Florida Becomes Latest State to Enact Voting Restrictions

 

‘Please do not Georgia my Florida’ — Florida just became the latest state to enact voting restrictions, with Gov. Ron DeSantis signing S.B. 90 into law live on Fox News.

Erdoğan And The 1,845 Cases Of Insults

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan living a life in fear of insults, criticism and dissent has taken a page out of the government of Singapore playbook.  Use the courts to silence the opposition.

Who sues school children for speaking and acting like children? Tayyip Erdogan.  Really; paranoia manifesting itself because the Donald Trump of Turkey can't take primary school insults.  Perhaps President Bevis and Butthead should find a new profession. Say pro wrestling referee, judging pie eating contests or join the circus and become a clown. He's already halfway there.

Erdoğan has been accused of aggressively using a previously seldom-used law that bars insults to the president, as a way to muffle dissent. Those who have gone on trial include celebrities, journalists and even schoolchildren.

Critics say Erdoğan, who has been accused of increasingly authoritarian behaviour, even considers strong criticism as insults.

Show Trials Return To China

Show trials were once part and parcel to communist regimes in the first half of the 20 century they were  used as a means of intimidation and education for the public at large.  As these governments acquired more sophisticated means of dispensing propaganda show trials faded from the scene.

Massoud Hayoun writing for Al Jazeera English  makes  a compelling argument  suggesting that the Chinese government  under the rule of  Xi Jinping has revived the show trial in an effort stem corruption in all sectors of society.  

Not since the 1950s and 60s – when denouncements of so-called counterrevolutionaries were a common sight in China’s stadiums and squares – has the People’s Republic seen anything like its recent slew of showy public trials, legal experts say. The trials are broadcast on TV and the Internet, even as calls have come from Beijing’s top prosecutor to reform the nation’s judicial system and stem “wrongful convictions.”
During his nearly two years in office so far, Chinese President Xi Jinping has launched campaigns to root out corruption in the public and private sectors and to quell violent unrest among predominantly Muslim ethnic Uighurs in the strategically important far-western region of Xinjiang. Many of the public trials have stemmed from these efforts.

Show trials weren't just a means by which one disposed political opponents they were meant to humiliate those on trial into confessing  their crimes to the public who then denounce them for their transgressions against the state.

“The Chinese government has increasingly invoked extralegal mechanisms taken out of the 1950s and 60s, including televised public confessions by social media celebrities, foreign corporate investigators and Uighurs, rather than trials, to send messages to society at large,” said Charles Minzner, a Chinese law expert and professor at New York City’s Fordham University.
Minzner said that the recent rash of public trials is a departure from the 1990s and early 2000s, when Beijing emphasized rule of law and depended on court proceedings – although they were not transparent or independent from the Communist Party – to address perceived political foes such as corruption, dissidents and alleged separatists. 

  

Pakistan: Were Journalists DIe For Being Journalists

In Pakistan being a liberal journalist is like being a witch in Salem Massachusetts in the 17 century.  Accuse a  woman of being a witch and it was certain she would be burned at the stake.  Real evidence played no part in trials once accused you were guilty.  In Pakistan the same scenario is playing out accuse someone of blasphemy and their death is a foregone conclusion. Guilt or innocence does not play a  part in the outcome. 

The life of a liberal journalist in Pakistan is not an easy one. Write about someone fighting a blasphemy case, or someone whose faith is considered heresy, and you may very soon find yourself in deep trouble.
Shoaib Adil, a 49-year-old magazine editor and publisher in Lahore, has many well-wishers and they all want him to disappear from public life or, even better, leave the country.
Since blasphemy charges were filed against him last month, the police have told him that he can't return home, he can't even be seen in the city where he grew up and worked all his life. It wouldn't be safe.
As a journalist, Adil has been a vocal critic of religious militarism. But the threat to his life doesn't come from the Taliban.
He is the victim of an everyday witch hunt by Pakistan's powerful religious groups - the kind of witch hunt that's so common and yet so scary that it never makes headlines.

This is what happens when you allow religious extremism and fear to flourish.  Innocent people die.

He was sitting in his Lahore office when a contingent of police arrived with a dozen religious activists, people Adil simply calls maulvis - teachers of Islamic law. They waved a book at him that he had published seven years ago - an autobiography of a Lahore High Court judge, titled My Journey to the Higher Court. The author, Justice Mohammed Islam Bhatti, had written that he belonged to the Ahmedi faith - a former Muslim sect that was declared non-Muslim in Pakistan exactly 40 years ago, and whose members have since then been prosecuted by the state and hounded by religious groups with equal gusto. He had then gone on to say some complimentary things about the founder of the faith.
"The maulvis ransacked my office looking for more copies of the book or any other material to pin blasphemy on me," says Adil. Police officers meanwhile explained that the group the activists belong to, the International Council for the Defence of Finality of Prophethood, had demanded the registration of a blasphemy case against him.

CIA's 'Harsh Interrogations' Exceeded Legal Authority, Report Finds

Here's a link to the full report (PDF)

 A classified U.S. Senate report found that the CIA's legal justification for the use of harsh interrogation techniques that critics say amount to torture was based on faulty legal reasoning, McClatchy news service reported on Thursday.
The Central Intelligence Agency also issued erroneous claims about how many people it subjected to techniques such as simulated drowning, or "water boarding," according to the news service, citing conclusions from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report obtained by McClatchy.
The report also concluded that the CIA used interrogation methods that were not approved by its own headquarters or the U.S. Justice Department, impeded White House oversight and actively evaded oversight both by Congress and its own Inspector General.
The CIA also provided false information to the U.S. Justice Department, which used that information to conclude that the methods would not break the law because those applying them did not specifically intend to inflict severe pain or suffering, the report added.
Human rights activists called for the immediate declassification of the entire document.
"The report's findings appear to show that the CIA systematically misled Congress, the White House, and the Department of Justice about its brutal and unlawful interrogation program," said Raha Wala, senior counsel at Human Rights First in Washington.

The Committee’s complete list of findings follows.

The CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques did not effectively assist the agency in acquiring intelligence or in gaining cooperation from detainees.

The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program.

The CIA subjected detainees to interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters.

The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention.

The CIA’s claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques were inaccurate.

The CIA inaccurately characterized the effectiveness of the enhanced interrogation techniques to justify their use.

The CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques was brutal and far worse than the agency communicated to policymakers.

The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the agency communicated to policymakers.

The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.

The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.

The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA’s Office of Inspector General.

Numerous internal critiques and objections concerning the CIA’s management and use of the Detention and Interrogation were ignored.

The CIA manipulated the media by coordinating the release of classified information, which inaccurately portrayed the effectiveness of the agency’s enhanced interrogation techniques.

The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities.

The way in which the CIA operated and managed the program complicated, and in some cases hindered the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.

Management of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout its duration, particularly so in 2002 and 2003.

Two contract psychologists devised the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques and were central figures in the program’s operation.

By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the program. The effectiveness of the enhanced interrogation techniques was not sufficiently evaluated by the CIA.

CIA personnel who were responsible for serious violations, inappropriate behavior, or management failures in the program’s operation were seldom reprimanded or held accountable by the agency.

The CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program ended by 2006 due to legal and oversight concerns, unauthorized press disclosures and reduced cooperation from other nations.

The CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States’ global reputation, and came with heavy costs, both monetary and nonmonetary.

Jay Bybee and John Yoo working for the Justice Department during the Presidency of George W. Bush wrote the Torture Memos which gave legal justification and cover for the C.I.A to torture prisoners they believed involved in the attacks of 11 September 2001.  Even though torture is clearly illegal not only under U.S. law but the Geneva Conventions which govern the treatment of prisoners of war and to which America is a signatory that didn't stop the Bush administration from violating the rights of those prisoners or the law.

Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. sections 2340-2340A[edit]

Jay Bybee, then Assistant U.S. Attorney General and head of the OLC, addressed a memorandum to Alberto Gonzales,^[7] then counsel to the president, dated August 1, 2002, titled "Standards for Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A". He was responding to the president's reported request for a legal opinion on the U.N. Convention Against Torture and 18 U.S.C. section 2340 and the interrogation of al Qaeda operatives.^[8]

This is the primary "torture memo", which defines the Department of Justice's (DOJ) interpretation of torture. It is relied upon heavily by the subsequent "torture memos". It discusses the language of the torture statute (18 U.S.C. sections 2340-2340A) in detail in order to derive its definition of torture, states that "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment is not torture according to that statute; and examines "possible defenses that would negate any claim that certain interrogation methods violate the statute". It concludes that torture is only: extreme acts according to the Convention Against Torture; that severe pain (a requisite for this definition of torture) is "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death"; that prolonged mental harm is harm that must last for "months or even years"; that "prosecution under Section 2340A may be barred because enforcement of the statute would represent an unconstitutional infringement of the President's authority to conduct war"; and that "under the current circumstances, necessity or self-defense may justify interrogation methods that might violate Section 2340A."

Part I[edit]

Part one, in which the text and history of the U.S. torture statute (18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A) is examined, mainly addresses Bybee's interpretation of the definition of torture, including the definition of severe physical and mental pain or suffering.

In the first section, the memorandum states that the statute requires specific intent (the convention only requires general intent, but the "specific intent" language is found in the U.S. ratification reservation), and in citing case law, precedent states that specific intent means that "the infliction of [severe] pain must be the defendant's precise objective" and reminds the reader that "general intent" requires only actions that would be reasonably likely to result in a violation of the statute.^[9]The article concludes that, "even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent". It suggests that a jury would likely act contrary to law (out of misunderstanding) by finding such an individual guilty regardless.

In the second section, the memo admits difficulty in finding any clear definition for the "severe pain or suffering" required by the torture statute (which is also required by the UN Convention). After examining the definition provided in various dictionaries, it concludes that "pain" is synonymous with "suffering" ("it is difficult to conceive of such suffering that would not involve severe physical pain"), and, selecting among the many definitions, the memo proposes that severe pain must be difficult to endure (some definitions quoted in the memo define severe pain as "inflicting discomfort"). In searching for a reference to the term in other U.S. statutes and law, it quotes from a health care law that defines "emergency condition", but merely mentions "severe pain" in passing. That statutory subsection, 8 U.S.C. section 1395w-22(d)(3)(B), defines an emergency condition as a condition "manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that [one] ... could reasonably expect the absence of immediate medical attention to result in placing the health of the individual ... in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part".

The memorandum concludes with a narrow definition of torture, that its "severe pain" must necessarily be pain associated with "death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions". It also states that the statute requires "prolonged mental harm" to accompany mental or physical pain, and that "prolonged" means a duration of months or years.

China upholds sentence of rights activist Xu Zhiyong

Continuing its crackdown on government critics a court in China has upheld  the conviction of Xu Zhiyong who has represented death row inmates and the families of those whose children were affected  by tainted baby milk formula.  Xu Zhiyong was convicted on charges unrelated to his activism.

 Mr Xu, the founder of a transparency movement, had appealed against a lower court's decision to jail him for "gathering crowds to disrupt public order".Several other activists from the New Citizens' Movement have also been tried this year on similar charges.
The group has campaigned for government officials to disclose their assets.
On Tuesday, activists Ding Jiaxi and Li Wei also went on trial. They were due to go on trial in January but dismissed their lawyers, delaying proceedings.

Though an activist for transparency of government officials disclosing their financial assets he was convicted on the absurd charge of "gathering crowds."    

When asked about Mr Xu's case, China's foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said during a regular press briefing: "China is a country with rule of law and all are equal before the law."
"The relevant ruling was made in accordance with the law by Chinese judicial authorities," he added.

Rule of law would be equal protection under said law which clearly Xu Zhiyong wasn't afforded, rule of law isn't whatever the government deems it to be, nor is it conveniently manipulated so that the outcome of trials falls in favor of the government.

No matter, China follows the "rule of law" even if it is completely convoluted and weighted heavily in the Communist Parties favor

Nine-month-old baby appears in Pakistan court over attempted murder charges

No this isn't satire or a story from The Onion this actually happened

A nine-month-old baby has appeared in a Pakistan court along with other family members on charges of planning a murder, threatening police and interfering in state affairs, it has been reported.

Baby Muhammad Mosa Khan was seen sat on his grandfather’s knee in court and apparently having his fingerprints taken before a hearing.

A Lahore police report claimed the suspects tried to murder officers by throwing stones at them during a raid on houses who owed money for gas bills, according to The Express Tribune.

Japan's New State Secrecy Law: Keep Secerts For Ever

In October the Japanese government introduced a new law that would change how the government currently classifies documents which it considers vital state secrets.  Under the proposed law the government could classify any document as secret for 5 years with an extension of up to 30 years based on the current governments understanding of what is or isn't a state secret.

The Liberal Democratic Party with its ruling coalition partner New Komeito control enough seats in the both chambers of Parliament to easily pass the bill into law.  Prime Minister Shinzo Abe would prefer the legislation be enacted before the close of the current Diet session on December sixth.

All of Japan's opposition parties oppose the bill not just the principles of free speech but the complete lack of honest debate and what if any untended consequences could come to the fore with its enactment.

Even under the current system the amount of information made public is so small one would need an electron microscope just to find it. According to the New York Times between 2007 and 2011 the Defense Ministry destroyed an estimated 34,000 documents at the end of their classification period releasing one to the public.   

Chapter 1 of the bill, published in Japanese by Asahi Shimbun Digital on October 25, refers to the “increasingly complex international situation,” making for the “growing importance of securing information related to national security.”

 Under Chapter 2, Article 4, a “state secret” can initially be kept from the public for 5 years, with a possible extension of up to 30 years. Even after three decades, the cabinet can maintain an indefinite ban on its release.

Chapter 5 states that government employees and contractors entrusted with the state secrets, along with their families and relatives, will be subject to thorough investigation. Background checks will not only cover drug or alcohol abuse, mental states and financial situations, but also political views.

“Terrorism,” defined in the most sweeping terms, is used to justify the draconian law. Chapter 5, Article 12 refers to terrorism as “politically imposing differing ideologies on the country or the citizens.” JFBA lawyer Tsutomu Shimizu told the Japan Times that “such activities as the anti-nuclear rallies in front of the prime minister’s office could hence be categorised as terrorist acts.”

In a move aimed at muzzling the media, journalists can be jailed for up to five years for “wrongful” reporting of “state secrets.” A Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan statement expressed deep concern and urged the Diet to “either reject the bill completely or to substantially redraft it so that it ceases to pose a threat to both journalism and to the democratic future of Japan.”

Yukiko Miki was shocked in 2012 when she received the results of the information disclosure request she filed with the Cabinet Office seeking the minutes of meetings held to discuss the creation of a state secrets bill.

The meetings, attended by officials from various government agencies and other experts, took place from 2008 to 2009 under the then-ruling coalition government of the Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito. She had filed the request in 2011 under the national Freedom of Information Act because she couldn’t find any information on the meetings on the government website.

When she received the documents, most of the minutes, except for the front page, preface and postscript, were blacked out. Dissatisfied, she filed an administrative complaint only to be rebuffed by the Cabinet Office’s screening panel, which said the decision to withhold most of the information had been appropriate. Finally, she decided to sue the central government in July. The first court session was held last month.