NY Times:
BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 — Participants in a contentious Baghdad security operation this month have told American investigators that during the operation at least one guard continued firing on civilians while colleagues urgently called for a cease-fire. At least one guard apparently also drew a weapon on a fellow guard who did not stop shooting, an American official said.
CBS:
BAGHDAD, Oct. 12, 2007
The first U.S. soldiers to arrive on the scene after Blackwater USA guards shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians at a Baghdad intersection on Sept. 16, found no evidence that the Iraqis fired any weapons at the guards, the Washington Post reported Friday.
A report compiled by the soldiers concluded that there was "no enemy activity involved" and called the incident a "criminal event," the Post reports.
"It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged," said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose soldiers arrived at the scene 20 to 25 minutes after the shootings ended. "It had every indication of an excessive shooting."
CNN:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's prime minister wants private military contractor Blackwater out of his country after an Iraqi probe found Blackwater guards randomly shot civilians without provocation in a Baghdad square last month, an aide said Tuesday.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and most Iraqi officials are "completely satisfied" with the findings and are "insisting" that Blackwater leave the country, al-Maliki adviser Sami al-Askari told CNN.
Not withstanding my previous post about this happening when the Chicago Cubs make it to and win the World Series (not happening this year), if and when this happens the primary concerns that every freedom valuing American citizen should keep in mind are a: where are they going to go when they leave (they're going to be coming back here to the States to begin with) and b: what will they be doing there (your guess is as good as mine, but if the indications based on the duties secured by Blackwater in New Orleans after Katrina flushed out the majority of the more disadvantaged portion of the city's population (keeping them out of the public housing units that they still are rightfully entitled to) are anything to go by it can't be anything in the best interests of the average American).
The current administration and the support structure that keeps it in power know that the next election is a potential pivotal event. The results of said election must go in a certain direction in order for the benefactors of the current administration's policies (minimal to nonexistent tax rates for their main source of income, foreign policies that maximize profit for certain industries that they are deeply invested in (military-industrial, fossil fuel development, distribution and sale). In order for this to be achieved, the masses must remain pacified by (relatively) stable economic conditions and a seemingly calm domestic state of affairs, which means minimal public dissent and protest and NO BAD NEWS FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT HOW WE ARE IN DANGER FROM THREATS FROM TERRORISTS WHO ARE EVERYWHERE.
Pacifying and marginalizing civil dissent that goes beyond an acceptable level of intensity (read: when it starts to attract the attention of enough people to be a concern to the ruling class) usually falls to a police or military organization. But, if the local and state police are so overworked and underequipped to deal with it then a national force is usually called upon to quell the uprising, unless, the national force normally called upon to do so has already been called upon to fight in an overseas conflict and has been compromised to the point of near decimation. Then what do you do to quell the potentially polarizing protests of the administration and its policies? Why, you contract a private, corporate security force that is not answerable to any laws in the country that they're working in, even if it happens to be the country that they are indigenous to!
Peaceful Protest: What? A group of more than ten people are gathered to protest the administration's foreign policies?
CIVIL UNREST!!!
MUST BE QUELLED!!!
(SHOOT TO KILL!!!)
General Election: What? You've come to vote and you're not going to choose the ruling party on your ballot?
CIVIL UNREST!!!
MUST BE QUELLED!!!
(WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!!!)
All I can say is that I'm glad I live in Texas, because I think they'll think twice before coming down here and doing any sort of messing with anything or anyone given the fact that everyone down here owns at least one firearm. I'm just as nonviolent as the next person and am in total agreement with Arthur and Chris in their view of physical violence as a non option in that it always sends the wrong message and sets the wrong precident, BUT, it seems to be the only language that these folks understand AND I'm not a big fan of rolling over for the trigger happy muscle of an illegitimate administration of outlaws who have no regard for the inherent rights of human beings, be they citizens of the U. S. or any other country in the world.
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are gunning us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?
--Neil Young
Showing posts with label Police Brutality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Police Brutality. Show all posts
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Friday, August 31, 2007
Fault Lines
I've been posting daily over at the 'Tude, but the treatment I wanted to give this isn't really in line with what Hill and the gang are going for over there. So, for your consumption:
The Danziger Bridge Killings: How New Orleans Police Gunned Down Civilians Fleeing the Flood
Democracy Now!:
On the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we take a look back the Danziger Bridge killings. Seven police officers been indicted for opening fire on two African American families on the Danziger Bridge days after the storm, killing two people and wounding four others. At the time, the official story was that they gunned down snipers. Now the question is why they shot at two families fleeing the flood.
Last December, seven police officers were indicted for killing two people walking across the bridge. They were from two families, the Bartholomews and the Madisons. James Brisette, a young man who was a friend of the Bartholomews, was killed by seven bullets in his back and legs. Susan Bartholomew's arm was partially blown off. Her daughter and husband had three gunshot wounds each. Their trial is ongoing.
Ronald Madison, a forty-year-old mentally disabled man, was one of the two people killed. He was walking across the bridge with his older brother Lance, when, according to police, he was shot in the back and died. Lance was initially arrested and jailed for attempting to murder the police officers. He was later released after a grand jury cleared his name.
Dr. Rommel Madison is the brother of Lance and Ronald Madison. He is a dentist, and he testified this week at the International Tribunal on Hurricane Katrina that was put together by the People’s Hurricane Fund.
DR. ROMELL MADISON: My brothers were seeking help to get to safety on the east side of the Danziger Bridge by officers on the west side, and it hadn’t flooded, so they had refuge there. But they didn't have food or water, so they would go to the east side, where everyone was being picked up to be brought to safety to the dome and to the Convention Center.
On the day of September 4th, there was a family at the foot of the bridge, a husband, wife, daughter, three small kids and a teenager. During that time they were on the bridge, they noticed a rental truck, a moving van-type-sized truck, about a mid-sized van. It pulled up where the family was. They exited the truck. About seven men exited the truck, and they opened fire on the family at the foot of the bridge. One individual was killed. Everyone was wounded, but one of the children. The children's ages were from fourteen to nineteen.
After seeing that, they started retreating back to the westbound side of the Danziger Bridge back toward my office again. And at that point the police officers opened fire on them. They wounded my brother Ronald in the back twice. My brother Lance was able to get him to the other side of the bridge and put him on the grass, and then he ran for help. When he did return, he was relieved to find the National Guard and the state police, and he was telling them what happened.
At that point, the police officers walked up, and then they finally disclosed that they were police, because when they originally got out of the van, they were dressed in shorts, T-shirts, just plain shirts. They never identified themselves as being police. And to see them open fire on a small group of individuals, African American individuals, at the foot of the bridge, they just figured they were out to, you know, go hunting and shooting and killing people.
[snip]
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think needs to be done now? In the case of your family, the police officers are going on trial, Dr. Madison. Your family has also sued?
DR. ROMELL MADISON: My mother and brother have. But presently, we're still faced with the uphill fight with the judicial system. OK, when the indictments were handed out to the police on December 28th of ’05, they were allowed to turn themselves in January 2nd of ’06, so that they could have this time to spend with their families.
The second thing that the judge did that I feel was incorrect was that he provided bail for first-degree murder. Nowhere in the United States is anyone provided bail for first-degree murder. These individuals were provided bail. One of the officers quit and was allowed to move to Houston, Texas, to leave the state. And that's unheard of also. They were supposed to be on house arrest, and they shouldn't have left -- he shouldn’t have gone anywhere.
Third, they were allowed to go back to work as police in the police department, which is really a tragedy to the public. They’ve fired police for second-degree battery, let alone for being charged for first-degree murder, and allowed them to come back to work as police officers.
The last thing is that the violation of the grand jury testimony, too, by giving it to the defense attorneys for the police, to allow them to find out what’s [inaudible] in it and whether it would have a means to try to have the charges dropped against their clients. Now, that is another violation of civil rights injustice, because no one's allowed to view the grand jury testimony. If that was the case, they could have let the defense attorney decide whether or not they should be charged or not.
Everything has really been the complete opposite of what should be. And finally the judge -- there was a motion for the judge to recuse himself. I don't think just because of this, but because of his air of impropriety that was given in his disclosure. So at this point, that's what we're all working on: his recusal from the case and trying to obtain a judge that will deal with everything strictly by the book and fairly.
ROSANA CRUZ: And just to clarify, the judge on this case is a close friend of the police department, has three staff members who have direct family relationships or business relationships with the defense attorneys.
If and when the state of affairs in this country deteriorates to the point of Martial Law being declared, which Arthur thinks may be closer than one is comfortable thinking about, the social structure will likely show immediate signs of fracture along the lines of race and economic status. It is not difficult to imagine a bloodbath the likes of which would make the above chronicled events look like a schoolyard shoving match.
The fault lines that such a fracture would follow exist today and have existed for hundreds of years. No amount of military defeats or proclamations or legislative acts have been able to alter the deep seated traditions and beliefs of white people towards people of color, specifically African Americans. Part of it is the resistance toward governance by a body thousands of miles away that has no perceived frame of reference to the local circumstances, but the greater part is the deep seated human tendency to continue to vilify what has been viewed as that which is not a part of us, past and present and future, simply out of the fear of change. Sadly, the circumstances that will most likely bring upon an escalation of this behavior are also the greatest opportunity for the dismantling of those attitudes and barriers.
The choice to continue down the path of separation and marginalization through intimidation and violence is easier than the uncertain choice to cross the barriers and engage. A very unique set of circumstances need to fall into place in order for this to happen and they need to be met with an open eyed attitude. This is not usually the mindset people are operating in when faced with the daunting scenarios found during a large natural (or man made, in the case of the Levees rupturing) disaster or a police or militarily enforced social regimen (which is what Martial Law essentially is.)
One would hope that we have evolved far enough that there are people whose cooler heads would prevail in some situations like this, as they did in the case of Houston Mayor Bill White overruling Harris County Judge Robert Eckels in the matter of accepting the bulk of evacuees from New Orleans two years ago. Unfortunately, the possibility of examples of the conduct detailed above cannot be ruled out.
The Danziger Bridge Killings: How New Orleans Police Gunned Down Civilians Fleeing the Flood
Democracy Now!:
On the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we take a look back the Danziger Bridge killings. Seven police officers been indicted for opening fire on two African American families on the Danziger Bridge days after the storm, killing two people and wounding four others. At the time, the official story was that they gunned down snipers. Now the question is why they shot at two families fleeing the flood.
Last December, seven police officers were indicted for killing two people walking across the bridge. They were from two families, the Bartholomews and the Madisons. James Brisette, a young man who was a friend of the Bartholomews, was killed by seven bullets in his back and legs. Susan Bartholomew's arm was partially blown off. Her daughter and husband had three gunshot wounds each. Their trial is ongoing.
Ronald Madison, a forty-year-old mentally disabled man, was one of the two people killed. He was walking across the bridge with his older brother Lance, when, according to police, he was shot in the back and died. Lance was initially arrested and jailed for attempting to murder the police officers. He was later released after a grand jury cleared his name.
Dr. Rommel Madison is the brother of Lance and Ronald Madison. He is a dentist, and he testified this week at the International Tribunal on Hurricane Katrina that was put together by the People’s Hurricane Fund.
DR. ROMELL MADISON: My brothers were seeking help to get to safety on the east side of the Danziger Bridge by officers on the west side, and it hadn’t flooded, so they had refuge there. But they didn't have food or water, so they would go to the east side, where everyone was being picked up to be brought to safety to the dome and to the Convention Center.
On the day of September 4th, there was a family at the foot of the bridge, a husband, wife, daughter, three small kids and a teenager. During that time they were on the bridge, they noticed a rental truck, a moving van-type-sized truck, about a mid-sized van. It pulled up where the family was. They exited the truck. About seven men exited the truck, and they opened fire on the family at the foot of the bridge. One individual was killed. Everyone was wounded, but one of the children. The children's ages were from fourteen to nineteen.
After seeing that, they started retreating back to the westbound side of the Danziger Bridge back toward my office again. And at that point the police officers opened fire on them. They wounded my brother Ronald in the back twice. My brother Lance was able to get him to the other side of the bridge and put him on the grass, and then he ran for help. When he did return, he was relieved to find the National Guard and the state police, and he was telling them what happened.
At that point, the police officers walked up, and then they finally disclosed that they were police, because when they originally got out of the van, they were dressed in shorts, T-shirts, just plain shirts. They never identified themselves as being police. And to see them open fire on a small group of individuals, African American individuals, at the foot of the bridge, they just figured they were out to, you know, go hunting and shooting and killing people.
[snip]
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think needs to be done now? In the case of your family, the police officers are going on trial, Dr. Madison. Your family has also sued?
DR. ROMELL MADISON: My mother and brother have. But presently, we're still faced with the uphill fight with the judicial system. OK, when the indictments were handed out to the police on December 28th of ’05, they were allowed to turn themselves in January 2nd of ’06, so that they could have this time to spend with their families.
The second thing that the judge did that I feel was incorrect was that he provided bail for first-degree murder. Nowhere in the United States is anyone provided bail for first-degree murder. These individuals were provided bail. One of the officers quit and was allowed to move to Houston, Texas, to leave the state. And that's unheard of also. They were supposed to be on house arrest, and they shouldn't have left -- he shouldn’t have gone anywhere.
Third, they were allowed to go back to work as police in the police department, which is really a tragedy to the public. They’ve fired police for second-degree battery, let alone for being charged for first-degree murder, and allowed them to come back to work as police officers.
The last thing is that the violation of the grand jury testimony, too, by giving it to the defense attorneys for the police, to allow them to find out what’s [inaudible] in it and whether it would have a means to try to have the charges dropped against their clients. Now, that is another violation of civil rights injustice, because no one's allowed to view the grand jury testimony. If that was the case, they could have let the defense attorney decide whether or not they should be charged or not.
Everything has really been the complete opposite of what should be. And finally the judge -- there was a motion for the judge to recuse himself. I don't think just because of this, but because of his air of impropriety that was given in his disclosure. So at this point, that's what we're all working on: his recusal from the case and trying to obtain a judge that will deal with everything strictly by the book and fairly.
ROSANA CRUZ: And just to clarify, the judge on this case is a close friend of the police department, has three staff members who have direct family relationships or business relationships with the defense attorneys.
If and when the state of affairs in this country deteriorates to the point of Martial Law being declared, which Arthur thinks may be closer than one is comfortable thinking about, the social structure will likely show immediate signs of fracture along the lines of race and economic status. It is not difficult to imagine a bloodbath the likes of which would make the above chronicled events look like a schoolyard shoving match.
The fault lines that such a fracture would follow exist today and have existed for hundreds of years. No amount of military defeats or proclamations or legislative acts have been able to alter the deep seated traditions and beliefs of white people towards people of color, specifically African Americans. Part of it is the resistance toward governance by a body thousands of miles away that has no perceived frame of reference to the local circumstances, but the greater part is the deep seated human tendency to continue to vilify what has been viewed as that which is not a part of us, past and present and future, simply out of the fear of change. Sadly, the circumstances that will most likely bring upon an escalation of this behavior are also the greatest opportunity for the dismantling of those attitudes and barriers.
The choice to continue down the path of separation and marginalization through intimidation and violence is easier than the uncertain choice to cross the barriers and engage. A very unique set of circumstances need to fall into place in order for this to happen and they need to be met with an open eyed attitude. This is not usually the mindset people are operating in when faced with the daunting scenarios found during a large natural (or man made, in the case of the Levees rupturing) disaster or a police or militarily enforced social regimen (which is what Martial Law essentially is.)
One would hope that we have evolved far enough that there are people whose cooler heads would prevail in some situations like this, as they did in the case of Houston Mayor Bill White overruling Harris County Judge Robert Eckels in the matter of accepting the bulk of evacuees from New Orleans two years ago. Unfortunately, the possibility of examples of the conduct detailed above cannot be ruled out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)