http://www.liveleak.com/browse?channel_token=218_1302938038 Items in channel 'allyssa' Sat, 25 May 2013 06:52:31 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?channel_token=218_1302938038 Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:49:23 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b7c_1360604613 allyssa Phillip Inman, economics correspondent guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 February 2013 12.47 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/11/china-worlds-largest-trading-nation Employees work at a shoe factory in Lishui, Zhejiang province, China. Photograph: Lang Lang/Reuters China has become the world's biggest trading nation in goods, ending ending the post-war dominance of the US, according to official figures.China's customs administration said the combined total for imports and exports in Chinese goods reached $3.87tn (lb2.4tn) in 2012, edging past the $3.82tn trade in goods registed by the US commerce department.The landmark total for Chinese trade indicates the extent of Beijing's dependence on the rest of the world to generate jobs and income compared with a US economy that remains twice the size, and more self-contained. The US economy is worth $15tn compared with the $7.3tn Chinese economy.The US not only has a large internal market for goods, but also dominates the trade in services. US total trade amounted to $4.93tn in 2012, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) with a surplus of $195.3bn.But like most western nations, the US deficit in the trade of goods weighs heavily and is only expected to get larger. The deficit in goods was more than $700bn compared with China's 2012 trade surplus, measured in goods, which totalled $231.1bn. Jim O'Neill, head of asset management at Goldman Sachs, said the huge market for western goods would disrupt regional trading blocs as China becomes the most important commercial partner for some countries. Germany may export twice as much to China by the end of the decade as it does to France, he told Bloomberg."For so many countries around the world, China is becoming rapidly the most important bilateral trade partner," he said. "At this kind of pace by the end of the decade many European countries will be doing more individual trade with China than with bilateral partners in Europe." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b7c_1360604613 allyssa China overtakes US in world trade trade, China, USA, Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:01:43 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3c4_1352267785 allyssa Losses for Republican duo who made off-hand remarks on rape and abortion destroy GOP hopes of taking control of the Senate Karen McVeigh guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 November 2012 04.42 GMT Todd Akin's remarks on 'legitimate rape' caused widespread offence among Republicans and Democrats. Photograph: Sarah Conard/Reuters Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidates who made off-the-cuff remarks about rape and abortion, have both been defeated, destroying their party's hopes of taking control of the Senate. Akin, who lost to incumbent Claire McCaskill in Missouri , was abandoned by his party after he made his notorious "legitimate rape" comments in August. The six-term congressman from suburban St Louis and a staunch pro-lifer, told a television interviewer who asked about his abortion stance: "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."Until that point, McCaskill was considered one of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent senators because of her links to Barack Obama in a state that has leaned heavily to the right in recent national elections.Immediately after the result was called on Tuesday night, Jason Whitman, the GOP chairman, expressed his frustration at Akin in a tweet, which read: I just want to say a quick thank you to @ToddAkin for helping us lose the senate"Akin's remarks, at odds with basic biology as well as introducing the notion that rape was a crime on a sliding scale, caused widespread offence among Republicans and Democrats alike.In Indiana , Mourdock, a Tea Party favourite who beat veteran incumbent Richard Lugar in the Republican primary, was initially tipped to win in the state, but he too lost ground after overstepping the line when talking about abortion and rape. He said that pregnancy resulting from rape is "something that God intended to happen."The Republican party, who believed it would be impossible for Akin to beat McCaskill after the controversy, withdrew campaign funding and leaders, including Mitt Romney and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell called on him to step down in time for the party to name a replacement. Missouri has long been considered to be an important seat for Republicans if they are to win the Senate.But Akin refused and, with a band of mostly Christian conservative supporters, portrayed himself as an anti-establishment figure.When the national Republican senatorial committee and Crossroads for America, an influential Super Pac, withdrew funding, Akin began an online campaign for donations and found support from prominent Republicans, including former presidential candidates Newt Gingrich. Mick Huckabee and Rick Santorum.Akin's campaign concentrated on McCaskill's close ties with Obama, her support of the healthcare law and the 2009 fiscal stimulus and her family's links to federal money. McCaskill featured video clips of Akin expressing opposition to the federal minimum wage and to the federal government's role in issuing student loans, which he had cited as an example of how the government suffers from "the equivalent of stage three cancer of socialism."In Indiana, the incumbent, Richard Lugar, had 87% of the vote when he won his sixth term in 2006, but he lost the seat he had held for almost four decades in a primary challenge earlier this year to Mourdock, the State Treasurer and a Tea Party favourite.Mourdock began the contest with momentum from his win over Lugar, but he slipped in the polls after he said he did not support a woman's right to abortion in the case of rape. He was also damaged by Lugar's refusal to involve himself in the campaign."I believe that life begins at conception," Lugar said, in a televised debate with Donnolly in October. "The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God - that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."His comments, attracted widespread criticism from both sides, including President Barack Obama and prominent Republicans. Mitt Romney distanced himself from Mourdock's comments but did not withdraw his endorsement of him.Mourdock stood by his comments, apologising only for people misinterpreting them. But the most recent polls this week and last showed his opponent gaining ground.Donnelly, who ran unopposed in the Democratic primary, also holds conservative views on abortion. He supports legal abortion only in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3c4_1352267785 allyssa Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock fall to Senate defeats misogyny, tea party, religious nutjobs, GOP lose, USA elections Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:18:01 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20f_1352146273 allyssa Polls suggest Republicans will be punished for conservative views on rape and abortion and fail to overturn 53-47 deficit Ewen MacAskill in Washington guardian.co.uk, Monday 5 November 2012 07.00 GMT The Tea Party-backed Richard Mourdock is suffering from his comment that pregnancy from rape was 'something God intended. Democrats are increasingly confident of retaining control of the Senate - achieving a target that looked all but beyond them earlier this year - with polls suggesting the Republicans will be punished for their conservative views on rape and abortion. The Republicans had been expecting to overturn the Democrats' slim 53-47 majority, adding the Senate to the already Republican-controlled House, providing them with a powerful base to challenge Barack Obama or support a Mitt Romney presidency.But these hopes have receded. One of the biggest blows is in Indiana, a state the Republicans have held since1976. The latest poll shows the Republican Richard Mourdock trailing 11 points behind Democrat Joe Donnelly. The Tea Party-backed Mourdock is suffering from his comment that pregnancy from rape was "something God intended".A senior Republican, former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, admitted on Sunday that the Grand Old Party was unlikely to take the Senate. Interviewed on CNN, he predicted it would be close. Pushed on what he meant by this, he went further: "Means no cigar." Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/05/democrats-confident-republican-hopes-senate http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20f_1352146273 allyssa Democrats confident of wrecking Republican hopes of recapturing Senate Mourdock, Tea party, Religious nutjobs, GOP view on rape, OBAMA WINS Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:45:35 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=06c_1351949915 allyssa Too many of us buy into the myth of US democracy. In fact, the 'secret ballot' could use of dose of daylight and transparency. Naomi Wolf guardian.co.uk, Saturday 3 November 2012 12.00 GMT When I went to vote last week in New York City, using an absentee ballot (because I will be out of the country on election day), I had a surreal experience that was also very ordinary: I marked my ballot - put it, as advised by the nice man behind the counter, into a sealed envelope, handed it to him and ... nothing.That is, he looked at me quizzically as I waited. For what? I realized that in every transaction I ever had with the government, I get some kind of receipt or documentation. But I had just handed over my most precious possession, my vote, and I had nothing to show for it. No scrap of paper noting for the record what I had done, and no way to verify that what I wished to do got recorded accurately.The fellow offered, when I expressed some wish for something like this, to use my phone camera to take a picture of me holding the sealed envelope - for proof I had voted. Seriously.We treat the black hole where our votes vanish as if we don't dare to validate them partly because the process is so highly mystified. One aspect of this mystification, which gatekeepers use effectively against us, is the glamour around the secret ballot. That noble "secrecy" is what keeps citizen groups from observing the vote count, demanding verification slips, and so on.The secret vote was, in its time, a great idea. Before the secret ballot was popularized, it was standard practice to intimidate and threaten voters. But few know that America hasn't always had secret ballots. Indeed, the secret ballot didn't even originate in the US - the system we use is known, actually, as the "Australian ballot".The majority of US states did not move to that system - in which publicly-provided, printed ballots with the names of the candidates are marked in secret - until after 1884. Until 1891, indeed, Kentucky still held an "oral ballot"; and it wasn't till the election of President Grover Cleveland in 1892 that the first US president was elected entirely via secret ballot. Why do I point this out? Because our mystification of the secret ballot is one of the strange ways in which we treat our nation's voting system with truly weird magical thinking - much like the magical thinking (about which I have written here) that often attends global warming: a defiant, seven-year-old's refusal to connect point A and point B. By now, reams of solid reporting have documented the aberrations, high jinks, missing hard drives, voting machines that weirdly revert to one candidate, voting machines owned by friends of the candidate of one party, and other aspects of systematic corruption that attend America's voting.The dogged and deeply patriotic Mark Crispin Miller has meticulously documented masses more of these examples - notably in the last election in Ohio - in his masterful Harper's essay last month, "None Dare Call It Stolen." But this is what is weird about the way we are asked to think about the vote: as if nothing could ever ever ever go wrong with it, and as if it is crazy to entertain the notion that it might. To even raise the issue, with solid documentation, as many reporters and citizens have found out, is to risk immediate mockery - as Miller notes, citing 2004 headlines: "Election Paranoia Surfaces: Conspiracy Theorists Call Results Rigged," chuckled the Baltimore Sun on 5 November; "Internet Buzz on Vote Fraud is Dismissed," proclaimed the Boston Globe on 10 November; "Latest Conspiracy Theory - Kerry Won - Hits the Ether," the Washington Post chortled on 11 November. Meanwhile, solid reporting on the war on voting, and on the corruption of the voting infrastructure, continues to mount, as in the Rolling Stone piece this summer on the GOP's "war on voting" . and the Huffington Post notes the eyebrows raised when a pro-Romney company buys a stake in the company that makes the machines that count our votes.Well, as a student of closing societies, I can tell you that it is crazy to ask Americans to have pure faith that the system is incorruptible, and to ask them to just drop their votes into a black hole and trust in the Lord - or Diebold . If you look at weak democracies, the oligarchies that have taken undue control of them always seek to tamper with the vote. It is important for oligarchs to have elections to give their guy a veneer of legitimacy - and important for the vote always to turn out "their way". Indeed, something that is never reported in major news media here is that former President Carter's voting accountability organization sees America's system as relatively flawed and corrupted compared with the systems of many other nations. That is a situation that would typically bring observers from aid organizations like his to our polling places to help us count our vote. (See what happened to foreign poll observers in Miller's Harpers story who tried to watch the vote in America.)Here is my modest proposal: let us end the secret ballot, because we have reached a point, with the internet, in which transparency and accountability is more important than absolute secrecy. Don't panic, because this is what I mean: your vote won't be publicly available, but why can't I get a number when I hand in my ballot, or when I vote in a machine - just as I do with bloodwork, or computer passwords, or other transactions in which I get accountability, but not disclosure of my actual name? Then, the votes get tallied and posted - with their corresponding numbers - online on a public site, and major media reproduce the lists. And I can check my number (unidentifiable to anyone else) to check whether my vote was correctly registered.This would allow, in one sweep, all citizens to watch the watchers. It does not compel anyone to reveal his or her vote - but gives him or her the option of challenging a discrepancy, and the means to verify what he or she had actually intended to do. And in one easy, inexpensive, technically feasible gesture, it takes the power away from the Diebold-type private corporations and the various parties and the officials, and allows actual verification that cannot be spun or falsified. Most importantly, it removes a psychological blinder, which the American people are asked to wear every two and four years - the blinder that infantilizes us, that has highly interested individuals and groups say to us, "we are impartial, this is a magically noble and incorruptible process: trust us."As President Ronald Reagan put it in another context: sure - trust, but verify . http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=06c_1351949915 allyssa A cure for America's corruptible voting system Election, US DEMOCRACY, Vote, Obama Wed, 13 Jun 2012 04:48:56 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=42e_1339577083 allyssa http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/very-graphic-picture-miami-zombie-victim-ronald-poppo Submitted by Michael Allen on Jun 12, 2012 In Miami, Florida, Jackson Memorial Hospital doctors have released a very graphic photograph of Ronald Poppo, more than two weeks after much of his face was chewed off during a 'zombie attack' attack by Rudy Eugene, who was shot and killed by police. Doctors told reporters Tuesday that Poppo is awake and alert. They also showed a photograph of Poppo walking down a hospital hallway (left), reports CBS News. The graphic photo below shows the upper two-thirds of Poppo's face covered in thick scabs. He's missing his nose and both eye sockets are covered, one with gauze and one with a skin graft. His left eye is gone, gouged out during the attack, but his right eye is still there. Doctors hope he will have a little vision left. Doctors said that 50 percent of Poppo's face was chewed off, and not 75 percent as previously reported. The Jackson Memorial Foundation has set up a fund to assist Poppo. So far they've raised $15,000. Anyone can make a donation through the Jackson Memorial Foundation web site jmf.org . http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=42e_1339577083 allyssa Very Graphic Picture: Miami Zombie Victim Ronald Poppo Miami, Zombie, Victim, Ronald Poppo Sat, 26 May 2012 13:06:44 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=978_1338051628 allyssa Group Lotus chief executive Dany Bahar faces an investigation by parent company DRB-Hicom http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-18215542 The chief executive of Norfolk-based Lotus Group Dany Bahar has been suspended by the Malaysian parent company DRB-Hicom. BBC Look East business correspondent Richard Bond said Mr Bahar was suspended for an investigation of a complaint against him by DRB which bought Lotus in January. "DRB are now reviewing whether to keep it or sell it," Bond said. He said the move added to uncertainty about the future of Lotus. Mr Bahar, who joined Lotus in September 2009, helped to win lb10.7m from the government's Regional Growth Fund and unveiled five new cars at the Paris motor show in October last year. DRB-Hicom gained control of Lotus Group's previous owner Proton Cars. Uncertainty has followed speculation in the industry that the company was going into administration or would be sold to a Chinese firm. South Norfolk Conservative MP Richard Bacon said in Parliament consultancy firm KPMG had been hired to sell Lotus and he asked the new owner to clarify the future of the plant at Hethel, south of Norwich. Lotus Group said it disputed "lots of the facts" presented by Mr Bacon. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=978_1338051628 allyssa Lotus owners suspend chief Bahar over complaint Lotus Mon, 21 May 2012 06:04:21 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8dc_1337594230 allyssa Nato summit leaders should have been forced to watch the moving protest of the former troops chucking their medals away. Bernard Harcourt guardian.co.uk , Monday 21 May 2012 09.35 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/21/us-war-veterans-medals-nato-heroic-act Nato summit leaders 'were busy posing for photo ops' as war veterans staged protest. Photograph: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images. "No amount of medals, ribbons, or flags can cover the amount of human suffering caused by this war." "I have only one word, and it is shame." "This is for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan." "Mostly, I'm sorry. I'm sorry to all of you. I am sorry..." In the shadow of the Nato summit , under the watchful eyes of a phalanx of full-black-clad riot police, dozens of former servicemen and women in uniform, veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, threw away their medals, with apologies. It was one of the most moving experiences many of us had witnessed in our lives. It is hard to describe in words. I couldn't get the lump out of my throat. Out of the corner of my eye, I caught a woman next to me crying. Their words, their voices, crackling under the emotion of their courageous act, breaking under the weight of the pain, the trauma, their anger, sadness, and hope - theirs was a heroic and beautiful act, a moving ceremony. It was a privilege to be there with these women and men who served in our wars.Operation Iraqi Freedom medal. Tossed. Global War on Terror medal. Thrown. National Defense medal. Pitched. Marine Corps Good Conduct medal. Flung. Navy and Marine Corps medal. Chucked.Most of the reporting of the demonstrations that met the summit will focus on the minor violence, on the few clashes between protesters and police, on the blood, on everything that happened after the peaceful march was over. In our sad world of spectacle, the pushing and shoving will be all that gets our attention. It is a pity.Because what was truly remarkable today was the American servicewomen and men tossing their medals back at Nato. In a mixture of sadness, shame, anger, and pride, of trauma, sorrow, and pain, some looking back at their time in Iraq and Afghanistan, some healing from PTSD, others chanting Occupy slogans, these men and women showed a type of courage that the Nato leaders should have been forced to watch. Tragically, our leaders were busy posing for photo ops. They should have been forced to listen to these courageous men and women , to their veterans. It is their loss, ultimately.Many of these men and women urged us to do something to set straight the havoc that we have wreaked in these various occupations. Some mentioned a memorial for the tens of thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan or more than 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq. Others offered their apologies. Still others shared their pain, their torments, their nightmares. All of them spoke truth. Perhaps that was their greatest gift of peace.If only the Nato leaders had listened. These courageous women and men, these veterans brought to a close a remarkably peaceful anti-Nato march with more than 10,000 protesters - supported by so many more who chanted with them along the route."I am returning my medal today because I want to live by my conscience, rather than be a prisoner of it." "I apologise to the Iraqi and Afghani people for destroying your countries." "I don't want these anymore." o Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8dc_1337594230 allyssa US war veterans tossing medals back at Nato was a heroic act US, war veterans, tossing medals, Afghanistan Thu, 17 May 2012 13:54:30 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=719_1337276830 allyssa One brave judge is all that lay between us and a law that would have given the president power to detain US citizens indefinitely. Naomi Wolf guardian.co.uk , Thursday 17 May 2012 18.19 BST Activist and reporter Tangerine Bolen, a plaintiff in the case against the NDAA, speaking to the media after a New York judge enjoined section 1021 of the law. Photograph via Fromthetrenchesworldreport On Wednesday 16 May, at about 4pm, the republic of the United States of America was drawn back - at least for now - from a precipice that would have plunged our country into moral darkness. One brave and principled newly-appointed judge ruled against a law that would have brought the legal powers of the authorities of Guant'anamo home to our own courthouses, streets and backyards. US district judge Katherine Forrest, in New York City's eastern district, found that section 1021 - the key section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) - which had been rushed into law amid secrecy and in haste on New Year's Eve 2011, bestowing on any president the power to detain US citizens indefinitely, without charge or trial, "facially unconstitutional" . Forrest concluded that the law does indeed have, as the journalists and peaceful activists who brought the lawsuit against the president and Leon Panetta have argued, a "chilling impact on first amendment rights". Her ruling enjoins that section of the NDAA from becoming law . In her written opinion , the judge noted that she had been persuaded by what the lead plaintiffs - who include Pulitzer prize-winner Chris Hedges of the Nation Institute, editor Jennifer Bolen of RevolutionTruth , Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, co-founder of Occupy London Kai Wargalla, Days of Rage editor Alexa O'Brien, and the Icelandic parliamentarian and WikiLeaks activist Birgitta J'onsd'ottir - had argued. In their testimonies (in court and by affidavit), these plaintiffs compiled a persuasive case that they had "standing" to sue because it was reasonable for them to worry that they could conceivably could be detained indefinitely under the section 1021 law because their work requires them to have contact with sources the US government might assert were "terrorists" or "associated forces" of al-Qaida .The key claim made by the plaintiffs - of which Judge Forrest was persuaded - was that the language in section 1021 is so vague that it could sweep up anyone. The law fails to define or specify what "associated forces" or the concept of "substantial support" actually mean.I attended the hearing as a journalist supporting the plaintiffs, providing by affidavit examples from my own experience of how the NDAA's section 1021 had already affected my reporting. (Princeton professor Dr Cornel West and I are also standing by to become plaintiffs, if called upon, in the next round.) I was also there to read in court Birgitta J'onsd'ottir's disturbing testimony: she had been advised by her own government not to attend the hearing in person because the US government would not give Iceland a written assurance that it would not detain her under the NDAA if she did so. US federal agents have already confiscated her Twitter account and personal bank records.The back-and-forth between Judge Forrest and Obama administration 's lawyers that goes to the heart of the judge's ruling was stunning to behold. Forrest asked frepeatedly, in a variety of different ways, for the government attorneys to give her some, any assurance that the wording of section 1021 could not be used to arrest and detain people like the plaintiffs. Finally she asked for assurance that it could not be used to sweep up a hypothetical peaceful best-selling nonfiction writer who had written a hypothetical book criticizing US foreign policy, along lines theater the Taliban might agree with. Again and again (the transcript from my notes is here ), the two lawyers said directly that they could not, or would not, give her those assurances. In other words, this back-and-forth confirmed what people such as Glenn Greenwald, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the ACLU and others have been shouting about since January: the section was knowingly written in order to give the president these powers; and his lawyers were sent into that courtroom precisely to defeat the effort to challenge them. Forrest concluded:"At the hearing on this motion, the government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under 1021. Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years."The government's assertions become even more hellishly farcical. Forrest further observed: "An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so. In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more."This upholding of the US constitution and the rule of law is a triumphant moment, but a fragile one: Judge Forrest has asked Congress to clarify the language protecting America's right to trial and the first amendment's protections on speech and assembly. And now, Thursday, Representatives Adam Smith (Democrat, Washington) and Justin Amash (Republican, Michigan) have presented an amendment to Congress an amendment that does just that . Those who vote against it therefore will be voting clearly, and without any ambiguity, for stripping Americans of their constitutional rights and reducing them to the same potential status as "enemy combatants" and Guant'anamo prisoners. The House thus votes for or against the power handed to the executive by the NDAA to hold any of us, anywhere, forever, for no reason. There can be no hiding from this; the lawyers defending the administration's position made that perfectly clear.What truly disturbed me in that courtroom was the terrible fragility of all the checks to power that are supposed to be in place to protect us against such assaults on democracy. Many senators, including my own, Chuck Schumer, had sent out letters to their own worried constituents flat-out denying our fears about what section 1021 does. No major news media organisations attended the original hearing (except Paul Harris of the Guardian and Observer). The trial and the NDAA itself have been so inadequately reported by mainstream outlets that I keep running into senior editors and lawyers who have never heard of it . I recently cornered one southern Democratic senator at an event and asked him why he had voted to pass the NDAA. He asked what my objection was."It allows the president to detain Americans without charge or trial," I pointed out. His aides had assured him this was not the case, he replied. "Have you read the bill?" I asked. "It's 1,600 pages," he replied.This darkness is so dangerous not least because a new Department of Homeland Security document trove, released in response to a FOIA request filed by Michael Moore and the National Lawyers' Guild, proves in exhaustive detail that the DHS and its "fusion centers" coordinated with local police ( as I argued here, to initial disbelief ), the violent crackdown against Occupy last fall. You have to put these pieces of evidence together: the government cannot be trusted with powers to detain indefinitely any US citizen - even though Obama promised he would not misuse these powers - because the United States government is already coordinating a surveillance and policing war against its citizens, designed to suppress their peaceful assembly and criticism of its corporate allies. The lawyers for the government have endless funds (our tax dollars); the plaintiffs' lawyers all worked pro bono; the plaintiffs themselves paid their own way to make their case. Yet, by these slender means, what was essentially a coup in two paragraphs has been blocked from advancing under cover of ignorance and silence to becoming the supreme law of the land. But should our democracy hang by such a tenuous thread that it relies on the sheer luck that this case was heard by a courageous judge with a settled belief in the constitution of the United States? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=719_1337276830 allyssa The NDAA's section 1021 coup d'etat foiled Complicated, legal, stuff, 1st amendment, human rights, freedom,don't, read, if, your, GOP, or, T Party, - too, confusing for, you Sat, 05 May 2012 15:50:04 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bc_1336246940 allyssa Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others appear before military court facing 2,976 charges of murder over 9/11 terror attacks. Chris McGreal at Fort Meade Follow @chrismcgreal http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/05/9-11-suspects-guantanamo-trial Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been accused of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty for the accused. The self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , and four other accused terrorists disrupted the first stage of their trial on charges of terrorism and mass murder at a Guant'anamo Bay military court on Saturday by refusing to acknowledge the judge. The men, one of whom was brought to the arraignment hearing strapped to a restraining chair after refusing to attend, dropped their previous insistence on pleading guilty and demanding to be executed in favour of refusing to answer the judge's questions as their lawyers repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of the court.Mohammed's lawyer attempted to raise the issue of torture, saying that "the world is watching" after the US government admitted to waterboarding the accused terrorist 183 times. But the military judge refused to permit discussion.Another defence lawyer, James Connell, called the military court a "blight on America's international reputation and her commitment to the rule of law."Mohammed and his co-accused - Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi and Walid bin Attash - face charges of 2,976 counts of murder for each of the victims who died on 9/11, as well as accusations of terrorism, hijacking, conspiracy and destruction of property.The prosecution is seeking the death penalty for all of the men. At a similar hearing in 2008, Mohammed mocked the court and tried to plead guilty, saying he wanted to be put to death as a martyr, but the US supreme court later struck down the rules of evidence and the trial was called off. He has also previously compared himself to George Washington and demanded to be treated as a combatant, not a terrorist.But defence lawyers on Saturday suggested that the accused men would this time choose not to plead. Instead, in their first public appearance in more than three years, they refused to participate in the occasionally chaotic one-day hearing.Early in the proceedings, the accused removed their headphones. Mohammed's lawyer, David Nevin, said it was because of his treatment while in detention. "The reason he's not putting the headphones in his ears is because of the torture imposed on him," he said. Nevin asked to be allowed to elaborate but the judge, Colonel James Pohl, refused to let him. Pohl said that if the men refused to participate in proceedings then in due course a plea of not guilty would be entered on their behalf."One cannot choose not to participate and frustrate the normal course of business," he said. The issue of torture has badly tainted the military tribunal, which is the second attempt to put the men on trial after the US supreme court blocked an earlier trial over protection of the accused's rights.The chief military prosecutor, Brigadier-General Mark Martins, urged critics to give the tribunal a chance. "I'm confident that this court can achieve justice and fairness," he said. "This is a system worthy of the nation's confidence." The accused men generally sat quietly, dressed entirely in white clothes and turbans they were required to wear by their military jailers. But one of them, Bin al-Shibh, interrupted proceedings by shouting, comparing the Guant'anamo prison to life under the former Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi."Era of Gaddafi is over, but you have Gaddafi in (Guant'anamo) camp. Maybe they are going to kill us and say that we are committing suicide," he said.Most of the disruption, albeit procedural, came from the defence lawyers, who conducted what appeared to be a coordinated challenge to the credibility of the court.Nevin repeatedly tried to bring up the issue of the torture of Mohammed's torture while he was in CIA custody. Then the lawyers raised a slew of issues as they were asked to take the oath to represent their clients.One said he could not take such an oath and would only swear to do his best because of the severe restrictions on access to the accused, including having what he said should be confidential conversations monitored by the military.Anything the accused men say to their lawyer can be used by the prosecution in court. Another lawyer protested at the lack of a translator to be able to talk to his client.The judge came back that if they lawyers didn't swear, then they could not be counsel in the case. "It's like being pregnant - you either take the oath or you don't," he said. The only female defence lawyer, Cheryl Bormann, asked the judge to order female members of prosecution to cover themselves up "so that our clients are not forced to not look at the prosecution for fear of committing a sin under their faith". Bormann was wearing an abaya. Some of the women in court were wearing skirts. Relatives of those who died in the 9/11 attacks welcomed the fact that more than a decade later the organisers are finally to face justice. Among the relatives of the dead watching the proceedings at Guantanamo was Cliff Russell whose brother, a firefighter, was killed in the World Trade Center. "I wish the worst possible death for them," he said. "I'm not looking forward to ending someone else's life and taking satisfaction in it, but it's the most disgusting, hateful, awful thing I ever could think of if you think about what was perpetrated."Tara Henwood Butzbaugh, whose brother was working on the 105th floor of one of the towers when the planes hit, echoed the call. "Death," she said. "Nothing less." But Blake Allison, whose wife was on the first plane to hit the towers, said he was opposed to the death penalty for the accused men."It's not a productive or appropriate way to resolve something," he said. "It just perpetuates the idea of needing revenge." Defence lawyers promised a lengthy fight. "This is only the beginning of a trial that will take years to complete, followed by years of appellate review," said Connell. "I can't imagine any scenario where this thing gets wrapped up in six months." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bc_1336246940 allyssa 9/11 suspects refuse to answer judge's questions as Guant'anamo trial opens Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 9/11, trial, torture, Tue, 01 May 2012 16:57:55 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8be_1335905550 allyssa Some of the victims in Rochdale were forced to have sex with several men in a day, several times a week, trial heard. Abdul Rauf, Kabeer Hassan and Liaquat Shah, three of the 11 men on trial. A jury has retired to consider its verdicts in the trial of 11 men accused of being part of a child exploitation ring that allegedly groomed underage girls for sex by plying them with alcohol and drugs.Liverpool crown court heard that five teenagers were "shared" by the defendants, with some forced to have sex with "several men in a day, several times a week".The men allegedly gave the victims, who were as young as 13, junk food, alcohol and drugs so they could "pass them around" and use them for sex, the nine-week trial heard.The alleged offences are said to have taken place in and around Rochdale, Greater Manchester, in 2008 and 2009 at times when the girls were so incapacitated by drugs or drink that they were incapable of having any control over whether or with whom they had sex.One 13-year-old girl became pregnant by one of the defendants, Adil Khan, and had a termination, the court was told. Despite DNA proof that he was the father, he denied knowing the girl.Another teenager recalled being raped by two men while she was "so drunk she was vomiting over the side of the bed". The court heard that one defendant allegedly told a 15-year-old girl from whom he wanted sex: "It's part of the deal because I bought you vodka, you have to give me something."At the opening of the trial, Rachel Smith, prosecuting, told the jury: "Some of you may find what you are about to hear distressing. The events and circumstances described by the girls are at best saddening and at worst shocking in places. No child should be exploited as these girls say they were."Kabeer Hassan, 25, Abdul Aziz, 41, Abdul Rauf, 43, Mohammed Sajid, 35, Adil Khan, 42, Abdul Qayyum, 43, Mohammed Amin, 44, Qamar Shahzad, 29, Liaquat Shah, 41, Hamid Safi, 22, and a 59-year-old man who cannot be named for legal reasons all deny conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children under the age of 16.The 59-year-old also denies two rapes, aiding and abetting a rape, sexual assault and trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation. The other defendants, excluding Qayyum, are variously accused of rape, trafficking, sexual assault and sexual activity with a child, and deny all charges. The men are all from the Rochdale and Oldham areas.The girls would often spend their days "unsupervised by responsible adults", were not in school regularly and spent time around kebab shops late at night befriending staff who worked there, the court heard.Two of the men worked in the takeaways Tasty Bites and Balti House, both in Heywood, which are now under new management. Four others were taxi drivers, one was a student and four were unemployed. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8be_1335905550 allyssa Jury out in trial of 11 men accused of grooming young girls for sex muslim, paedophile, Rochdale, Grooming Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:26:05 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=441_1335712451 allyssa http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120429 Homophobic? Maybe You're Gay By RICHARD M. RYAN and WILLIAM S. RYAN WHY are political and religious figures who campaign against gay rights so often implicated in sexual encounters with same-sex partners? In recent years, Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader who preached that homosexuality was a sin, resigned after a scandal involving a former male prostitute; Larry Craig, a United States senator who opposed including sexual orientation in hate-crime legislation, was arrested on suspicion of lewd conduct in a men's bathroom; and Glenn Murphy Jr., a leader of the Young Republican National Convention and an opponent of same-sex marriage, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge after being accused of sexually assaulting another man. One theory is that homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can be expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a "reaction formation" - the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled. Even Mr. Haggard seemed to endorse this idea when, apologizing after his scandal for his anti-gay rhetoric, he said, "I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war." It's a compelling theory - and now there is scientific reason to believe it. In this month's issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we and our fellow researchers provide empirical evidence that homophobia can result, at least in part, from the suppression of same-sex desire. Our paper describes six studies conducted in the United States and Germany involving 784 university students. Participants rated their sexual orientation on a 10-point scale, ranging from gay to straight. Then they took a computer-administered test designed to measure their implicit sexual orientation. In the test, the participants were shown images and words indicative of hetero- and homosexuality (pictures of same-sex and straight couples, words like "homosexual" and "gay") and were asked to sort them into the appropriate category, gay or straight, as quickly as possible. The computer measured their reaction times. The twist was that before each word and image appeared, the word "me" or "other" was flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds - long enough for participants to subliminally process the word but short enough that they could not consciously see it. The theory here, known as semantic association, is that when "me" precedes words or images that reflect your sexual orientation (for example, heterosexual images for a straight person), you will sort these images into the correct category faster than when "me" precedes words or images that are incongruent with your sexual orientation (for example, homosexual images for a straight person). This technique, adapted from similar tests used to assess attitudes like subconscious racial bias, reliably distinguishes between self-identified straight individuals and those who self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Using this methodology we identified a subgroup of participants who, despite self-identifying as highly straight, indicated some level of same-sex attraction (that is, they associated "me" with gay-related words and pictures faster than they associated "me" with straight-related words and pictures). Over 20 percent of self-described highly straight individuals showed this discrepancy. Notably, these "discrepant" individuals were also significantly more likely than other participants to favor anti-gay policies; to be willing to assign significantly harsher punishments to perpetrators of petty crimes if they were presumed to be homosexual; and to express greater implicit hostility toward gay subjects (also measured with the help of subliminal priming). Thus our research suggests that some who oppose homosexuality do tacitly harbor same-sex attraction. What leads to this repression? We found that participants who reported having supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation and less susceptible to homophobia. Individuals whose sexual identity was at odds with their implicit sexual attraction were much more frequently raised by parents perceived to be controlling, less accepting and more prejudiced against homosexuals. It's important to stress the obvious: Not all those who campaign against gay men and lesbians secretly feel same-sex attractions. But at least some who oppose homosexuality are likely to be individuals struggling against parts of themselves, having themselves been victims of oppression and lack of acceptance. The costs are great, not only for the targets of anti-gay efforts but also often for the perpetrators. We would do well to remember that all involved deserve our compassion. Richard M. Ryan is a professor of psychology, psychiatry and education at the University of Rochester. William S. Ryan is a doctoral student in psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=441_1335712451 allyssa Homophobic? Maybe You're Gay.. ny times, homophobia, Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:45:04 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e10_1334842728 allyssa http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17766713 Three men have been jailed for life for a shooting in a south London shop which left a five-year-old girl paralysed. Thusha Kamaleswaran was shot in the chest and Roshan Selvakumar, 35, was also shot in Brixton, last March. Nathaniel Grant, Kazeem Kolawole and Anthony McCalla were convicted of causing both victims grievous bodily harm with intent and attempted murder of rival gang member Roshaun Bryan. Grant was told he would serve at least 17 years and Kolawole and McCalla 14. Judge Martin Stephens QC said the crimes were "of the utmost gravity", adding: "Not one of you has, in my judgment, shown a sliver of remorse." Last month's Old Bailey trial heard the three cycled up to Stockwell Food and Wine and Grant opened fire. 'Terrible deeds' A bullet hit Thusha in the chest and passed through the seventh vertebra of her spine, leaving her paralysed. The court heard the gunmen were trying to shoot Mr Bryan when Thusha and Mr Selvakumar got caught in the crossfire. The girl, now six, went into cardiac arrest twice in the wake of the shooting and had to undergo emergency surgery both in the shop and at hospital to keep her alive. She has only recently been discharged from hospital. Mr Selvakumar was hit in the head but survived with a piece of bullet remaining in his head. Judge Stephens said the trio posed "a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm in the future". 'Attack on society' "You, Grant, were the gunman and the other two your fully supportive lieutenants backing up all your actions to the hilt and giving you the support and encouragement to carry out these terrible deeds," he added."Shooting into a shop, a confined space where it was known there were people present, is an attack on society itself by men who saw themselves as outside the law and above the law." He said the convictions would not have been possible without CCTV and he hoped Thusha could go on to lead as full a life as possible. Thusha's mother mother Sharmila Kamaleswaran said in a victim impact statement that seeing her daughter, who dreamed of being a dancer, in a hospital bed "took my heart away". Det Supt Gordon Allison said the only time the men had apologised or shown any remorse was when they were seeking to reduce their prison sentences. He added: "The images of Thusha dancing happily in Stockwell Food and Wine are images that many of us will struggle to erase from our memories. "Today, McCalla, Kolawole and Grant will have many years in prison to reflect on the damage they caused to an innocent five-year-old girl and her family but also Roshan and the community that is London as a whole." A team of detectives who investigated the case will take on the Three Peaks Challenge in September to raise money for the vital care and equipment Thusha now requires. They have already raised more than lb130,000. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e10_1334842728 allyssa Men jailed for life for Thusha Kamaleswaran shop shooting Thusha Kamaleswaran, London,