Sunday, November 18, 2007

" Please don't tase me bro.." ( cont'd ): Taser Death At Vancouver Airport

I watched the horrifying video of a man who clearly identified himself to witnesses and bystanders as " Polish ", but was mistaken *( by the idiots at the airport ) for Russian, and was utterly mortified by what I witnessed. Yet it doesn't altogether surprise me in the " Post-9/11 " world in which we now live, a world in which 9/11 will be used to justify the use of any form of lethal force or inhumane torture or criminal reverse political violence, directed at the broader public throughout the world, a public which has stood up against the illegal Iraqi Invasion, for any reason whatsoever, even in situations that fail to demand it.

Does anyone remember what happened to Amidou Diallo ? Lest I remind you, he was reaching for his wallet. Beyond the outrage at the time, has it happened again, does it continue to happen ? So what endows us with such short memory ? Is it our short-attention-span-sound-byte-riddled-dumbed-down-so-we-become-comfortably-numb-and-apathetic-and-all-accepting-and-in-a-world-on-the-verge-of-world-war-three corporate-military-industrial-complex-owned-bewareIwillcensoryouifyousayfuck-fuckthefirstamendement-media ?

What's more surprising is that it happened in Canada, a nation historically, famously, adamantly, opposed to the death penalty, hence the outrage over the incident across the nation.

The police were apparently using 50,000 volt taser guns, which are clearly lethal, and based upon the number of mounties, as they're called, surrounding the innocent Polish man, it's possible that more than one taser gun was used. Even notwithstanding, a single 50,000 volt shock can easily be a death sentence. For example, people who've died in the electric chair have been exposed to as little 2,000 volts.

So what right do these Canadian mounties have to effectively electrocute a man over nothing more than a miscommunication, possibly the result of culture shock, claustrophobia, or post-traumatic stress disorder ?

It is beyond inhumane; it is cruel and ruthless and 9/11 is neither an excuse nor should be tolerated as one.

It is also clear that Congress should pass a law, and the United Nations, in conjunction with 39/46 of 1984 ( Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ), which bans torture, an extended or more comprehensive resolution, also banning its implements, banning the use of taser guns as tools of torture or lethal force.

Ban the fools,
and their tools;
Ban the cruel,
and their sheep.


This would appear to be the course taken recently, with reference to torture, both by the U.N. Convention and by the 1987 European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which, significantly enough, contains only a control system with no substantive rules at all.42 The importance of the effective functioning of the bodies established to supervise the implementation of international human rights instruments has been recently stressed by several states,43 including some states which have been notoriously reluctant to submit to international scrutiny in the field of human rights.44

Given the increasing importance attributed to implementation machinery by various components of the international community45 and the related primary purpose of the U.N. Convention against Torture, a reservation directed at impairing the Convention's implementation system could perhaps be considered inadmissible under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention. In fact, the German Democratic Republic's attempt to limit its financial obligations could, as other states remarked, "undermine the efficient functioning of the monitoring machinery established by the Convention"46 or even "jeopardize the existence and operation of the Committee and the effectiveness of the Convention itself."47 Although the amount of contributions potentially withheld by the German Democratic Republic would probably not in itself prevent the functioning of the Committee altogether, the recognition of a right to withhold contributions in this manner could lead to grave and unmanageable consequences since the same right would obviously accrue to any other state acceding to the Convention.



Congress should also go a step further, and ban lethal force. If there are differences with the issue of guns on the streets, then Congress can pass a more comprehensive gun ban. Americans, and I think, Canadians alike, have had it with their war-mongering oil-and-greed-obsessed governments who've systematically and strategically used 9/11 and the alleged threat of terror, against the public, to impose the Patriot Act for the purpose of waging war against that very same public - against you and me.

Mind you that this is not even to mention that with the Pentagon In Iraq, apparently at the hands of Washington, attempting to start a war with Iran, when the Iraqi government - Iraq- is not at war with Iran; this is not even to mention that it begins to appear as if Osama bin Laden's primary objection - the presence of military bases in Saudi Arabia - might actually be legitimate. And we still do not know who tried to kill Osama in early 1987, as was reported in a History Channel exclusive. The key here is international law. Do we actually know whether what transpired with respect to Osama in 1987, violated international law and what role it may have played in 9/11 ?

9/11 was used, strategically, to implicate and then illegally invade, Saddam Hussein and Iraq, which ultimately resulted in Saddam's videotaped death. There were no weapons of mass destruction, even though George Bush claims that to not have been the case. The one conclusion that can be drawn is that Bush is accusing Hans Blix of being a liar. Yet Bush has insisted on perpetuating his own lie, a lie he knew Americans, based on 9/11
would be inclined to believe, because people needed to find a reason, some rationale, for 9/11.

But it wasn't Saddam. The 9/11 Report said as much:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. ( Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01 )


So apparently Bush also disagrees with the 9/11 Commission but still has yet to be held completely accountable.

Greedy, cruel, war-mongering Republicans and some Democrats, even though we regret to admit it, seem to want it both ways: they're against gun control in the form of the Brady Bill, which could have prevented President Reagan from being shot, but they support lethal force used by police, and capital punishment in the form of taser guns as a remedy to the the multitude of problems created by their opposition to gun control. To those against gun control I say go watch The Deer Hunter with Robert DeNiro and Christopher Walken.

The is a word for the failure of leaders, Congressional and otherwise, people who hold public office, to act on such an atrocity as that which occurred at the Vancouver airport; or maybe two words: depraved indifference.

In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder. In some jurisdictions, such as Victoria, British Columbia, recklessness is sufficient mens rea to justify a conviction for murder.


So if the U.S. government, which is widely believed to be the case, based on the evidence involved, knew about 9/11 prior to its occurrence, but intentionally failed to act for the purpose of acting strategically against Iraq, and to implement the Patriot Act, which appears to sanction lethal force in the form of taser guns and, in some cases, waterboarding and, as we know, sex torture in various forms of sodomy, such an act could be interpreted as consistent with what the depraved indifference statute implies.

The Patriot Act seems to have been implemented rather soon after 9/11 to not believe that it had been drafted prior to 9/11, which appears to indicate, because it's simultaneuosly based on 9/11, that it was drafted with 9/11 in mind, which is what depraved indifference requires. Hence, if the Patriot Act was drafted prior to 9/11, with 9/11 in mind, and sought, or needed only 9/11, to justify its implementation, then such may have been the motivating factor, in conjunction with other strategic, but oil-greedy objectives, for the acts of depraved indifference that resulted in 9/11.

The Patriot Act, which was implemented to soon after 9/11 to believe that it was not drafted prior to 9/11, and which is clearly based on 9/11, seems to be compelling enough evidence, in conjunction with the other lies that have been proferred, particularly those regarding weapons of mass destruction, to believe that an act of depraved indifference may be involved. Moreover, what likely motivated the depraved indifference which seemingly preceded 9/11, resulting in it, had to be some veritable combination of Iraq, and possibly, Iran, and the Patriot Act, which indicates a war being waged by governments against the public, a symbolic war with roots in Vietnam.

Again, this should be interpreted under international law and hopefully by U.S. Congressional lawmakers as the kind of reverse criminal political discrimination that George W. Bush, a court-appointed President, in what may even be thought of as the quasi-coup d'etat of 2000-2001, claimed in Bush v. Gore claims was perpetrated against him. Bush also, relative to the idea of coup d'etat, apparently, supports the Pakistini ISI, which may be have been concealing Osama prior to 9/11.

War waged by governments, including the U.S. government against their own people on the basis of support or opposition to external war and with an historical basis such as the one that exists in the form of Vietnam, as is the case with the opposition to the Iraqi Invasion, which is, for the most part, considered to be illegal, should be interpreted as reverse criminal political discrimination. Is it possible that governments might commit acts of reverse political violence against their own people when there are deeply seated beliefs, such as there are about Vietnam, regarding the role of the public in terms of success or failure of external inteventions ? Certainly if a war is illegal, citizens cannot be criminally co-opted into supporting it.

The Iraqi Invasion has always appeared to be illegal, but without congressional lawmakers possessing the ability to end it. Why is that ? Because the power to end the war was remanded by your very own Supreme Court in 1983, when it overturned what the 1973 Congress had passed when it ended Vietnam, relative to the National Emergency Act, in the form of the power of Congress to terminate a National Emergency. The 1983 Supreme Court essentially made it impossible for the current Congress to, without a two-thirds majority, terminate the National Emergency that is the Illegal Iraqi Invasion.

That's not actually a conspiracy theory. It's simply that complicated a matter of international law.

Let us not forget that several governments warned the U.S. government about the attack prior to its occurrence, as well. Bill Murray, of the CIA was given intelligence by the the French Intelligence Service, which seems to have made it to the coffers of CIA Director, George Tenet, whom, according to his book, At The Center of the Storm, was somewhat rebuffed by John Ashcroft, upon raising the subject, because the FBI apparently did not know anything about it. Ashcroft wanted to know how the CIA could know without the FBI's knowledge. The answer is, simply, French Intelligence.

Warning: Yet another actually complicated scenario that may sound as a conspiracy theory, 'because it's complicated ?

This content is intended for audiences with measures of psychological intelligence in excess of those of persons in the 5th grade.


There is one other, maybe critically important, caveat: Robert Philip Hanssen. The Russian Embassy seemed to be in a rush to get Hanssen in early 2001, just prior to 9/11. Is it because Ashcroft is wrong, that the FBI did know and did not tell him ? That is perhaps the case. Does that necessarily implicate the Russians ? Not necessarily, but it does raise the question, when conceivably, the Russians knew and were one of the countries that warned the U.S. about the attack, about why Russia could not wait until after an event they knew could happen, based on credible intelligence, even supported by French Intelligence, until after 9/11, to pursue Hanssen, and why the Russians did not, at the same time, they informed the State Department, led by General Colin Powell, about Hanssen, did not notify State of the popssibility of an attack. Unless Russia did exactly that and Powell failed to notify the Justice Department, which would explain how Russia knew and the CIA knew, but Ashcroft did not.

It was Hanssen's job to intercept Russian spies, who might even enter the U.S. under diplomatic cover. Colin Powell should have recognized that. Then again, apparently General Powell, as we all know, was fooled by Curveball, the testimony of whom even ended up in one of President Bush's State of the Union addresses.


Bottom line: we have yet to put all of the proverbial dots together in the particular intelligence-related matter regarding Bob Hanssen and Vladimir Putin. Keep in mind that Vladimir was also a master spy, stationed in Stuttgart in the mid-1980s, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall and that Mohammed Atta had apparently lived in Germany prior to 9/11.

A new law would place power in the hands of the public, or " power to the people " as IVAW, Iraq Veterans Against The War, calls it. DeNiro's character was a Vietnam veteran. The war changed his opinion of guns so drastically that he, faced with killing an innocent deer, simply could not do it. At that moment, he had an epiphany, a spontaneous epiphany about what consequences weapons could render upon the innocent.

But that epiphany had little to with tasers eliminating the consequence of the failure of elected leaders to pass more comprehensive gun ban laws. Rather, elected leaders in America, as in authoritarian regimes throughout the world, choose to wage war on their own people, while wondering why those same people refuse to support them when they wage illegal war upon others, in turn using that absence of support as justification to continue to buy more taser guns and poison gas to wage war on their own people.

Based on what I've read, electric shock has long been used as a torture mechanism, dating back to the Third Reich of Adolph Hitler. It was used by both sides in Vietnam. So that becomes the relevant connection to 9/11. 9/11 is being systematically used to justify tactics like waterboarding, sex torture in the form of forcible sodomy, simulated or real, and forcible masturbation.

The question is this: what happens in a state like Connecticut, where, by the way, it's really regrettable, now that we're on the verge of yet another war, with Iran, that Ned Lamont did not defeat Joe Lieberman ( I-Conn. ); what happens where, in Connecticut, a person who might take a toke of the peace pipe can be accused of being a terrorist and then subjected to an effective death penalty by way of taser ?

" Please don't tase me bro, " takes on a whole realm of new and more important significance when this poor, innocent Polish man has to die at the hands of a cruel and ruthless act that is the unfortunate by-product of the Patriot Act itself.