Home | Community | Message Board


Avalon Magic Plants
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion >> Drug Policy Reform

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineLSDempire
LibertarianEnforcer
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Do you support the war on drugs?
    #4483450 - 08/02/05 12:59 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Do you support the war on drugs?
Do you support the war on drugs?
You may choose only one
Yes
No


Votes accepted from (08/02/05 12:59 AM) to (No end specified)
View the results of this poll



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLSDempire
LibertarianEnforcer
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: LSDempire]
    #4483455 - 08/02/05 01:00 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: LSDempire]
    #4483457 - 08/02/05 01:00 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

wtf?
seriously?
You may choose only one
duh


Votes accepted from (08/02/05 01:00 AM) to (No end specified)
View the results of this poll



--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLSDempire
LibertarianEnforcer
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: LSDempire]
    #4483470 - 08/02/05 01:02 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

How Washington Funded the Taliban
by Ted Galen Carpenter Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 7:21 PM



The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.

When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001, U.S. officials were most complimentary. James P. Callahan, director of Asian Affairs for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged accounts of Afghan farmers that "the Taliban used a system of consensus-building" to develop and carry out the edict. That characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the U.S. response. "That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising," Sheer noted, but he considered it "grotesque" for a U.S. official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in such benign terms.

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

To make matters worse, U.S. officials were naive to take the Taliban edict at face value. The much-touted crackdown on opium poppy cultivation appears to have been little more than an illusion. Despite U.S. and UN reports that the Taliban had virtually wiped out the poppy crop in 2000-2001, authorities in neighboring Tajikistan reported that the amounts coming across the border were actually increasing. In reality, the Taliban gave its order to halt cultivation merely to drive up the price of opium the regime had already stockpiled.

Even if the Taliban had tried to stem cultivation for honest reasons, U.S. cooperation with that regime should have been morally repugnant. Among other outrages, the Taliban government prohibited the education of girls, tortured and executed political critics, and required non-Muslims to wear distinctive clothing--a practice eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany's requirement that Jews display the Star of David on their clothing. Yet U.S. officials deemed none of that to be a bar to cooperation with the Taliban on drug policy.

Even if the Bush administration had not been dissuaded by moral considerations, it should have been by purely pragmatic concerns. There was already ample evidence in the spring of 2001 that the Taliban was giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network that had bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa. For the State Department to ignore that connection and agree to subsidize the Taliban was inexcusably obtuse. Scheer was on the mark when he concluded, "The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns."

Washington's approach came to an especially calamitous end in September 2001 when the Taliban regime was linked to bin Laden's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed some 3,000 people. Moreover, evidence quickly emerged that the Taliban all along had been collecting millions of dollars in profits from the illicit drug trade, with much of that money going into the coffers of the terrorists. Rarely is there such graphic evidence of the bankruptcy of U.S. drug policy


www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html
_________________
If you support the war on drugs you support torture! Anyone that supports the war on drugs is a sadist that does not deserve to live, they should never control the governments of any nations.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLSDempire
LibertarianEnforcer
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: LSDempire]
    #4483475 - 08/02/05 01:03 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLSDempire
LibertarianEnforcer
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: LSDempire]
    #4483487 - 08/02/05 01:04 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Saudi Arabian Justice - Torturing and Beheading Drug Trafficers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- Three Saudi security guards were beheaded Sunday in northern Saudi Arabia after being convicted of trafficking in hashish and using government vehicles to transport the drug, the Interior Ministry said.

Khamis bin Mabrouk al-Sayeri, Nasser bin Mohammed al-Fahadi and Zidan al-Oqaili al-Anzi were arrested loading an undisclosed amount of hashish into vehicles belonging to Saudi border guards, officials said....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html
http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13603
_________________
If you support the war on drugs you support torture! Anyone that supports the war on drugs is a sadist that does not deserve to live, they should never control the governments of any nations.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLSDempire
LibertarianEnforcer
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: LSDempire]
    #4483495 - 08/02/05 01:05 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 5 years, 15 days
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: LSDempire]
    #4483583 - 08/02/05 01:24 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

I voted for "duh", and I am proud to admit it.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLSDempire
LibertarianEnforcer
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4483633 - 08/02/05 01:34 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

The sad part is one person voted for "yes"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLSDempire
LibertarianEnforcer
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: LSDempire]
    #4483650 - 08/02/05 01:36 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

My point is there is no popular support for the war on drugs. Any true democracy would not have supported the war on drugs to begin with.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLSDempire
LibertarianEnforcer
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: LSDempire]
    #4483666 - 08/02/05 01:42 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Zhou Jianxiong, a 30 year-old agricultural worker from Chunhua township in Hunan province, died under torture on 15 May 1998. Detained on 13 May, he was tortured by officials from the township birth control office to make him reveal the whereabouts of his wife, suspected of being pregnant without permission. Zhou was hung upside down, repeatedly whipped and beaten with wooden clubs, burned with cigarette butts, branded with soldering irons, and had his genitals ripped off. (1)

This horrific case of abuse is not an isolated case. Every year many people die due to torture in China. Others survive the torture but continue to suffer the long-term effects of the physical and mental traumas they have endured.

Torture and ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners is widespread and systemic in China. Such abuses have been reported in the full range of state institutions, from police stations, detention centres, prisons, to administrative ''re-education through labour'' camps, internal migrant ''custody and repatriation centres'', and enforced drug rehabilitation centres. Torture is also frequently reported as an integral part of the abuse of ''non-custodial'' control measures such as ''residential supervision'' and during ''special isolation'' of officials during investigations into allegations of corruption.

These abuses do not only occur behind closed doors. They have often been perpetrated by officials in the course of their normal duties in full public view, and sometimes as a deliberate public humiliation and warning to others. They are perpetrated by a growing range of officials outside the criminal justice system, including family planning officials and tax collectors.

Chinese law punishes torture and ill-treatment as a crime in some specific circumstances only. Many perpetrators acting in an official capacity, such as part-time, contracted or seconded security staff, are specifically excluded from prosecution for crimes of torture. In practice, even those who can be pursued for criminal responsibility under the law often escape prosecution or receive only light punishments.

In recent years, victims of torture have included many people who simply became involved in disputes with officials, questioning their authority or attempting to uphold their rights. Officials have resorted to torture in the collection of fines and taxes. Torture as part of blackmail and extortion by corrupt officials is also frequently reported. Migrant workers, particularly young women, are easy prey and frequent victims.

Reports of torture increase during periodic ''strike hard'' campaigns against specific crimes when police are clearly given the green light to use ''every means'' to achieve ''quick results''.

Torture and ill-treatment are prevalent during high profile political campaigns such as the crackdown on the banned Falun Gong organization. On the few occasions when officials have responded to the detailed testimonies provided by victims and their families, they have issued contradictory statements or absolute denials of wrongdoing. There is little indication that allegations have been thoroughly investigated. Such indifference may be interpreted as official acquiescence in torture and ill-treatment when it is undertaken during national priority campaigns. It calls into question the government's sincerity in the fight against torture. All citizens deserve and must be provided with protection against torture.

Torture during interrogation is perpetrated against all types of detainees, including high profile cases. Torture and ill-treatment is also common in prisons and labour camps where prisoners are serving criminal or ''administrative'' sentences. Forced labour and ''acknowledgment of guilt'' are central to penal policy, generating an environment where prisoners are often abused. Particularly harsh treatment is inflicted on common criminal prisoners and political prisoners who are deemed to be ''resisting reform''. Prison guards often delegate disciplinary duties to selected prisoners or ''cell bosses'' who are routinely responsible for abusing other prisoners, often at the direction of the guards.

In recent years, the Chinese media has played an increasingly important role in exposing cases of torture and ill-treatment. Some key newspapers no longer wait for an official investigation before reporting a story, and cases where victims and their families have been battling for years for justice against official obstruction and indifference have been resolved following media reporting. There is growing debate on the abuse of power by police, loopholes in citizens' legal protection, and the horrors of certain types of detention.

This report presents a representative cross section of the many hundreds of cases of torture in China monitored by Amnesty International in the last few years. It examines the reasons why torture continues in China, analysing the legal framework for the prosecution of crimes of torture and the protection of detainees, and describing inadequacies in law and practice. The report presents detailed recommendations about the reforms needed to eradicate torture, based on international standards.




2. PATTERNS OF TORTURE: PERPETRATORS, LOCATIONS AND VICTIMS

2.1) Torture ''To Coerce Confessions'' During Interrogation

''Torture to coerce confessions'' has reportedly been ''prohibited'' in China since 1958 and has been a criminal offence in some circumstances since 1979 (See Section 4.1 below).(2) Despite this, it remains commonplace. Torture to extract testimony from alleged witnesses or accomplices, is also frequently reported. The persistent use of torture to extract confessions or testimony has been the subject of commentaries in the Chinese legal press since the mid-1980s. Recent articles have condemned current official attitudes and institutionalized work practices which foster the use of torture.

On 4 June 2000, for example, following the sentencing to death of a policeman for torturing a suspect to death, the Legal Daily condemned the prevalence of torture and ill-treatment by officials in China, blaming existing systems for rewarding and promoting police and judicial officials, including the exclusive focus on 'cracking cases' at all costs. The article suggested that, in an era of rule by law, more appropriate indicators of official performance might: be how many injustices had been redressed or innocents released in a year. Extracts from this article are cited below [some parts are underlined by us in bold].

''Why have the phenomena of extracting confessions by torture and other illegal handling of cases repeatedly occurred during our country's initial phase of developing socialism ? This is more than just a chronic illness of history or the influence of legal culture, the real problem is that 'solving cases wins prizes, cracking cases earns merit, no matter what methods are used'. Some of our judicial and enforcement departments are permeated from top to bottom with this 'concept of perverting the law to gain reward'... For several years, the judicial and enforcement departments' systems for appraisal and conferring merits, promotion based on meritorious service, fixing targets solely on the cracking of cases, and the traditional methods of finding somebody to fit the crime (geiren zhizui) have undoubtedly been the greatest causes of abuse of the law and illegal administration of the law. When using cruel punishments, threats and bribes is the most effective way to extract confessions, and solving cases and gaining merits is the most effective shortcut to promotion and higher position. Then the key becomes simply to master the limits: to torture without killing, and to extract confessions without maiming the victims... Torture to extract confessions has not been limited to public security police enforcing the law but has sometimes spread to personnel in the state legal supervisory organs responsible for guaranteeing the lawful rights and interests of citizens. Not only do they use torture to fabricate false evidence and generate miscarriages of justice in their quest to distinguish themselves and receive merits, they do not overlook opportunities to make money from parties to cases either.
Every year, certain law enforcement organs use 'the number of cases resolved', 'the number of people detained' and 'the amount of property confiscated' to gain political advance through praise and commendation from their superiors, and the leaders of many units gain promotion this way. Therefore, what is required is the filing of a case, and whether during investigation or trial, all most probably veer towards pursuing a person's guilt at all costs. In recent years, in particular areas this has developed to a point where 'a case is filed first in the absence of a crime, and where there is no crime, one is still established'. Targeting this tendency, could we not turn things around and advocate using 'the number of unjust cases redressed', and 'the number of innocent people rescued' as the means of gaining political merit? Today, where it seems that perverting the law demonstrates more ability and secures more rewards, this unfortunately is another way of gaining awards - through defending the law.
Guogeli said: "Partiality in the execution of the law is the greatest misfortune in the world" When will those law enforcers who violate the law whilst enforcing it finally respect human life and the masses and not wantonly deprive people of the reputation and dignity that makes them human? This is a problem that everyone involved in law enforcement should consider. Resorting to establishing false cases and fabricating false evidence to entrap people and gain personal merit is the greatest tragedy of the era of rule by law. Those people who are clearly aware of injustices and deliberately, wantonly and perversely commit them, utterly devoid of conscience, are the greatest criminals of a society ruled by law, and if the people do not punish them, the gods certainly will.''


In December 2000, Hou Zongbin, chairman of the NPC Committee for Internal and Judicial Affairs, reported on the findings of National People's Congress (NPC) teams inspecting the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law in 12 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities. He acknowledged the extent and severity of the problems of torture to extract confessions, extended detention, and illegal interference by judges prosecutors and police undermining the work of defence lawyers. Torture to extract confessions ''is rather serious in certain places, causing terrible social consequences'' and must be ''conscientiously dealt with rather than tolerated'' he said. Lawyers ''have difficulties meeting their clients, accessing court files relating to their cases, and their reasonable petitions have more often than not been rejected''. He blamed the problems on ''erroneous understanding of the new law'' with many leading officials regarding it as ''too advanced'' for China. He insisted the problems could not be neglected and that internal supervision and restraint mechanisms must be established and improved ''conscientiously working towards a point where there is a law it is obeyed, enforcement is strict, and lawbreakers are prosecuted''. (3)

Cases of 'torture to extract confessions' reported in China in the last few years include a high proportion of victims were killed or fatally wounded by torture during interrogation within the first 24 hours of detention. Some of these killings have resulted in high profile prosecutions, but punishment is inconsistent and often lenient ? it frequently consists of a suspended sentence or simple disciplinary sanction, even when the law provides for heavy punishment. In many other cases there has been no investigation. Where the procuratorate does initiate an investigation, it is often blocked by police and other officials (See section 7.2 below).

In recent months, the Chinese media has highlighted a series of miscarriages of justice which have resulted from tortured confessions and testimony. These have included several cases where the accused were sentenced to death on the basis of false evidence extracted through torture.

In an article entitled ''Incomprehensible detention for eight years'', Southern Weekend (Nanfang Zhuomo) described a case in Quyang county, Hebei province. By the time the article was published on 23 April 1999, Yang Zhijie had been detained for eight years without a judgement because there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt. On 27 April 1999, however, the Baoding city Intermediate People's Court sentenced him to death, suspended for two years. The main evidence against him was his ''confession'', which Yang Zhijie testified in court had been extracted from him under torture. The court, however, rejected the allegation of torture solely on the basis of a simple written denial by the Quyang county police that they had forced Yang to confess under torture. The newspaper article, however, cited one police officer as more or less admitting that Yang had been tortured. It also pointed at the lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the case against Yang.

While the Chinese media is playing an increasingly important role in reporting miscarriages of justice, it is still highly selective and never reports allegations of torture in 'political' cases, despite the high incidence of torture in these cases too.

Zhuo Xiaojun (c. private)


In one case examined by Amnesty International but never reported in mainland China, a man who has been detained for more than ten years and sentenced to death twice on the basis of contradictory confessions extracted through torture.

Zhuo Xiaojun, a 34 year-old Hong Kong citizen detained since 1989, was sentenced to death for the second time on 14 January 2000 after a blatantly unfair trial. He was convicted of ''intentional killing'' by the Fuzhou city Intermediate People's Court, Fujian province, in relation to a fight outside his family home in Changle county, Fujian Province in 1989. During the fight, three people were wounded, two fatally. Although nearly 30 people were present, Zhuo was the only one to be pursued. None of the witnesses to the fight testified at the time to seeing Zhuo stabbing anyone or even carrying a knife, but a relative of one of the initiators of the fight later testified that Zhou had committed the stabbing.
Court documents show that the main evidence against Zhuo was his ''confession'' - which Zhou testified had been extracted under torture. According to his testimony, for the first 33 hours in police custody, Zhuo was suspended from handcuffs attached to the bars of a door with his feet locked in 50kg shackles, and was kicked, beaten and attacked with electric batons whenever he failed to follow the script of the ''confession'' prepared by his interrogators. Zhuo later retracted his ''confession'' when he met procurators for the first time, but they reportedly failed to record his allegations of torture, even though procuratorate staff had seen him suspended from the door, and he showed them his wounds, the scars of which reportedly remain visible 10 years later. According to his lawyers and relatives, his alleged ''confession'' is contradicted both by forensic evidence and witnesses' testimony, but neither this nor the allegations of torture were taken into account by the court during the trial.

Zhuo was tried for the first time and sentenced to death by the same court in September 1990. On appeal in 1992, Fujian provincial High People's Court overturned the conviction stating the ''facts were not clear'', but instead of ordering Zhuo's release, it returned the case to the original court for a retrial. The new trial began in January 1993, but was adjourned without a judgement for seven years, apparently for ''supplementary investigation''. No new evidence was presented at the second trial in January 2000. Fujian Province High People's Court heard Zhuo Xiaojun's appeal on 28 November 2000 but did not announce their decision. In the two years between his first conviction and successful appeal, Zhuo was reportedly held with his hands and feet shackled together at all times. He is believed to have been shackled in a similar way since his second conviction. His family has never been permitted to visit him in detention, but since 1992 has been instructed to pay for medication for his hepatitis, bleeding stomach and ulcerating skin.


Zulikar Memet (c. private)


In another case reported to Amnesty International which is similar to those cited above, Zulikar Memet, an ethnic Uighur from Gulja (Yining) city in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR), was sentenced to death in July 1999 after telling the court his ''confession'' had been extracted under torture.

Tried before the Ili Prefecture Intermediate People's Court together with other Uighurs accused of involvement in ''separatist'' activities, Zulikar Memet reportedly denied all the accusations against him, stating he had been tortured to force him to ''confess''. He showed the court signs of torture, including missing finger nails which had been pulled out during the torture sessions. The court, ignored the allegations and sentenced him to death. As far as is known, the allegations of torture were never investigated despite international appeals to the authorities calling for an impartial enquiry. Zulikar Memet was reportedly executed on 14 June 2000. His parents were denied access to him throughout his detention since April 1998 and learnt about his execution after it had taken place.

In the XUAR, as in Tibet, few political prisoners escape ill-treatment and torture, which is particularly harsh during the early stages of custody and interrogation. Many report being beaten with whatever implement a guard or interrogator can find to hand including gun-butts. Prisoners are often beaten around the head, or kicked in the stomach, lower back and genitals. Some, wearing metal helmets, have had their heads beaten against walls. Kidney and liver ailments are common among prisoners as a result of kicking and beatings by prison guards aimed specifically at these sensitive organs.

2.2) Torture During ''Strike Hard'' And Other Campaigns

During periodic ''strike hard'' anti-crime campaigns, police are encouraged to use ''every means possible'' to show results in cracking down on specific crimes. This frequently leads to increased use of torture and an upsurge in violence. For example, several recent incidents where members of the public were shot at and killed by the police have been linked to provincial and local campaigns against car theft.

A young couple driving through Yonghan township, in Guangdong province were shot at by police in the early hours of 15 January 2000 after passing a makeshift barrier erected by plain-clothed police who later claimed that they were acting on an internal public security directive to shoot anyone who did not stop. (Urumqi Wanbao 1.2.2000).
In Henan province, a businessman from Shandong province, and his bodyguard were killed when police reportedly opened fire with machine guns on their car when it stopped at a tollgate. They had earlier been flagged down by a policeman accompanied by two casual employees, none of whom wore uniform or presented identification. When arrested, the police claimed they were a provincial anti-car theft group on a ''heightened state of alert''. (South China Morning Post, 21.6.99, and other sources).

Many reports of illegal detention and torture have been linked to periodic Strike Hard Campaigns against the ''three evils'' (pornography, gambling and drugs). Some police implicated in such cases have asserted that they were acting under orders from their superiors to use the opportunities for profit (see below, section 2.5).

Recent detailed reports of miscarriages of justice overturned after several years of campaigning reveal the extent of political intervention and disregard for normal procedures during Strike Hard campaigns.

In November 1998, burglary charges against six juvenile suspects were withdrawn by Shuangliao City Public Security Bureau, Jilin Province. The juveniles had been ''investigated'' for three years and detained for over 440 days. Five were pupils at a local middle school where four burglars armed with knives had stolen 1,092 Yuan and a watch from pupils on 2 September 1995. The burglary coincided with a county Strike Hard anti-crime campaign, and county leaders ordered the police to mobilize their best force to crack the case fast.

Police detained 17 year old Wang Hongtao on 16 October 1995. They stripped him, whipped him repeatedly and threatened to light a firecracker on his penis. He was denied food water and sleep for three days. The police then told him he would be treated leniently if he repeated a ''voluntary confession'' they rehearsed with him. On the basis of this ''confession'' the police detained six other juveniles, several who had not been in the city on the night of the crime. When one was escorted to the police by his parents to explain the error, he too was detained and beaten until he repeated elements of Wang's confession.
The officers who ''cracked'' the case received merit awards for their speedy results. When the suspects retracted their confessions, the officers blamed a conspiracy between the families and other police officers. When the procuratorate returned the case several times for further investigation, local leaders intervened, insisting that the policy of ''quick handling and serious punishment'' be followed.
Defence lawyers argued at the trial in June 1996 that there was no direct evidence linking any of the suspects to the crime, only the confessions which were contradictory and full of loopholes. They sought the approval of the provincial lawyers association, the management division of the department of justice and the provincial politics and law committee before presenting a not guilty plea and requesting the defendants' immediate release. Instead the case was returned to the police, via the city procuratorate for further investigation. In April 1998 after investigations by the city People's Congress and Party, the case was finally overturned.

Torture and ill-treatment is prevalent during high profile political campaigns such as ongoing crackdown on the banned Falun Gong organization. Reports continue of deaths of detained practitioners following torture and extreme ill-treatment (see below, section 3, Death in Custody). Whereas officials responsible for deaths in custody during normal police operations may be investigated and prosecuted, in all cases where the victims were Falun Gong practitioners, the government has denied any wrongdoing, even in the face of multiple eye witness testimonies. On 7 October 1999 in reply to an urgent action by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, the Government reported that ''no beatings or ill-treatment had occurred as a result of the coercive measures taken'' against the Falun Gong and that allegations of beatings, ill-treatment, torture and house arrests were ''sheer fabrications unrelated to the facts'' (4) . In May 2000 Chinese government representatives told the UN Committee against Torture that: ''In the course of dealing with Falun Gong practitioners engaged in illegal activities, the people's police and judicial officers have acted in strict accordance with law. There is no such question as extensive arrests and torture''. Such blanket denials of wrongdoing, with no indication that allegations have been thoroughly investigated, are unconvincing, particularly when practitioners who have sought to publicize cases of torture have suffered severe reprisals, including detention for ''re-education through labour'' (see below, Section 7.4).

2.3) Torture By A Growing Range Of Part-time Police ''Defence'' And ''Security'' Teams

A growing range of officials are being cited as perpetrators of torture, including administrative police, judges, court clerks and court police; village and party leaders, members of Mutual Defense Teams (lianfang dui), and many types of security official (bao'an) outside the regular police force but seconded, contracted or working part time for them. These have included Factory Administrative Management Forces (xingzheng guanli zhifu), and Municipal Supervision Brigades (chengguan jiancha zhongdui).

In June 1997 members of a public park environmental team in Wu City, Xinjiang XUAR, were ordered to pay medical costs and compensation for damaged clothing totalling 400 Yuan to a man they had detained and beaten with an electric baton for ignoring a sign not to walk on the grass and refusing to hand over his camera in lieu of a fine. The officers clearly did not believe their actions were inappropriate as they launched an unsuccessful counter claim for the fine and compensation for damage to their uniforms. (Xinjiang Fazhibao, 6.6.97).
On 7 November 1998, an 18 year old migrant worker from Jiangxi province who had been working in a Shenzhen handicrafts factory for only 3 days, argued with the factory security guards over being reassigned to an overcrowded bedspace. The security guards dragged him to the roof of the five storey building, beat him up and reportedly pushed him off, killing him. Reports claimed this was the fourth such killing in Shenzhen in 1998. (Xinmin Evening News, 15.1.99).

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA170042001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CCHINA


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: LSDempire]
    #4483682 - 08/02/05 01:46 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

LSDempire said:
My point is there is no popular support for the war on drugs.  Any true democracy would not have supported the war on drugs to begin with.



Ya, people on a drug message board are totally a representative sample of the population. :rolleyes:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: LSDempire]
    #4483708 - 08/02/05 01:53 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

LSDempire said:
My point is there is no popular support for the war on drugs. Any true democracy would not have supported the war on drugs to begin with.




What if the people voted to outlaw drugs? Isn't that the point of democracy- letting the people decide? A true democracy could most definitely support the War on Drugs, and I'm willing to bet that if we put it to a vote right now, the majority of Americans would be for continued criminalization.

Not to mention, we don't live in a democracy.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 5 years, 15 days
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: Ravus]
    #4483715 - 08/02/05 01:55 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

I blame the Jews.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrahmanandam
Seeker

Registered: 08/01/05
Posts: 12
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4483765 - 08/02/05 02:07 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

dont be stupid, its all reagan's fault. god bless him, but fuck his anti-drug policies, youch.

and also, being for/against the war on drugs has nothing to do with islam. your either do or dont care about what people are on (privatly or publicly).

its pretty obvious your trying to appeal the typical right winger who hates terrorists more than drugs. you cant trick all of the republicans into thinking their antidrug policies are hurting america. its a fairly sad attempt, find somthing else.


--------------------
Brahmanandam, parama sukadam kevalam gyana murtim. Dwandwa ti tam. Gagana sadri shyam, tatwa-ma-sya dri lak shyam. Ekam nityam, vimalam, achalam. Sarvadhi sakshi bhutam. Bhava ti tam triguna rahitam.
SAT GURUM TAM NA MA MI.

GURU LORD, I BOW TO THEE.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLSDempire
LibertarianEnforcer
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: Silversoul]
    #4483781 - 08/02/05 02:12 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
Quote:

LSDempire said:
My point is there is no popular support for the war on drugs.  Any true democracy would not have supported the war on drugs to begin with.



Ya, people on a drug message board are totally a representative sample of the population. :rolleyes:




Why not?  Are the opinions of the people on this "drug message board" worth less than the facist hypocrites that support the war on drugs?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLSDempire
LibertarianEnforcer
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: Ravus]
    #4483790 - 08/02/05 02:15 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
Quote:

LSDempire said:
My point is there is no popular support for the war on drugs. Any true democracy would not have supported the war on drugs to begin with.




What if the people voted to outlaw drugs? Isn't that the point of democracy- letting the people decide? A true democracy could most definitely support the War on Drugs, and I'm willing to bet that if we put it to a vote right now, the majority of Americans would be for continued criminalization.

Not to mention, we don't live in a democracy.




Thats a big "what if" but I guess if someone like Hitler could be elected anything is possible. My point is people were not allowed to vote on the issue, Nixon decided for them.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: Brahmanandam]
    #4483794 - 08/02/05 02:16 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

dont be stupid, its all reagan's fault.




Not really. A lot of other people are at fault other than Reagan; Reagan's a good scapegoat since he was vocal about it, but the American people voted him in and the conservatives supported him. Not to mention, the War on Drugs had been going on for decades before Reagan ever came to office.

Are you still blaming Reagan nowadays? Look at the people who continue the War on Drugs, and try to escalate it many times over.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLSDempire
LibertarianEnforcer
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/23/05
Posts: 581
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4483799 - 08/02/05 02:18 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

JesusChrist said:
I blame the Jews.




I blame the muslims, and the hypocrites that claim to be Christains like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrahmanandam
Seeker

Registered: 08/01/05
Posts: 12
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Do you support the war on drugs? [Re: LSDempire]
    #4483801 - 08/02/05 02:19 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

no. our opinions are worth just as much. but your treating this situation like our opinions are the only ones that matter... this is a biased poll becuase everyone here does drugs idiot. these figures mean nothing. get an education.


--------------------
Brahmanandam, parama sukadam kevalam gyana murtim. Dwandwa ti tam. Gagana sadri shyam, tatwa-ma-sya dri lak shyam. Ekam nityam, vimalam, achalam. Sarvadhi sakshi bhutam. Bhava ti tam triguna rahitam.
SAT GURUM TAM NA MA MI.

GURU LORD, I BOW TO THEE.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion >> Drug Policy Reform

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Real Conservatives Don't Support The Drug War Libertarian 2,131 9 10/12/05 06:43 PM
by Divided_Sky
* John Mcains views on drugs HeadTrip420 2,161 13 03/09/08 07:00 PM
by supernovasky
* Drug War Scam (video)
( 1 2 all )
Clean 4,585 20 08/08/07 06:20 PM
by Helixx
* The global war on drugs can't be won veggie 1,572 4 12/19/07 10:06 AM
by Nebula
* Nixon the narc: Tricky Dick's evil legacy lives on in the modern drug war. Bridgeburner 1,904 5 05/14/08 01:37 AM
by Divided_Sky
* the de-evolution of public attitudes towards the drug war...
Annapurna1
1,082 6 01/24/09 12:26 AM
by Annapurna1
* The White House: Obama on Drug Policy Green_T 748 1 01/26/09 05:56 PM
by TreeMoss
* American Drug War - The Last White Hope
( 1 2 all )
Arp 10,702 23 03/03/08 05:28 PM
by pattern

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
16,678 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
MushroomCube.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.105 seconds spending 0.052 seconds on 33 queries.