian fields and villages just beyond the Danube. But they could not bike over to them because of the barbed-wire fences and armed soldiers in towers guarding the border in between.
More
Wall Street Journal
November 17, 2010
Young Juraj did not think he was leaving Czechoslovakia for good in 1968. For an educated, ambitious 22-year-old, the country held his past, but he soon decided that the regime did not offer a future.
To be sure, a boy's life in Bratislava in the 1950s and 1960s had its charms: After-school ice-hockey games on the frozen ponds of the Carpathian foothills. Friday nights strolling and flirting with girls along the Danube's left bank, weekend train trips to hike or ski in the Tatra mountains.
But there were limits, and they were close at hand and they were harsh. From Bratislava's castle hill, Juraj and his friends could see Austrian fields and villages just beyond the Danube. But they could not bike over to them because of the barbed-wire fences and armed soldiers in towers guarding the border in between.
More
The Sickly State of the First Amendment
by Nat Hentoff
Cato Institute
November 17, 2010
The premier historian of the Bill of Rights, professor Leonard Levy, explained why our Constitution was not fully operative until the first 10 amendments became part of it: "We have a Bill of Rights because the state, even the democratic state, cannot be trusted. A Bill of Rights is a bill of restraint against the state."
A consensus of polls — and the daily news — reveal a deep distrust of Congress and of this president, as was also true of his predecessor. Accordingly, the state of health of the First Amendment, from which all our individual liberties against the state flow — freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and persistent petition of government for redress of grievances — is vital to all of us. Our voices need to be heard.
Every year, I watch for the State of the First Amendment national survey by the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville and in Washington. In Name That Freedom (New York Times, Oct. 24), John Schwartz concisely and disturbingly reports on the most recent survey by the Center:
How many of you knew the First Amendment's five freedoms?
More
Cato Institute
November 17, 2010
The premier historian of the Bill of Rights, professor Leonard Levy, explained why our Constitution was not fully operative until the first 10 amendments became part of it: "We have a Bill of Rights because the state, even the democratic state, cannot be trusted. A Bill of Rights is a bill of restraint against the state."
A consensus of polls — and the daily news — reveal a deep distrust of Congress and of this president, as was also true of his predecessor. Accordingly, the state of health of the First Amendment, from which all our individual liberties against the state flow — freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and persistent petition of government for redress of grievances — is vital to all of us. Our voices need to be heard.
Every year, I watch for the State of the First Amendment national survey by the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville and in Washington. In Name That Freedom (New York Times, Oct. 24), John Schwartz concisely and disturbingly reports on the most recent survey by the Center:
While 61 percent of those surveyed this year knew that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, just 23 percent volunteered that it also supports freedom of religion, and 18 percent cited freedom of the press. Freedom of association? Fourteen percent. Only 6 percent of those polled could cite the right to petition the government for grievances, the fifth major freedom guaranteed under the First Amendment.
How many of you knew the First Amendment's five freedoms?
More
Council of Europe anti-torture Committee publishes report on Greece
Council of Europe
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Strasbourg, 17.11.2010
The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has published today the report on its fifth periodic visit to Greece in September 2009, together with the response of the Greek Government. These documents have been made public at the request of the Greek authorities.
In the course of the 2009 visit, the CPT’s delegation reviewed the measures taken by the Greek authorities to implement recommendations made by the Committee after its previous visits. It focused in particular on the treatment and safeguards afforded to persons deprived of their liberty by law enforcement officials, and examined the conditions of detention in police and border guard stations, coast guard posts and in special facilities for irregular migrants. The CPT’s delegation also visited a number of prisons, examining the treatment and conditions of detention of inmates, including the activities offered to them and health care provision.
In their response to the various recommendations made in the CPT’s visit report, the Greek authorities provide information on the measures being taken to address the concerns raised by the Committee.
Read the Report
Read the Response of the Greek Government
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Strasbourg, 17.11.2010
The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has published today the report on its fifth periodic visit to Greece in September 2009, together with the response of the Greek Government. These documents have been made public at the request of the Greek authorities.
In the course of the 2009 visit, the CPT’s delegation reviewed the measures taken by the Greek authorities to implement recommendations made by the Committee after its previous visits. It focused in particular on the treatment and safeguards afforded to persons deprived of their liberty by law enforcement officials, and examined the conditions of detention in police and border guard stations, coast guard posts and in special facilities for irregular migrants. The CPT’s delegation also visited a number of prisons, examining the treatment and conditions of detention of inmates, including the activities offered to them and health care provision.
In their response to the various recommendations made in the CPT’s visit report, the Greek authorities provide information on the measures being taken to address the concerns raised by the Committee.
Read the Report
Read the Response of the Greek Government
Let's Talk About Waterboarding
by Joanne Mariner
FindLaw
November 17, 2010
Last week saw a few more steps toward the banalization of torture. On Monday night, it was former President George W. Bush on television, acknowledging his personal responsibility for ordering the waterboarding of Al Qaeda suspects in CIA custody.
On Tuesday, it was the Department of Justice, announcing that Acting US Attorney John Durham would not pursue criminal charges for the CIA's destruction of videotapes showing the abusive interrogation of terrorism suspects.
And on Wednesday, it was the op-ed page of the New York Times, with an apparently unrelated item: an opinion piece about an arms control treaty currently awaiting ratification by the Senate. A co-author of the piece was John Yoo, who, during his tenure with the Bush administration at the Justice Department, was the author of legal memos purporting to justify torture.
Taken together, these episodes send an ugly but resounding message: Senior U.S. officials face no real consequences for the crime of torture. Not only do they seem immune from prosecution in a court of law, they are even welcome on the op-ed pages of elite publications.
More
FindLaw
November 17, 2010
Last week saw a few more steps toward the banalization of torture. On Monday night, it was former President George W. Bush on television, acknowledging his personal responsibility for ordering the waterboarding of Al Qaeda suspects in CIA custody.
On Tuesday, it was the Department of Justice, announcing that Acting US Attorney John Durham would not pursue criminal charges for the CIA's destruction of videotapes showing the abusive interrogation of terrorism suspects.
And on Wednesday, it was the op-ed page of the New York Times, with an apparently unrelated item: an opinion piece about an arms control treaty currently awaiting ratification by the Senate. A co-author of the piece was John Yoo, who, during his tenure with the Bush administration at the Justice Department, was the author of legal memos purporting to justify torture.
Taken together, these episodes send an ugly but resounding message: Senior U.S. officials face no real consequences for the crime of torture. Not only do they seem immune from prosecution in a court of law, they are even welcome on the op-ed pages of elite publications.
More
Activist Artist Goes on Trial in Beijing
New York Times
November 17, 2010
In a case that has galvanized the Chinese arts community, a prominent artist who helped lead a short-lived demonstration along the nation’s most politically hallowed thoroughfare went on trial Wednesday on assault charges that supporters say are aimed at punishing him for his political activism.
The defendant, Wu Yuren, 39, is accused of assaulting a group of police officers at a Beijing police station last May. He had gone to the station house with a friend who was seeking to file a complaint against his landlord, but Mr. Wu ended up in a verbal confrontation with several officers after they grabbed his cellphone, said the friend, Yang Licai.
More
November 17, 2010
In a case that has galvanized the Chinese arts community, a prominent artist who helped lead a short-lived demonstration along the nation’s most politically hallowed thoroughfare went on trial Wednesday on assault charges that supporters say are aimed at punishing him for his political activism.
The defendant, Wu Yuren, 39, is accused of assaulting a group of police officers at a Beijing police station last May. He had gone to the station house with a friend who was seeking to file a complaint against his landlord, but Mr. Wu ended up in a verbal confrontation with several officers after they grabbed his cellphone, said the friend, Yang Licai.
More
China’s Censors Misfire in Abuse-of-Power Case
New York Times
November 17, 2010
One night in late October, a college student named Chen Xiaofeng was in-line skating with a friend on the grounds of Hebei University in central China. They were gliding past the campus grocery when a Volkswagen sedan raced down a narrow lane and struck them head-on.
The impact sent Ms. Chen flying and broke the other woman’s leg. The 22-year-old driver, who was intoxicated, tried to speed away. Security guards intercepted him, but he was undeterred. He warned them, “My father is Li Gang!”
“The two girls were motionless,” one passer-by that night, a student who identified himself only by his surname, Duan, said this week. “There was a small pool of blood.” The next day, Ms. Chen was dead.
More
November 17, 2010
One night in late October, a college student named Chen Xiaofeng was in-line skating with a friend on the grounds of Hebei University in central China. They were gliding past the campus grocery when a Volkswagen sedan raced down a narrow lane and struck them head-on.
The impact sent Ms. Chen flying and broke the other woman’s leg. The 22-year-old driver, who was intoxicated, tried to speed away. Security guards intercepted him, but he was undeterred. He warned them, “My father is Li Gang!”
“The two girls were motionless,” one passer-by that night, a student who identified himself only by his surname, Duan, said this week. “There was a small pool of blood.” The next day, Ms. Chen was dead.
More
The Tough Existence Living Life on Euro’s Periphery
by David Roman
Wall Street Journal
November 17, 2010
You know things are getting dicey when your best hope is a deflationary recession. Thus is Spain’s and Portugal’s predicament.
Like fellow euro zone trouble cases such as Greece and Ireland, Spain and Portugal emerged from the 2008-2009 financial crisis with domestic demand clobbered and a big competitiveness problem.
Germany had controlled output costs during the last decade by keeping a lid on wages and flirting with deflation. By contrast, for countries such as Spain and Portugal — considered to be on the euro zone “periphery” – big wage increases and above-average inflation sent relative output costs soaring.
The result is that the periphery is stuck with large trade deficits and can’t compete for foreign markets with Germany, which remains the euro zone export powerhouse.
More
Wall Street Journal
November 17, 2010
You know things are getting dicey when your best hope is a deflationary recession. Thus is Spain’s and Portugal’s predicament.
Like fellow euro zone trouble cases such as Greece and Ireland, Spain and Portugal emerged from the 2008-2009 financial crisis with domestic demand clobbered and a big competitiveness problem.
Germany had controlled output costs during the last decade by keeping a lid on wages and flirting with deflation. By contrast, for countries such as Spain and Portugal — considered to be on the euro zone “periphery” – big wage increases and above-average inflation sent relative output costs soaring.
The result is that the periphery is stuck with large trade deficits and can’t compete for foreign markets with Germany, which remains the euro zone export powerhouse.
More
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Body Scanners: The Naked Truth
by David Rittgers
New York Post
November 17, 2010
The body scanners coming to your local airport provide marginal benefits -- if any -- in detecting weapons and explosives hidden on travelers. They aren't worth the cost in money -- let alone in civil liberties.
The Transportation Security Administration has put these machines -- X-ray and radio-wave booths that look beneath clothing to perform virtual strip searches -- across the nation and around the world. Industry advocates claim the technology's needed to stop terrorists with explosives hidden under their clothes like Christmas bomber Farouk Abdulmutallab.
More
New York Post
November 17, 2010
The body scanners coming to your local airport provide marginal benefits -- if any -- in detecting weapons and explosives hidden on travelers. They aren't worth the cost in money -- let alone in civil liberties.
The Transportation Security Administration has put these machines -- X-ray and radio-wave booths that look beneath clothing to perform virtual strip searches -- across the nation and around the world. Industry advocates claim the technology's needed to stop terrorists with explosives hidden under their clothes like Christmas bomber Farouk Abdulmutallab.
More
Suu Kyi Fights to Reinstate Party
Reuters/Wall Street Journal
November 16, 2010
Three days after her release, democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi begins the legal process to reinstate her party and meets with her supporters.
November 16, 2010
Three days after her release, democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi begins the legal process to reinstate her party and meets with her supporters.
Η θανατική ποινή είναι φόνος;
του Umberto Eco
Βήμα
17 Νοεμβρίου 2010
Τον περασμένο Σεπτέμβριο, στη Βιρτζίνια, η Τερέζα Λιούις εκτελέστηκε με θανατηφόρο ένεση. Ουδείς θα τιμωρηθεί για τη δολοφονία της, επειδή είχε καταδικαστεί νομίμως σε θάνατο. Είχε οργανώσει τη δολοφονία του συζύγου της και του θετού γιου της - κάτι που βεβαίως είναι αντίθετο με τον νόμο-, ενώ εκείνοι που τη σκότωσαν το έκαναν με την ευλογία των Αρχών.
Θα έπρεπε ίσως να επαναδιατυπώσουμε την Εκτη Εντολή ως εξής: «Ου φονεύσεις άνευ αδείας». Στο κάτω-κάτω, επί αιώνες λατρέψαμε τις σημαίες που έφεραν οι στρατιώτες, οι οποίοι στον πόλεμο είχαν την άδεια να σκοτώνουν, όπως ακριβώς και ο Τζέιμς Μποντ.
Περισσότερα
Βήμα
17 Νοεμβρίου 2010
Τον περασμένο Σεπτέμβριο, στη Βιρτζίνια, η Τερέζα Λιούις εκτελέστηκε με θανατηφόρο ένεση. Ουδείς θα τιμωρηθεί για τη δολοφονία της, επειδή είχε καταδικαστεί νομίμως σε θάνατο. Είχε οργανώσει τη δολοφονία του συζύγου της και του θετού γιου της - κάτι που βεβαίως είναι αντίθετο με τον νόμο-, ενώ εκείνοι που τη σκότωσαν το έκαναν με την ευλογία των Αρχών.
Θα έπρεπε ίσως να επαναδιατυπώσουμε την Εκτη Εντολή ως εξής: «Ου φονεύσεις άνευ αδείας». Στο κάτω-κάτω, επί αιώνες λατρέψαμε τις σημαίες που έφεραν οι στρατιώτες, οι οποίοι στον πόλεμο είχαν την άδεια να σκοτώνουν, όπως ακριβώς και ο Τζέιμς Μποντ.
Περισσότερα
Επέτειος εξέγερσης Πολυτεχνείου: όχι στον φασισμό
του Διονύση Γουσέτη
Καθημερινή
17 Νοεμβρίου 2010
Τριακοστή έβδομη επέτειος, σήμερα, της εξέγερσης του Πολυτεχνείου ενάντια στον φασισμό. Παρότι κανένας «-ισμός» δεν στεριώνει ως ιδεολογία στην κατακερματισμένη κοινωνία μας, εντούτοις οι φασιστικές συμπεριφορές είναι σήμερα περισσότερο εξαπλωμένες στη χώρα μας απ’ όσο το 1973. Τότε ανήκαν στη δικτατορική κυβέρνηση. Σήμερα έχουν διευρυνθεί.
Εδραιώθηκε η ατιμώρητη παραβίαση της νομοθεσίας, κατ’ εξοχήν φασιστική συμπεριφορά. Δημόσια κτίρια καταλαμβάνονται, νόμοι αγνοούνται, διόδια δεν πληρώνονται, βουλευτής καπνίζει θρασύτατα σε κλειστό χώρο εξευτελίζοντας τον νόμο που ψήφισε, συντεχνίες διακόπτουν την κυκλοφορία, φασίστες διαδηλωτές πυρπολούν εργαζομένους. Το ΚΚΕ προώθησε και εξωράισε την τζάμπα αυθαιρεσία ως δήθεν «πολιτική ανυπακοή».
Υιοθετείται η ναζιστική αρχή της συλλογικής ευθύνης, με συνθήματα όπως «μπάτσοι, γουρούνια, δολοφόνοι» ή «αλήτες, ρουφιάνοι, δημοσιογράφοι». Στοχοποιούνται ευάλωτες κοινωνικές ομάδες: μειονότητες, Ρομά, μετανάστες, πρόσφυγες. Κυριαρχούν καταστροφές, εμπρησμοί, πλιάτσικο, με αιχμή τον Δεκέμβρη του 2008. Πολιτικοί αντίπαλοι φιμώνονται: ο κ. Παυλόπουλος, ως ΥΠΕΣ, απαγόρευσε στη «Δράση» να προβληθεί τηλεοπτικά στις ευρωεκλογές, ακόμα και με δικά της έξοδα. Η Δράση δικαιώθηκε από το ΣτΕ, αλλά ένα χρόνο αργότερα!
Περισσότερα
Καθημερινή
17 Νοεμβρίου 2010
Τριακοστή έβδομη επέτειος, σήμερα, της εξέγερσης του Πολυτεχνείου ενάντια στον φασισμό. Παρότι κανένας «-ισμός» δεν στεριώνει ως ιδεολογία στην κατακερματισμένη κοινωνία μας, εντούτοις οι φασιστικές συμπεριφορές είναι σήμερα περισσότερο εξαπλωμένες στη χώρα μας απ’ όσο το 1973. Τότε ανήκαν στη δικτατορική κυβέρνηση. Σήμερα έχουν διευρυνθεί.
Εδραιώθηκε η ατιμώρητη παραβίαση της νομοθεσίας, κατ’ εξοχήν φασιστική συμπεριφορά. Δημόσια κτίρια καταλαμβάνονται, νόμοι αγνοούνται, διόδια δεν πληρώνονται, βουλευτής καπνίζει θρασύτατα σε κλειστό χώρο εξευτελίζοντας τον νόμο που ψήφισε, συντεχνίες διακόπτουν την κυκλοφορία, φασίστες διαδηλωτές πυρπολούν εργαζομένους. Το ΚΚΕ προώθησε και εξωράισε την τζάμπα αυθαιρεσία ως δήθεν «πολιτική ανυπακοή».
Υιοθετείται η ναζιστική αρχή της συλλογικής ευθύνης, με συνθήματα όπως «μπάτσοι, γουρούνια, δολοφόνοι» ή «αλήτες, ρουφιάνοι, δημοσιογράφοι». Στοχοποιούνται ευάλωτες κοινωνικές ομάδες: μειονότητες, Ρομά, μετανάστες, πρόσφυγες. Κυριαρχούν καταστροφές, εμπρησμοί, πλιάτσικο, με αιχμή τον Δεκέμβρη του 2008. Πολιτικοί αντίπαλοι φιμώνονται: ο κ. Παυλόπουλος, ως ΥΠΕΣ, απαγόρευσε στη «Δράση» να προβληθεί τηλεοπτικά στις ευρωεκλογές, ακόμα και με δικά της έξοδα. Η Δράση δικαιώθηκε από το ΣτΕ, αλλά ένα χρόνο αργότερα!
Περισσότερα
Αρνητική η έκθεση της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής κατά των Βασανιστηρίων για την Ελλάδα
LawNet
17 Νοεμβρίου 2010
Σοβαρά περιστατικά κακομεταχείρισης και βασανιστηρίων σε συνδυασμό με ατιμωρησία των υπευθύνων καταλογίζει στην Ελλάδα η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή για την Πρόληψη των Βασανιστηρίων και της Απάνθρωπης Συμπεριφοράς. Στην έκθεσή της για το 2009, η Επιτροπή, για ακόμη μία φορά, καταγράφει σωρεία περιστατικών άσκησης σωματικής βίας κατά τη σύλληψη και την ανάκριση από την Ασφάλεια, σε σημεία τόσο ευαίσθητα όσο τα πέλματα των ποδιών και τα δάκτυλα. Όπως χαρακτηριστικά επισημαίνεται στην έκθεση, πρόκειται για συμπεριφορές και πρακτικές που προσιδιάζουν με βασανισμό.
Επιπλέον, η Επιτροπή αναφέρεται και σε συγκεκριμένες καταγγελίες παράνομων συμπεριφορών εντός του ελλαδικού χώρου. Σύμφωνα με μία εξ αυτών, τα μέλη του τμήματος Ασφαλείας Σερρών τύλιξαν σε σακούλα το κεφάλι υπόπτου κατά τη διάρκεια της ανάκρισης, ενώ αστυνομικοί στη Θεσσαλονίκη υιοθέτησαν τη μέθοδο του εικονικού βιασμού.
Στην έκθεσή της, η Επιτροπή επισημαίνει ότι η Ελλάδα αρνείται να εξετάσει τα εν λόγω περιστατικά μέσω της μη θεσμοθέτησης αξιόπιστου, ανεξάρτητου και αποτελεσματικού μηχανισμού ελέγχου ώστε να προσάγονται και να τιμωρούνται οι επίορκοι αστυνομικοί.
Η απροθυμία των αρχών να διερευνήσει τα περιστατικά αυτά επιβεβαιώνεται και από το γεγονός ότι η Επιτροπή έχει παράσχει στις ελληνικές αρχές λεπτομερείς πληροφορίες για περιστατικά κακομεταχείρισης ελπίζοντας ότι θα ελεγχθούν, χωρίς ποτέ να έχει ενημερωθεί για την εξέλιξη οποιασδήποτε υπόθεσης.
Περισσότερα
Διάβασε την έκθεση
17 Νοεμβρίου 2010
Σοβαρά περιστατικά κακομεταχείρισης και βασανιστηρίων σε συνδυασμό με ατιμωρησία των υπευθύνων καταλογίζει στην Ελλάδα η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή για την Πρόληψη των Βασανιστηρίων και της Απάνθρωπης Συμπεριφοράς. Στην έκθεσή της για το 2009, η Επιτροπή, για ακόμη μία φορά, καταγράφει σωρεία περιστατικών άσκησης σωματικής βίας κατά τη σύλληψη και την ανάκριση από την Ασφάλεια, σε σημεία τόσο ευαίσθητα όσο τα πέλματα των ποδιών και τα δάκτυλα. Όπως χαρακτηριστικά επισημαίνεται στην έκθεση, πρόκειται για συμπεριφορές και πρακτικές που προσιδιάζουν με βασανισμό.
Επιπλέον, η Επιτροπή αναφέρεται και σε συγκεκριμένες καταγγελίες παράνομων συμπεριφορών εντός του ελλαδικού χώρου. Σύμφωνα με μία εξ αυτών, τα μέλη του τμήματος Ασφαλείας Σερρών τύλιξαν σε σακούλα το κεφάλι υπόπτου κατά τη διάρκεια της ανάκρισης, ενώ αστυνομικοί στη Θεσσαλονίκη υιοθέτησαν τη μέθοδο του εικονικού βιασμού.
Στην έκθεσή της, η Επιτροπή επισημαίνει ότι η Ελλάδα αρνείται να εξετάσει τα εν λόγω περιστατικά μέσω της μη θεσμοθέτησης αξιόπιστου, ανεξάρτητου και αποτελεσματικού μηχανισμού ελέγχου ώστε να προσάγονται και να τιμωρούνται οι επίορκοι αστυνομικοί.
Η απροθυμία των αρχών να διερευνήσει τα περιστατικά αυτά επιβεβαιώνεται και από το γεγονός ότι η Επιτροπή έχει παράσχει στις ελληνικές αρχές λεπτομερείς πληροφορίες για περιστατικά κακομεταχείρισης ελπίζοντας ότι θα ελεγχθούν, χωρίς ποτέ να έχει ενημερωθεί για την εξέλιξη οποιασδήποτε υπόθεσης.
Περισσότερα
Διάβασε την έκθεση
Accountability for Torture (in Britain)
New York Times
Editorial
November 16, 2010
The contrast could not be more distressing.
The British government has decided to pay former detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, tens of millions of dollars in compensation and conduct an independent investigation into its role in the mistreatment of prisoners.
The United States still operates the Guantánamo camp, with no end in sight. None of the truly dangerous terrorists there have been brought to justice, while many prisoners are still held who never should have been. The government not only refuses to come clean on this ignoble history, but it is covering up the Bush administration’s abuses by denying victims a day in court.
More
Editorial
November 16, 2010
The contrast could not be more distressing.
The British government has decided to pay former detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, tens of millions of dollars in compensation and conduct an independent investigation into its role in the mistreatment of prisoners.
The United States still operates the Guantánamo camp, with no end in sight. None of the truly dangerous terrorists there have been brought to justice, while many prisoners are still held who never should have been. The government not only refuses to come clean on this ignoble history, but it is covering up the Bush administration’s abuses by denying victims a day in court.
More
Burmese Farce
Wall Street Journal
Editorial
November 16, 2010
Saturday's nominal release of Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi from seven years of house arrest is being compared by some misty-eyed Western well-wishers to Nelson Mandela's release from prison in 1990. Would that it were so. Mr. Mandela's freedom was a clear signal that South Africa's white rulers intended to do away with apartheid. Ms. Suu Kyi's release is yet another gambit by the Burmese regime to extend its grip on power.
This is not the first time Ms. Suu Kyi has been "freed" by the regime that first imprisoned her in 1989. On previous occasions—amounting to six years out of the last 21—she has been at some liberty to receive visitors in her home and even make or receive phone calls.
More
Editorial
November 16, 2010
Saturday's nominal release of Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi from seven years of house arrest is being compared by some misty-eyed Western well-wishers to Nelson Mandela's release from prison in 1990. Would that it were so. Mr. Mandela's freedom was a clear signal that South Africa's white rulers intended to do away with apartheid. Ms. Suu Kyi's release is yet another gambit by the Burmese regime to extend its grip on power.
This is not the first time Ms. Suu Kyi has been "freed" by the regime that first imprisoned her in 1989. On previous occasions—amounting to six years out of the last 21—she has been at some liberty to receive visitors in her home and even make or receive phone calls.
More
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Fundamentally unconstitutional
by Jameel Jaffer and Maria LaHood
USA Today
November 16, 2010
The Obama administration is making the unprecedented claim that it has the unilateral authority to kill any American it deems to pose a threat to the country. If the administration is correct, then the president can compile secret kill lists that include Americans who have never set foot on any actual battlefield, and no court will ever review the evidence on which the lists are based.
There is no doubt the president has both the authority and the responsibility to protect the country. But the president also has a duty to protect the Constitution, as his oath of office makes clear. A program that allows the president to impose the death penalty without charge or trial is fundamentally unconstitutional.
Our organizations recently filed a lawsuit to press this point. While the lawsuit does not challenge the government's power to use lethal force on actual battlefields, we argue that the government can carry out targeted killings away from the battlefield only as a last resort to address imminent threats to life. We also argue that the courts have a role to play in setting the standards under which the government can use lethal force outside war zones, and in ensuring that these standards are honored.
More
USA Today
November 16, 2010
The Obama administration is making the unprecedented claim that it has the unilateral authority to kill any American it deems to pose a threat to the country. If the administration is correct, then the president can compile secret kill lists that include Americans who have never set foot on any actual battlefield, and no court will ever review the evidence on which the lists are based.
There is no doubt the president has both the authority and the responsibility to protect the country. But the president also has a duty to protect the Constitution, as his oath of office makes clear. A program that allows the president to impose the death penalty without charge or trial is fundamentally unconstitutional.
Our organizations recently filed a lawsuit to press this point. While the lawsuit does not challenge the government's power to use lethal force on actual battlefields, we argue that the government can carry out targeted killings away from the battlefield only as a last resort to address imminent threats to life. We also argue that the courts have a role to play in setting the standards under which the government can use lethal force outside war zones, and in ensuring that these standards are honored.
More
Judith Butler: War Empathizer
by Mike Rowe
Utne Reader
November-December 2010
In 2004 Americans gaped in shame and anger at images of nude, hooded prisoners heaped on top of one another, menaced with dogs or forced to masturbate by members of the U.S. armed forces at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Major media outlets soon settled on an angle for the story: Those responsible for the abuse—keen to exploit Islamic taboos on public nudity and homosexuality—cruelly crafted methods of torture to disgrace conservative Muslims.
In her recent book Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler retells this story but boldly revises the conclusion. First, she asks, who would not have suffered at the end of a leash in Abu Ghraib? Second, she asserts that by envisioning the violence at Abu Ghraib as torture tailored for Muslims, we have caricatured them as members of a backward culture. We imagine that they hold retrogressive beliefs about modesty and propriety that make them particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation. While it is true that cultural sensitivities were exploited, Butler argues, emphasizing this perspective falsely elevates our own progressiveness. We assume our own superiority by believing that Abu Ghraib’s victims were uniquely suited to suffer as they did.
Butler’s trenchant and brilliant book is all about this kind of “frame,” an image or a discussion that allows us to think of certain people as natural victims of violence. Her work suggests that by defining people as residents of war zones, we have, so to speak, zoned them for war. We don’t grieve their deaths, and the call for nonviolence is shouted down because we haven’t recognized their lives as fully livable.
More
Utne Reader
November-December 2010
In 2004 Americans gaped in shame and anger at images of nude, hooded prisoners heaped on top of one another, menaced with dogs or forced to masturbate by members of the U.S. armed forces at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Major media outlets soon settled on an angle for the story: Those responsible for the abuse—keen to exploit Islamic taboos on public nudity and homosexuality—cruelly crafted methods of torture to disgrace conservative Muslims.
In her recent book Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler retells this story but boldly revises the conclusion. First, she asks, who would not have suffered at the end of a leash in Abu Ghraib? Second, she asserts that by envisioning the violence at Abu Ghraib as torture tailored for Muslims, we have caricatured them as members of a backward culture. We imagine that they hold retrogressive beliefs about modesty and propriety that make them particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation. While it is true that cultural sensitivities were exploited, Butler argues, emphasizing this perspective falsely elevates our own progressiveness. We assume our own superiority by believing that Abu Ghraib’s victims were uniquely suited to suffer as they did.
Butler’s trenchant and brilliant book is all about this kind of “frame,” an image or a discussion that allows us to think of certain people as natural victims of violence. Her work suggests that by defining people as residents of war zones, we have, so to speak, zoned them for war. We don’t grieve their deaths, and the call for nonviolence is shouted down because we haven’t recognized their lives as fully livable.
More
Oklahoma's faith-baiting initiative
Washington Post
November 16, 2010
Just to be on the safe side, voters in Oklahoma this month overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that prevents the Talibanization of the Sooner State. Henceforth, there will be no public stonings in Ponca City, no forced burqa wearing in Bartlesville, no sharia law in Lawton.
Even supporters of the referendum - which forbade state courts from considering sharia in their deliberations - admitted that the threat from Oklahoma's 30,000 Muslims couldn't be called "imminent."
"It's not a problem and we want to keep it that way," explains state Sen. Anthony Sykes. Sharia law, according to state Rep. Rex Duncan, is a "cancer that must be removed with a preemptive strike."
More
November 16, 2010
Just to be on the safe side, voters in Oklahoma this month overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that prevents the Talibanization of the Sooner State. Henceforth, there will be no public stonings in Ponca City, no forced burqa wearing in Bartlesville, no sharia law in Lawton.
Even supporters of the referendum - which forbade state courts from considering sharia in their deliberations - admitted that the threat from Oklahoma's 30,000 Muslims couldn't be called "imminent."
"It's not a problem and we want to keep it that way," explains state Sen. Anthony Sykes. Sharia law, according to state Rep. Rex Duncan, is a "cancer that must be removed with a preemptive strike."
More
The Split-Screen Struggle Over Gay Rights
by Arianna Huffington
Huffington Post
November 15, 2010
Protesters chaining themselves to the White House gate today, objecting to what they called the "silent homophobia of those who purport to be our friends and do nothing," capped a tumultuous few days in the fight to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- and the larger fight for equality.
There was the one step forward represented by the leak of a Pentagon study showing that 70 percent of active-duty and reserve troops surveyed thought lifting DADT wouldn't have a negative impact on America's armed forced. Followed by the two steps back of the Supreme Court's order on Friday allowing the ban on openly gay soldiers to remain in effect while the Obama administration fights a federal appeals court ruling that the policy is unconstitutional, and John McCain -- who has said in the past that he'd be open to repealing DADT -- making it clear that, in fact, he wouldn't. Not now. Not yet.
America finds itself at a real turning point in the struggle for gay rights. And, as during all turning points, it's as if we are watching the struggle unfold on a split screen: progress on one side, setbacks on the other.
More
Huffington Post
November 15, 2010
Protesters chaining themselves to the White House gate today, objecting to what they called the "silent homophobia of those who purport to be our friends and do nothing," capped a tumultuous few days in the fight to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- and the larger fight for equality.
There was the one step forward represented by the leak of a Pentagon study showing that 70 percent of active-duty and reserve troops surveyed thought lifting DADT wouldn't have a negative impact on America's armed forced. Followed by the two steps back of the Supreme Court's order on Friday allowing the ban on openly gay soldiers to remain in effect while the Obama administration fights a federal appeals court ruling that the policy is unconstitutional, and John McCain -- who has said in the past that he'd be open to repealing DADT -- making it clear that, in fact, he wouldn't. Not now. Not yet.
America finds itself at a real turning point in the struggle for gay rights. And, as during all turning points, it's as if we are watching the struggle unfold on a split screen: progress on one side, setbacks on the other.
More
Libertarians on the Shrink's Couch
by Gene Healy
Washington Examiner
November 15, 2010
We libertarians tend to think of ourselves as a tiny, embattled sect, ignored when we're not reviled. Lately, though -- with Hayek's Road to Serfdom shooting up the Amazon charts and Tea Partiers with "Don't Tread on Me" flags storming Capitol Hill -- there's increasing interest in figuring out how this strange tribe thinks.
A team of social psychologists, including the University of Virginia's Jonathan Haidt, provides some of the most detailed answers yet, putting libertarians on the couch in a new study, "Understanding Libertarian Morality."
"Libertarian morality?" you say. "Isn't that an oxymoron, like 'military intelligence' or 'law school talent show'?" No, smartass, it isn't. "Libertarians are not amoral," Haidt and his colleagues report. (Whew!) We simply have "a unique moral-psychological profile." That profile helps explain both why we can be hard to get along with and why we're needed, now more than ever.
More
Washington Examiner
November 15, 2010
We libertarians tend to think of ourselves as a tiny, embattled sect, ignored when we're not reviled. Lately, though -- with Hayek's Road to Serfdom shooting up the Amazon charts and Tea Partiers with "Don't Tread on Me" flags storming Capitol Hill -- there's increasing interest in figuring out how this strange tribe thinks.
A team of social psychologists, including the University of Virginia's Jonathan Haidt, provides some of the most detailed answers yet, putting libertarians on the couch in a new study, "Understanding Libertarian Morality."
"Libertarian morality?" you say. "Isn't that an oxymoron, like 'military intelligence' or 'law school talent show'?" No, smartass, it isn't. "Libertarians are not amoral," Haidt and his colleagues report. (Whew!) We simply have "a unique moral-psychological profile." That profile helps explain both why we can be hard to get along with and why we're needed, now more than ever.
More
Get the Government Out of Our Pants
by Steve Chapman
Reason
November 15, 2010
When it comes to protecting against terrorism, this is how things usually go: A danger presents itself. The federal government responds with new rules that erode privacy, treat innocent people as suspicious, and blur the distinction between life in a free society and life in a correctional facility. And we all tamely accept the new intrusions, like sheep being shorn.
Maybe not this time.
The war on terrorism is going to get personal. Very personal. Americans have long resented the hassles that go with air travel ever since 9/11—long security lines, limits on liquids, forced removal of footwear, and so on. But if the Transportation Security Administration has its way, we will look back to 2009 as the good old days.
More
Reason
November 15, 2010
When it comes to protecting against terrorism, this is how things usually go: A danger presents itself. The federal government responds with new rules that erode privacy, treat innocent people as suspicious, and blur the distinction between life in a free society and life in a correctional facility. And we all tamely accept the new intrusions, like sheep being shorn.
Maybe not this time.
The war on terrorism is going to get personal. Very personal. Americans have long resented the hassles that go with air travel ever since 9/11—long security lines, limits on liquids, forced removal of footwear, and so on. But if the Transportation Security Administration has its way, we will look back to 2009 as the good old days.
More
In Russia, Jury Is Something to Work Around
New York Times
November 15, 2010
Iosif L. Nagle was watching a final curtain at his small theater company when he saw two young men waiting for him in the audience. They didn’t look like patrons of the arts — something about their faces marked them as law enforcement — and Mr. Nagle bundled up and followed them out into the cold.
A few minutes later the three of them were talking over glasses of vodka. The subject was the jury that Mr. Nagle sat on, which, after four months of testimony, was leaning toward acquittal on some charges brought by the government.
The visitors, showing him cards that identified them as security officers, said it would be awful if such a bunch of criminals went unpunished. Would he consider, one of them said, withdrawing from the jury on the grounds of illness? Mr. Nagle said he had refused without a thought.
“I told them, ‘Why should I say I’m sick? You did your job badly, guys,’ ” said Mr. Nagle, 56. “ ‘Why did you bring an unsubstantiated case to court?’ ”
More
November 15, 2010
Iosif L. Nagle was watching a final curtain at his small theater company when he saw two young men waiting for him in the audience. They didn’t look like patrons of the arts — something about their faces marked them as law enforcement — and Mr. Nagle bundled up and followed them out into the cold.
A few minutes later the three of them were talking over glasses of vodka. The subject was the jury that Mr. Nagle sat on, which, after four months of testimony, was leaning toward acquittal on some charges brought by the government.
The visitors, showing him cards that identified them as security officers, said it would be awful if such a bunch of criminals went unpunished. Would he consider, one of them said, withdrawing from the jury on the grounds of illness? Mr. Nagle said he had refused without a thought.
“I told them, ‘Why should I say I’m sick? You did your job badly, guys,’ ” said Mr. Nagle, 56. “ ‘Why did you bring an unsubstantiated case to court?’ ”
More
Monday, November 15, 2010
The Propriety of Liberty
by Duncan Kelly
In this book, Duncan Kelly excavates, from the history of modern political thought, a largely forgotten claim about liberty as a form of propriety. By rethinking the intellectual and historical foundations of modern accounts of freedom, he brings into focus how this major vision of liberty developed between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries.
In his framework, celebrated political writers, including John Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Thomas Hill Green pursue the claim that freedom is best understood as a form of responsible agency or propriety, and they do so by reconciling key moral and philosophical claims with classical and contemporary political theory. Their approach broadly assumes that only those persons who appropriately regulate their conduct can be thought of as free and responsible. At the same time, however, they recognize that such internal forms of self-propriety must be judged within the wider context of social and political life. Kelly shows how the intellectual and practical demands of such a synthesis require these great writers to consider freedom as part of a broader set of arguments about the nature of personhood, the potentially irrational impact of the passions, and the obstinate problems of individual and political judgement. By exploring these relationships, The Propriety of Liberty not only revises the intellectual history of modern political thought, but also sheds light on contemporary debates about freedom and agency.
Duncan Kelly is university senior lecturer in political theory in the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge, and fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge. He is the author of The State of the Political.
In this book, Duncan Kelly excavates, from the history of modern political thought, a largely forgotten claim about liberty as a form of propriety. By rethinking the intellectual and historical foundations of modern accounts of freedom, he brings into focus how this major vision of liberty developed between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries.
In his framework, celebrated political writers, including John Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Thomas Hill Green pursue the claim that freedom is best understood as a form of responsible agency or propriety, and they do so by reconciling key moral and philosophical claims with classical and contemporary political theory. Their approach broadly assumes that only those persons who appropriately regulate their conduct can be thought of as free and responsible. At the same time, however, they recognize that such internal forms of self-propriety must be judged within the wider context of social and political life. Kelly shows how the intellectual and practical demands of such a synthesis require these great writers to consider freedom as part of a broader set of arguments about the nature of personhood, the potentially irrational impact of the passions, and the obstinate problems of individual and political judgement. By exploring these relationships, The Propriety of Liberty not only revises the intellectual history of modern political thought, but also sheds light on contemporary debates about freedom and agency.
Duncan Kelly is university senior lecturer in political theory in the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge, and fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge. He is the author of The State of the Political.
Gays in the military
Washington Post
Editorial
November 15, 2010
The last possible rationale for maintaining the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy appears to have been pulverized.
The Post's Ed O'Keefe and Greg Jaffe report that 70 percent of respondents in a survey of more than 500,000 military personnel saw little risk in repealing the policy that prevents gay and lesbian service members from serving openly. A Pentagon task force studying repeal sent out the survey; its full report is expected by Dec. 1.
President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have called for the elimination of "don't ask, don't tell." They must review a proposed rollback plan to ensure that it does not hurt morale, recruitment or troop readiness. But they cannot unilaterally adopt a new policy unless Congress votes to eliminate the shortsighted and discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" law. Some on Capitol Hill, most notably Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and some military brass have resisted, citing concerns about possible disruptions that could be particularly acute because of the country's involvement in two wars. The Pentagon's findings should allay those fears.
More
Editorial
November 15, 2010
The last possible rationale for maintaining the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy appears to have been pulverized.
The Post's Ed O'Keefe and Greg Jaffe report that 70 percent of respondents in a survey of more than 500,000 military personnel saw little risk in repealing the policy that prevents gay and lesbian service members from serving openly. A Pentagon task force studying repeal sent out the survey; its full report is expected by Dec. 1.
President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have called for the elimination of "don't ask, don't tell." They must review a proposed rollback plan to ensure that it does not hurt morale, recruitment or troop readiness. But they cannot unilaterally adopt a new policy unless Congress votes to eliminate the shortsighted and discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" law. Some on Capitol Hill, most notably Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and some military brass have resisted, citing concerns about possible disruptions that could be particularly acute because of the country's involvement in two wars. The Pentagon's findings should allay those fears.
More
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)























