All 8 entries tagged Torture

View all 16 entries tagged Torture on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged Torture at Technorati | There are no images tagged Torture on this blog

March 25, 2008

Torture Bracelet To Control Dissenting Americans?

Torture Bracelet To Control Dissenting Americans?
Homeland Security, weapons company express desire to use "Security Bracelet" in law enforcement, crowd control

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, March 25, 2008

The Department of Homeland Security is pursuing the introduction of a device known as the Security Bracelet, a wearable tag that would allow authorities to inflict pain compliance on suspects from a distance, while also recommending law enforcement applications and potential use in "crowd control situations".

Introduced ostensibly to combat airline terrorism, a creepy promo video courtesy of the patent holders Lamperd FTS exploits shocking 9/11 imagery to push the torture device as a solution to countering potential hijackers by inflicting "Electro-Muscular Disruption" and presumably giving the rest of the passengers a debilitating shock at the same time.

Watch the clip.

"Upon activation of the electric shock device, through receipt of an activating signal from the selectively operable remote control means, the passenger wearing that particular bracelet receives the disabling electrical shock from the electric shock device. Accordingly, the passenger becomes incapacitated for a few seconds or perhaps a few minutes, during which time the passenger can be fully subdued and handcuffed, if necessary. Depending on the type of transmission medium used to send the activating signal, other passengers may also become temporarily incapacitated, which is undesirable and unfortunate, but may be unavoidable," reads the patent for the device.

The claim that such a shock would "not cause permanent injury" is an insult to the hundreds of Taser victims who have lost their lives to so-called "non-lethal weapons" - devices whose abuse by authorities has led groups like Amnesty International to condemn them as an affront to basic human rights.

Why the terrorists wouldn't just remove the bracelet as soon as they boarded the plane isn't explained, but the perceived fallibility of the device isn't the issue - the heart of the matter is the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has publicly expressed an interest and is seeking funding to utilize the device against the "criminal element".

Letters exchanged between the company and DHS official Paul S. Ruwaldt show Homeland Security's intention to utilize the device for border control and, "indeed for anywhere else for which the temporarily restraint of large numbers of individuals in open area environments by a small number of agents or Law Enforcement Officers".

The letters confirm that funding is being sought for the widespread deployment of the device and that several state and local authorities have expressed an interest, as well as the DOD, the CDC, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture Forestry service as well as unnamed law enforcement agencies.

In addition, according to the biography of Barry Lamperd, the owner of the company behind the device, carried on his own website, "His current focus is on products related to the use of less lethal weapons in crowd control situations".

Since revelations about warrantless secret surveillance of all U.S. citizens as well as millions of innocent Americans being included on the terror watch list have come to light, the new legal precedent of guilty until proven innocent has all but been established in the "land of the free".

So why not force protesters who insist on expressing what they claim is "freedom of speech" to wear the Security Bracelet? If they step outside of their free speech zone - zap them! How about making everyone who attends a Presidential inauguration or speech wear the bracelet in the interests of national security?

Since "crowd control situations" can easily be interchanged with "unauthorized demonstrations," why not force dissenters and undesirables to wear the bracelet so as to prevent civil unrest in times of national emergency?

Why not go the whole hog and just tag babies from birth in order to combat violent crime and robbery? If a crime is in progress, the police could just activate the shock from a safe distance and save lives.

The cost of enforcing any of these measures would of course be the complete and unmitigated death of any notion of liberty and freedom, but such concepts don't seem to concern advocates of the device.

Judging by comments left by You Tube viewers, most people are not going to "happily opt" to submit to the measures, as the promotional video claims, with respondents agreeing in unison that the device itself is "a lot scarier than terrorists".

"I'd rather be killed by terrorists then spend my life tracked and controlled by government "benefactors". Freedom always carries with it some risk of things going wrong.Who trusts the government enough to allow them to track citizens? If they start implementing this kind of technology, I just won't fly," writes one.

"What better way to assist terrorists (be they called "terrorists" or "police") to use you as tools at will than to do this? If "they" can subdue a few terrorists, than "they" can just as easily subdue the entire plane and use it as they see fit. Terrorists are scary? Please. Police (by all their names: KGB, SS, CIA, FBI) have killed far, far more people than any "terrorist" ever dreamed. So, lets give THEM more power, eh?" cautions another.

"Only the worst coward would subject himself to the indignity of such a device in the name of "security." Some things are more important than security, and one of those things is freedom. Free people do not allow themselves to be treated as criminals, guilty until proven innocent," writes another.

The way in which the promo invokes horrific images of 9/11 to sell the product also leaves viewers revolted.

"Fearmongering to sell a product. No thanks. But lets get them to keep demonstrating how the shocking someone part works on their own employees!" writes one respondent.


February 01, 2008

Key 9/11 Commission Report Testimony Based on Torture

Writing about web page http://www.911blogger.com/node/13648

The official fable of what happened on 9/11 partly derives from information obtained by torture (ineffective and CRUEL)

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13648


December 20, 2007

'At least six identifiable crimes' possible in CIA tape affair

Follow-up to CIA destroyed torture tapes from Jack's blog

Constitutional scholar: 'At least six identifiable crimes' possible in CIA tape affair 

David Edwards and Jason Rhyne
Raw Story
Wednesday, December 19, 2007

White House involvement in the CIA's decision to destroy videotapes documenting severe interrogation techniques of suspected terrorists could constitute as many as six crimes, according to constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley.

Turley appeared on CNN to discuss a new report from the New York Times, which indicates that four White House attorneys, including then-White House counsels Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers, participated in discussions with the CIA about whether or not the tapes should be destroyed. The talks also reportedly included David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's former counsel and current chief of staff; and former senior National Security Council lawyer John Bellinger.

"Just when you think this scandal can't get worse, it does," the George Washington University Law School professor told CNN's John Roberts. "I mean, this is a very significant development because it shows that this was not just some rogue operator at the CIA that destroyed evidence being sought by Congress and the courts. It shows that this was a planned destruction, that there were meetings, and those meetings extended all the way to the White House."

Turley went on to say that the high-level discussions, particularly those involving Miers and Gonzales, were "a hair's breath away from the president himself."

Asked whether "through inference" the talks might have extended to the Oval Office, Turley suggested the possibility existed.

"I think it's more than an inference at this point, which is one of the reasons there's a call for a special prosecutor," he said. "There are at least six identifiable crimes here, from obstruction of justice to obstruction of Congress, perjury, conspiracy, false statements, and what is often forgotten: the crime of torturing suspects.

Added Turley, "If that crime was committed it was a crime that would conceivably be ordered by the president himself, only the president can order those types of special treatments or interrogation techniques."

The Times reports that a former senior intelligence official told the paper that there was a "'vigorous sentiment' among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes." Other officials said that there was no White House push for their destruction.

US District Judge Henry Kennedy, who in 2005 ordered that the US preserve "all evidence and information" regarding torture and other abuses, has scheduled a Friday hearing to investigate the destruction of the tapes.

"Judge Kennedy is obviously not taking the advice of the Justice Department, that told him not to interfere," Turley said of the upcoming hearing. "Courts don't understand when the government destroys evidence -- particularly evidence that was sought by Congress and other courts. So it's not going to be a good day for the Justice Department."

This video is from CNN's American Morning, broadcast on December 19, 2007.



December 15, 2007

The worst article ever written?

Writing about web page http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316546,00.html

"Waterboarding: It's a Good Thing" -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316546,00.html


November 30, 2007

“Thousands” Illegally Rendered By Bush Administration for Interrogation and Torture

The Bush Administration has kept thousands of individuals away from U.S. courts, "hidden in a web of secret prisons, underground interrogation cells, and in the hands of cooperative governments”, according to a new report by the Massachusetts School of Law:

Jack Morgan's blog


The primary purpose of this blog is to syndicate information that is largely excluded from, or spun by, the increasingly consolidated corporate media.


I believe the “War on Terror” is a synthetic construct. It is part of a long term agenda of the political/corporate elites to aggressively consolidate global control. “War on Drugs” deja-vu.


I support a new criminal investigation into the events of 9/11. The previous investigation avoided hundreds of known pieces of evidence contradicting the government’s account – for example, the fact that the head of Pakistani intelligence funded the alleged lead hijacker, and the fact that World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed at 5.20 pm in the exact manner of a controlled demolition.

Disclaimer: I often paste articles from other websites but this does not imply that I am affiliated with them or that I agree with the totality of their content.

Blog archive

Loading…

Most recent comments

  • …I've never wanted you more! by on this entry
  • "Recording my IP is the sort of thing you seem to be very much against. I'm not worried by it, just … by on this entry
  • I watched the program last night. Your comments add to my unease with the reporting and representati… by CT on this entry
  • I watched this last night. It was all very subtle, but one or two moments really demonstrated the bi… by londonbob on this entry
  • Good analysis. There are perhaps a few things to add that the program dealt with badly. The first is… by redadare on this entry

Search this blog

9/11 Research

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Do Not Submit to the National Identity Register

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's Blog

Craig Murray's Blog

Greg Palast's Website

Peace Strike

We Are Change UK

October 2020

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Sep |  Today  |
         1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31   
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXX