Jenny’s Pennies

From the BBC.

A German citizen has gone to court in an attempt to force his government to seek the extradition of 13 suspected CIA agents who allegedly kidnapped him. Khaled al-Masri says he was abducted in December 2003, flown to a US detention centre in Afghanistan and tortured. Mr Masri was released in May 2004 after his captors allegedly told him he had been mistaken for someone else.

I wish him the best of luck - it’s absolutely appalling that you could be kidnapped and tortured “by mistake” and then receive no compensation what so ever.
And towards the end of the article:

Mr Masri says his case is an example of the US policy of “extraordinary rendition” - a practice whereby the US government flies foreign terror suspects to third countries without judicial process for interrogation or detention. He says he was kidnapped in the Macedonian capital, Skopje, in 2003, flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan, nicknamed the “salt pit” and tortured there. On his flight to Afghanistan, he says, he was stripped, beaten, shackled, made to wear nappies and drugged. Mr Masri says he was finally released in Albania five months later after the CIA realised they had got the wrong man. He told the BBC in February 2007 he had been “traumatised” by his experiences.

Why the hell do they put scare quotes around the word traumatised? Of course he was traumatised, he was freaking kidnapped, taken to a ghost prison and tortured. And then finally after five months of hell the Central Intelligence Agency - what kind of intelligence do they operate on?! - realized they had the wrong guy. Dear BBC “editor”, I think you would be traumatised by that too.

In the light of the Condoleezza Rice interview discussed in this post, this becomes even more … no I’m at loss for words.
From the Independent:

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

This is their desired end state!? Permanent occupation, more political sectarian violence, more money being spent on the occupation, more soldiers sent to Iraq (how many people do you need to man 50 bases?), more people killed on all sides? That is a victory?
How is permanent occupation a victory? How is forcing a puppet government into signing a contract which means their subjugation to the foreign occupier a victory? How is a a less stable Iraq - which a deal like this will inevitably lead to - a victory? How is something which will make the United States less safe a victory (remember that one of the reasons stated for the 9/11 attacks was the presence of US bases in Saudi Arabia). How would this end the war?

(Really, I’m not as surprised as it may seem. I knew, like all sane people, that the war wasn’t about peace and liberty and justice for all.)

Ok this is a bit late, but.

As you might know, a big conference on Iraq was held in Stockholm last Thursday. Condoleezza Rice was there, and Dagens Nyheter scored an interview, which was overly polite and fawning - it ends with a question about her piano playing career.

And in there, there’s this:

/…/ Or how long does the United States plan to stay militarily in Iraq?
- Well, we are there by invitation of the Iraqis. We are there to help them defend themselves against enemies like al-Qaida, to train their forces so that they can handle their own security, which they to an increasing degree does. The United States does not want permanent bases in Iraq. But we will help the Iraqis to finish the work they have begun - to build a stable and decent society.

Yeah there are a load of stuff to bite into in that answer (about permanent bases for instance), but… The US are in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi people to help them defend themselves against al-Qaida? Really? I thought you were there to find those WMDs? No wait, sorry, it was to remove Saddam Hussein. No wait, sorry, it was to bring peace and freedom. No wait, sorry…

And that - the statement that the US are in Iraq by invitation from the Iraqis - got no follow up question. Nothing. What kind of a journalist makes stuff like that (and more) just pass by?! (yeah, I know the answer…)

Holy shit.
So let me get this straight. In order to become president of the US, it’s really important to be a strong supporter of Israel, right? But to be endorsed by a guy who says that Hitler was fulfilling God’s will by trying to exterminate all Jews is fine and dandy?

Appearing on ABC’s “‘This Week” in late April 2008, McCain criticized Hagee’s past remarks on the Catholic Church, but said that, “I admire and appreciate his advocacy for the state of Israel, the independence of the state of Israel.”

Being pro-Israel but anti-Jewish, yeah that’s a fine example of mental gymnastics right there.

Via Shakes.
(Apparently McCain has “distanced himself” from rev. Hagee, but I kind of doubt the sincerity…)

Via incoming links in my Wordpress blog stats I find that I have been linked to on a recent post at Birth Pangs. The writer April Reign shows us a letter written by a man named Michael who has compiled a list of bloggers who has written about the “Pill Kills”-campaign. And I, through my little post here, have made that list!

We who think that the campaign is ridiculous BS are called “Culture of Death bloggers”. And this is apparently just the “short list”. Gee guys, it’s such an honor to be nominated!

I reprint Michael’s letter below - yeah, I normally don’t want to give shit as this any attention, but I’ll do it this time - with the links to all my fellow “culture of death” bloggers.* Keep up the good work people!

Dear pro-life friends,

As many of you already know, American Life League is launching a campaign to inform the public about the abortifacient nature of oral contraceptives. (If you don’t already know about it, please take a moment to check out www.ThePillKills.com . Also, be sure to join our facebook page and invite your friends! www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=34501835075 ) Some of you have blogged about it, and we’re gearing up for a full-court press on this initiative.
But we need your help!
In just 2 days, “pro-choice” bloggers have filled the blogosphere with their vitriol and Culture of Death rhetoric. In fact, one blogger went so far as to state his hatred for babies, while a comment on another blog indicated a desire to show up to a designated protest area to “mess with” us.
Just to give you a sampling of who is saying what, I am sending you a “short” list of Culture of Death bloggers talking about The Pill Kills website. I don’t recommend wasting too much time reading their nonsense, but it is worth noting their overt hostility to anything that “just might” change their worldview of “promiscuity-made-safe.”
We present information. They present virtiol. Why is that? Makes one wonder what they’re so angry about!
Your voice is louder than theirs because you have the Truth! So let’s fill the blogosphere with the Truth! Send e-mails. Tell your friends. Post The Pill Kills button on your blogs! Do whatever it takes … just don’t let them silence our voice for those who don’t have one.
As always, thanks for everything you do for the pro-life cause. Our efforts would be a lot harder without yours!
–Michael

The Graduate
Birth Pangs
Medical-news-now.com
Citizen Girl
Melanie’s blog of good stuff
Signs of the times
Paging Lucina
Ms Magazine
Feministing
I’m A Feminist
Robotic squidling
Hangofwednesday
Church gal
Debate politics
Majikthise
Ravings of a semi-sane madwoman
Jenny’s Pennies LOOK, HERE I AM!
Matthew Yglesias
Tar hearted
Dark side of the mom
Power up
Overclocked drama
ifeminists
Eccentric bitch
Broken rubbers
Childfree hardcore
CelticBear’s musings
Feminist.org
Ginandkerosene’s blog
Items of interest
Feminocracy
The W.O.M.B.
Slog - the Stranger
Dead racists society
Lab Kat
Democratic underground

PS. sorry about the scattered posting lately, still feeling a bit off. Must be all that promotion of death and mayhem.

*Hyperlinked, cause my layout got completely messed up by those long URLs.

So I read a lot of blogs from the US of A (the progressive/feminist/queer variety) and if I were to write about every wackiness I find out about through them, I wouldn’t do much else, so I do stop myself most of the time. But sometimes I run across something so mind-boggling that I just need to blog it.

It’s the “the Pill Kills Babies”-campaign, organized by the American Life League, along with Pro-Life Wisconsin and Pharmacists for Life International (that last organization should really be renamed “pharmacists that don’t do their goddamned job and should have their ass fired”). They want to ban birth control. Because it causes abortion. You see, when I take my BC pills I potentially kill a tiny baby boy or a tiny baby girl. Yes, that’s how they put it.

The so-called science that “supports” their BS can be debunked by picking up a high school biology textbook. What do they think? That a fertilized but not yet implanted egg is a teeny weeny miniature person that, when looked at in a microscope, will smile at you and wave?

At least this campaign makes it painfully clear that the so called pro-life movement isn’t about saving the precious baaaaybeeez at all, it’s about controlling women’s sexuality, and subsequently our lives. The protest the pill-day is June 7th. The reason for this is (from the Pill Kills website. Won’t link, Google is your friend):

June 7 marks the 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut. This was the first of many decisions that led to the culture of death we live in today.

On that day in 1965, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Griswold v. Connecticut case, it set a legal precedent for claiming that the Constitution grants women the right to privacy in matters of sexual practice.

Oh the horror! The right to privacy for women in matters of sexual practice, we certainly can’t have that! I file this under reason 17,314 (or possibly 17,315, I lost count) why I’m happy to live in Sweden. I stand firmly behind my American sisters in their fight against this, and I’m sure some pretty awesome counter-activism will be done on June 7th.

Via; more here.

(If you don’t get the headline reference, you lose, but thanks for playing)

So this is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, but I want to blog it anyway. Not because it will mean much or do much, but just because I feel this is important and…well basically I just want to show my support for a voice that should be heard.

Renegade Evolution has been invited to speak at at a debate forum on sex work and pornography at William and Mary College. On her side will also be sex workers’ rights advocate Jill Brenneman of SWOP East. And on the other side there is male “feminist” John Foubert, and anti-sex work activist Sam Berg (”crusader” would probably be a more apt word - I hadn’t heard of the woman before, but after just a bit of reading she seems unhinged. And for someone calling herself a feminist, she certainly displays a lot of hatred of women).

However, now it seems as if the “feminist” and “defender of women” Sam Berg are trying to get Ren uninvited since she is not “comfortable” with Ren being there. Context can be found in Ren’s post. It’s quite a bit lot of context and a lot of old stuff, but that doesn’t really matter here, what is important is this (Ren’s words):

All I want at this point is a chance to speak my side, in a forum. I want the chance to FINALLY get to be a sex worker/porn whore who gets to speak for herself, rather than having anyone and everyone do it for me, or over me, or around me.

The organizers of the event is trying to talk reason into Sam and allow Ren to come.

Other people have written well about this (see below), and since I am what I am - an insignificant blogger from across the pond, not involved in any blogwars, not identified with any sides, not widely read or know, just little me - I will say this: It isn’t feminism if you aren’t prepared to hear the voices of all women. It isn’t feminism if your only concern is white, middle class, cisgendered, straight and ablebodied women who has the luxury to be involved in abstract academic debates. It isn’t feminism if you, by actions, inaction or words, display hate for certain women and treat them as either poor misguided victims in need for your rescue, or evil patriarchy enablers, young, dumb and full of cum. It isn’t feminism if you, in your quest for that Feminist Utopia, trample on the lives and souls of living breathing women.

So, I’m just showing my support here, insignificant as it may be. Other people have written also, and they have good things to say: Natalia Antonova, Burning Words, Astarte’s Circus, Uncool .
(I’m sure there are more, but no time for reading right now)

I’m sick, feeling like crap and have a book review to work on. I direct you to read this:

Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved ‘Enhanced Interrogation’
Detailed Discussions Were Held About Techniques to Use on al Qaeda Suspects

It’s a sad world we’re living in. But I’m just an onlooker from an insignificant country whose cowardly prime minister didn’t dare to raise the question of Guantanamo and other human rights abuses when meeting with Bush because it could “damage relations”.

Wolfrum of Shakesville said:

So is impeachment still off the table? Because the U.S. has been hijacked by bloodthirsty ghouls and cowards. Of course, this report is not unexpected, and will be cheered by the right wing. It actually wouldn’t be that surprising if the White House allowed this story to get out. They’ve softened up the public enough to the idea of torture, after all.

Can someone please explain: a consensual blow-job is grounds for impeachment, war crimes and lies that has killed hundreds of thousands are not? A sad world indeed.

Apparently nipple piercings are the latest weapon al-Qaida. So thinks the American Transportation Security Administration (TSA) anyway.

Hamlin, 37, said she was trying to board a flight from Lubbock to Dallas on Feb. 24 when she was scanned by a Transportation Security Administration agent after passing through a larger metal detector without problems.

The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Hamlin’s chest, the Dallas-area resident said.

Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The agent then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.

Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said.

She was taken behind a curtain and managed to remove one bar-shaped piercing but had trouble with the second, a ring.

“Still crying, she informed the TSA officer that she could not remove it without the help of pliers, and the officer gave a pair to her,” said Hamlin’s attorney, Gloria Allred, reading from a letter she sent Thursday to the director of the TSA’s Office of Civil Rights and Liberties. Allred is a well-known Los Angeles lawyer who often represents high-profile claims.

Applying pliers to the torso of a mannequin that had a peach-colored bra with the rings on it, Hamlin showed reporters at the news conference how she took off the second ring.

She said she heard male TSA agents snickering as she took out the ring. She was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she still was wearing a belly button ring.

It’s clear that the male TSA agents, on a stupid power trip, used Hamlin for their own entertainment: A chance to ogle her breasts and snicker at her pain and humiliation. You know, setting off the metal detector should be the cause of a more thorough inspection. As in 1) a hand-held detector (that wand thing they run over your body), 2) a same-sex pat down and finally 3) same sex visual inspection. Once it was clear that the “threat” in this case was nipple piercings, the TSA agents should have apologized for the inconvenience and wished Hamlin a safe journey.

This story begs a lot of questions:
Why did they all have to be there to observe the piercing removal - to defend each other if she were to use her pierced nipple super powers and blow up the airport? Why did they only force her to remove her nipple piercings and not the belly-button ring? Is it a more dangerous threat to air travel safety to have metal in one part of your body than in another? If the nipple piercings were so dangerous, then why was Hamlin allowed to keep the jewelry and carry it on board the plane?

The TSA has said that the agents followed the policy (yeah, right), but that the policy regarding body piercings will now change.

You know, when this type of stuff happens, many people say that the victim should just suck it up and deal. That she or he is making too big a deal out of it. That it probably wasn’t too bad. That we need to accept things like this in order to be Safe^TM. I’ve traveled quite a bit, and have experienced power abuse and violations, although nothing as bad as what Hamlin went through, from security personnel and border agents. Most of the time, we just bow our heads and hold back our anger, relieved to be let into the country or onto the plane. Kudos to Hamlin for standing up for her rights and speaking out!

More about the story from Cara here and here, and at Shakesville here.

Decriminalization, ending demand, and choice: Feministe interviews the Sex Workers Project
- a very interesting post over at Feministe, where Sienna Baskin of the New York City based organization Sex Workers Project is interviewed. The interview deals with the societal response to prostitution, a question which is very much in the focus in the US right now due to the Spitzer scandal. It also discusses the “Swedish model” i.e. the criminalization of the buyer, not the seller.
Go read!