Archive for January 2009

Obama wants to snoop on your library records

20 January 2009 comments (0)

Well, his nominee for Attorney General does, anyway:

President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for attorney general has endorsed an extension of the law that allows federal agents to demand Americans’ library and bookstore records as part of terrorism probes, dismaying a national group of independent booksellers.

Eric Holder said at his confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he supports renewing a section of the USA Patriot Act that allows FBI agents investigating international terrorism or espionage to seek records from businesses, libraries and bookstores. If not renewed by Congress, the provision will expire at the end of 2009.

The searches must be authorized by a court that meets secretly and has approved the government’s requests in nearly all cases, according to congressional reports. The target of the search does not have to be suspected of terrorism or any other crime. A permanent gag order that accompanies each search prohibits the business or library from telling anyone about it.

Happy Coronation Inauguration Day.

Gaza

19 January 2009 comments (0)

From Ehud Olmert’s statement declaring victory in Gaza:

During the operation, the State of Israel demonstrated great sensitivity in exercising its force in order to avoid, as much as possible, harming the civilian population not involved in terror. In cases where there was any doubt that striking at terrorists would lead to harming an innocent civilian population – we abstained from acting.

410 dead children would disagree. But they can’t, because they’re dead.

During its three-week assault on Gaza, the state of Israel killed over 1300 Palestinians — including those 410 children. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights says that 904 of the victims were civilians. The attack was a response to a series of Qassam rocket and mortar attacks by Hamas that have killed 23 Israelis since 2001. The state of Israel calls that justice.

Canada’s political elites, too, are willing to condone a little collateral damage. After all, they say, Hamas is a terrorist organization and Israel has the right to defend itself. In other words, since some Palestinians are murderous terrorists, Lawrence Cannon and Michael Ignatieff think it’s perfectly okay for the IDF to murder a bunch of other Palestinians in return. This behavior is supposed to be morally acceptable because terrorists like Hamas kill innocent people deliberately, while the Israeli state only kills innocent people “accidentally.” I wonder if the victims would appreciate that fine distinction.

As we all know, the Israeli state’s “victory” (it says it has damaged Hamas as an organization) will be short-lived. The indiscriminate slaughter in Gaza has ensured that more Palestinians will take up arms against Israel, as part of Hamas or some other militant organization. And more innocent people — Israelis and Palestinians alike — will die.

Papers, please.

14 January 2009 comments (2)

Two hours ago I was walking home through Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. The DTES is Canada’s poorest postal code, crammed full of impoverished folks (many with addiction or mental health issues) living in appalling conditions. It’s not particularly dangerous if you’re just passing through and not bothering anyone, but there are always a lot of cops around because they always have plenty of excuses to hassle the locals.

Sure enough, as I was walking along with my hands in my pockets and a newspaper under my arm, a cop car pulled to a stop on the street beside me. One of the cops inside said, “Hey.” I responded, “Hey,” and kept walking. But they flashed their lights and got out of the car, so I stopped to talk to them.

One of the cops asked what I was doing and I said I was going home. He asked if I was from around here and I told them I live in the West End. Then he asked for my ID. I asked why and he said they were “looking for someone.” I didn’t like it, but I didn’t want to cause any trouble and I knew cops are dangerous when their authority is questioned, so I handed over my old but valid out-of-province driver’s license. (That was my second mistake, and it went against my better judgement. My first mistake was answering their questions in the first place. Don’t talk to cops.)

The cop got back in the car to look me up. While he was doing that, I struck up a conversation with his partner — another mistake, really, but it turned out to be for the best. This second cop was a rookie, still in training; he’d only been on the streets for about a week and a half. As a result, he was friendly and naive and didn’t have the usual cop demeanor. He even smiled when I showed a personal interest in him.

“What do you think of the job so far?” I asked him.

His face lit up. “I like it. It’s been pretty fun.”

“What do you think your partner would have done if I hadn’t handed over my license?”

“I don’t know. He’s kind of tough.”

“Why do you figure he stopped me?”

“He’s been around this neighborhood for a while and he didn’t recognize you.”

The first cop was still trying to look me up, so I got out my cell phone, called an anarchist friend of mine who I’d left at a bus stop ten minutes earlier, and told him what was going on — not so much because I was worried as out of sheer amazement that this was actually happening, and because I knew my friend would be very interested indeed. And I was right: he was angry that I’d been asked for ID for no reason, asked if we were living in a fascist country (we aren’t, yet), and reminded me of my rights. I already knew them, of course. (Note for people living in Canada: you don’t have to talk to the cops. If they stop you, ask if you’re being detained. If you are, ask why; if not, you’re free to go. If you’re under arrest, you have to identify yourself, but you still don’t have to answer any other questions.)

As I was hanging up, the first cop got out of the car and asked if I had any BC ID. I said I didn’t (“You don’t drive?” “No.”), and he gave me back my license and asked me once again where I live. I repeated, “The West End.” He asked for my address, but I was tired of cooperating, so I responded, “Am I being detained?”

Cops don’t give a straight answer to that one. This one acted surprised and said, “I’m just asking you some questions. Do you know why we wanted to talk to you?”

I told him what his partner had told me. I almost felt bad about it, because I knew the rookie would be getting in trouble for giving the game away like that.

“That,” the cop said, “and we’re looking for someone who matches your description.”

“What, a guy with a beard and a hat?”

“And glasses, and a blue jacket,” he added, as if those two extra details mattered — it still fit dozens of other people I’d seen in the last ten minutes. “I take it you won’t be answering any more questions?”

“Nope.”

“Why not?”

I explained that I don’t like it when cops stop me and ask to see my ID for no reason, and asked if I was free to go. He told me I was, so I got his badge number (I didn’t bother with the rookie) and left.

I was lucky. I wasn’t carrying ID with my current address, and I don’t have anything on my record anyway, nor did I have anything in my possession that might have gotten me into trouble. (The laptop with the Community Watch Area: Police Not Welcome sticker was at home.) Also, I’m white and I don’t look especially poor. Under different circumstances, the encounter could easily have turned into a disaster.

Still, I wish I had exercised my rights from the beginning. I was doing nothing wrong — unless simply being in the DTES is suspicious behavior (and for the cops, it probably is) — and the rookie’s comments made it clear that they weren’t actually stopping me for any particular reason, except to demonstrate their authority over the people they claim to serve and protect.

Remember when “Ihre Papiere, bitte” was a criticism of totalitarian states?

Oakland transit cop kills unarmed man

8 January 2009 comments (2)

At 2am on New Year’s Day in Oakland, California, a transit cop shot an unarmed man in the back, killing him. The victim was lying face down on the ground;  a second officer was holding him down, and three other cops were standing nearby at the time of the shooting.

The victim’s name was Oscar Grant. He was, of course, African-American.

Fortunately, there were witnesses with video cameras. This video (an excerpt from a TV news show replaying eyewitness footage) shows the shooting. This video — a separate, longer piece of eyewitness footage — gives a good sense of the context. The five cops at the scene were in control and not in any danger from Grant or anyone else. Grant wasn’t even handcuffed. Far from acting violently, he had been cooperating with the police before they killed him.

“I couldn’t believe it. We was already following directions and everything, and they shot him,” Fernando Anicete, one of the young men with Grant, told KTVU.

Burris has spoken to witnesses who claim that Grant was trying to resolve the situation.

“He had been telling people to calm down. ‘Be cool. Just do what they tell you to do,’ ” the attorney said.

It’s been suggested that the shooting was accidental — that the cop who pulled the trigger didn’t mean for his gun to go off, or thought he was firing his Taser. But even if that’s true, there was no reason to draw a weapon in the first place: Grant was lying face-down on the ground and was being held down by another officer when he was shot. You don’t point a weapon at someone unless you’re prepared to use it.

The Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department is promising an “unbiased, thorough and detailed investigation.” However, a week after the shooting, the killer had still not given a statement to investigators. Indeed, the New York Times reports that investigators’ “efforts to interview him about the circumstances of the shooting had been rebuffed by his lawyers and police union leaders.” Because nothing says impartiality like giving the perpetrator over a week to get his story straight.

We can add Oscar Grant to a long list that includes other, better-known names: Jean Charles de Menezes, unarmed, shot and killed by police. Amadou Diallo, unarmed, shot and killed by police. Rigoberto Alpizar, unarmed, shot and killed by US air marshals. Robert Dziekanski, unarmed, Tasered to death by police. Jeff Berg, unarmed, beaten to death by police. Ian Bush, unarmed, killed by a shot to the back of the head while in police custody. I could go on.

None of the cops in any of these cases were convicted of a crime. In the Menezes, Alpizar, and Dziekanski cases, they didn’t even face charges. Is there any reason to believe the murder of Oscar Grant will be treated any differently?

(Hat tip to Chris Carlsson for the video links.)

BC puts its laws online

5 January 2009 comments (0)

Gordon Campbell’s Liberals have done something I agree with: they’ve made BC statutes and regulations freely available online. The interface leaves something to be desired — for example, a search for “non-profit” or “433″ won’t bring up the Society Act (chapter 433 of the Revised Statutes of BC), which sets out the rules for non-profit societies — but at least the content is there.

Of course, BC residents have been able to get online access to provincial laws through their public libraries for a long time now. But folks don’t always know that, and even if they do, libraries’ online resources are hard to find and hard to use. (Vancouver residents: start here.) It’s good that the province is making this stuff more easily accessible.