Slashdot Mirror

Allow me to reply with a verdict of a muslim court :

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130692005

Perhaps you'd like to go over and try your luck ? One would hope this would make you come to your senses, but I fear that would be slightly too much to ask.

It doesn't make sense to stop buying from Lenovo and continue buying goods made by other Chinese companies. Are you going to boycott all Chinese-made goods? Then be ready for some serious inconvenience.

Also, it's kind of sad that you're focusing on what's happening in Burma. It's evil, all right, but it also happens every day, all over the world. (And a lot of it is perpetrated by our very own beloved leaders.) If you really give a shit about human rights, stop reacting to headlines and start doing stuff day-to-day. Like joining the organization linked above, or one like it.

Results 1 - 10 of about 40,600 for` Usmanov torture' . (0.10 seconds)

I had a rush of blood to the wallet the other evening (due to having had a couple of G&Ts more than was strictly prudent) and went on a mad "joining and donation" binge; I now find I'm a member of Liberty an Amnesty International. Probably not a great deal of help, but it's better than nothing.

I would like to see a source for that number if you don't mind.

Upon checking my sources I see that it's not quite 200, it's more like 150, but here's the source:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510302006

If I was in bezerk mode I would rather have the police tase me than risking my joints and ligaments.

Berzerk mode, particularly if it's caused by drugs, appears to be precisely when taser use is potentially most dangerous to your life.

Ah, but you do know that tasers are far from non-lethal, yes?

(2) Since tasers were first used in 2001 by law enforcement agencies in the USA and Canada, more than 260 people have died after being shocked with the weapon. Fifteen such deaths have been reported in Canada. In the USA, coroners have listed taser shocks as a cause of death or a contributory factor in more than two dozen cases in the past two years. While no such findings have yet been made in Canada, Amnesty International believes a link between deaths and taser shocks cannot be ruled out.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR200022007

Go ahead and tell that to others who would sensor the internet, such as the US Senate and the government of the Peoples Republic of China. Both blather on about using force to make the internet safe. They're really just trying to stay in power. One by manipulating ignorant fear and one through imprisoning dissenters. Both need your attention.

I may not be him, but theres a lot of info here: http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=usaicc
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/icc-US_threats-eng

Here's the quote from Amnesty International site:

The USA is currently approaching governments around the world and asking them to enter into illegal impunity agreements. These agreements provide that a government will not surrender or transfer US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes to the ICC, if requested by the Court. The agreements do not require the USA or the other state concerned to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, to prosecute such a person in US Courts. Indeed in many cases it would be impossible for US courts to do so, as US law does not include many of the crimes under the Rome Statute.

Amnesty International:
http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/Ven-summary-eng

Not that it makes a difference... You already know Chavez is a brutal dictator... you just don't have a problem with mass-murder and totalitarianism when it is being perpetrated by those who share your political views. You will think of some sort of excuse why thousands of people being murdered by death squads doesn't count.

Wow. You totally drank the kool-ade. That's the most credulous yes-man line of BS I've ever heard, and that goes a ways.

Hmm... Let's take 'em one by one.

Spying on Everybody: How this works is, the NSA sets up filters at choke points in the network (where the majority of packets will pass through on their way somewhere else). They configure their gear to automatically start recording and analysing whenever certain phrases are detected. These phrases can be anything from "Bush sucks" to "bomb" to "protest march". The fact that it's targeted means they can tell the public anything they want about who they're supposedly after, while making it look like they aren't filtering all packets. Look up Echelon sometime. And that's the OLD system everybody knows about.

This is how the "Big Brother" concept works, by the way. It stifles conversations because you know they're listening, and you never know whether they'll take an interest in this particular phone call. This is why the constitution is supposed to ban this sort of thing, by the way.

And why would they do that? BECAUSE THEY CAN. Because it gives them more power than they had before. Because it enables them to crush dissent and remove opponents. Duh.

Next up... The FISA court oversees only what Bush et al allow it to oversee. They're supposed to ASK FISA for permission to do wiretaps. So far they've been IGNORING IT and doing whatever they want, so don't talk to me about FISA.

Next... Who have they tortured to death? Are you serious? THEY ADMITTED THAT THEY'VE DONE THIS. There are photos circulating around the web of bodies of people who've died in interrogation in Afghanistan and Iraq. There have been coroners reports stating matter of factly that people have been tortured to death. Don't you read the news? Ok, fine, here's an article. It's from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and has a nice interview for you: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1576271.h tm. Ok, here's one more, from Amnesty International: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR5106120 06.

Ok, next up... The paragraph about the justification for Iraq was just dumb, man. All of that has been debunked long ago, and if I gave you a list of articles this post would be a mile long. The fact is, Bush lied about Iraq to trick everybody into the war, and he keeps lying about it. I don't even respect your claim enough to discuss it further. Let's move along.

Next: Scooter's going to jail; that's good enough for me. Of course, Bush will try to pardon him -- no justice for friends of the president, don'cha know! Cronyism at its best. Totally unAmerican. And you know damn well the order to out poor Ms. Plame came down from on high, don't be ridiculous. Her husband outed Bush on the phony yellow cake claims, and the administration wanted to punish him for it. It's telling that they picked on his WIFE, it shows you what juvenile scum they are. These people don't deserve to run a world power.

U.S. Attorneys are NOT supposed to be fired for refusing to act as tools of a political agenda, pal! They're supposed to be civil servants guarding the interests of justice, not the republican party's attack dogs! So your suggestion, here, is crap.

Cozy with the commies in China = allowing China to hold all of our debt, not doing anything about trade imbalances with China, not taking any action to force China to improve its human rights record, not making any effort to force China to throttle back their amazing level of air pollution (which is contributing to global warming and air pollution throughout the region)... Come on, are you serious?

Extraordinary Rendition -- YES, which has been used against several TOTALLY INNOCENT PEOPLE who were torn from their families for a year for torture in a foreign country. Remember that poor Canuck who got yanked out of JFK in NY, s

Call me a troll if you want, but the Bush administration has clamped down hard on free speech

Like the UK government, which has banned protests in parts of London unless you have a license for your free speech?

monitors just about everything,

Like the UK government, which is an enthusiastic participant in ECHELON, runs GCHQ, and used to spy on the National Council for Civil Liberties, CND, and other "subversive" organizations?

litmus tests public servants,

Like the Labour Party, which imposes pre-vetted "New Labour" candidates approved by Central Office, and forces locally chosen Labour candidates to run as independents? And even tried to do it in the high profile London mayoral election?

puts whoever it wants on various lists,

Like the UK government, which has lists of prohibited organizations and the people believed to have joined them?

puts others in prison without charging them,

As opposed to the UK government, which puts people in prison indefinitely without charge?

declares pre-emptive war with no legal basis,

As opposed to the UK government, whose Prime Minister lies to everyone in order to get the country involved in said war, and still gets re-elected after his lies have been documented?

and does it all while putting every citizen and their children so deep in debt they will probably never get out.

Oh, well, you've got me there, the US economy has definitely been mismanaged worse than the UK.

Yes, Chavez likely will build jails. Check this page out for links to stories that have made it out of Venezuela: http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu Or this one: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR5301319 97?open&of=ENG-VEN Or how about here for some more on the gloriously free democracy that Chavez has crafted: http://www.humanrightsfoundation.org/ Oh, wait for it...more: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/6/17/1 5422/6410 Anyone who cannot see that Chavez is setting up a dictatorship, and that he will not tolerate dissent is either stupid, or willfully blind.

US Threats to the International Criminal Court

The United States of America is the only state that is actively opposed to the new International Criminal Court. US opposition to the Court can be traced back to the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) in 1998, where the USA was one of only 7 states to vote against adoption of the Statute. Reportedly a major reason for not supporting adoption of the Statute stems from the refusal of the international community to grant the United Nations Security Council (of which the USA is a veto holding permanent member) control over which cases the Court considered, instead favouring an independent Prosecutor who - subject to safeguards and fair trial guarantees - would make such decisions.

On 31 December 2000, however, President Clinton signed the Rome Statute, which was a positive step in favour of the Court. However, the US position has changed dramatically since the new administration under President Bush took office in 2001. On 6 May 2002, the US government took the unprecedented step of repudiating its signature of the Rome Statute and began a worldwide campaign to weaken the Court and to obtain impunity for all US nationals from the jurisdiction of the Court.

Amnesty International believes that the US concerns that the ICC will be used to bring politically motivated prosecutions against US nationals are wholly unfounded. The substantial safeguards and fair trial guarantees in the Rome Statute will ensure that such a situation would never arise.

This page provides information on two parts of the current US campaign against the ICC: impunity agreements and Security Council Resolution 1422. For further information on the USA and the ICC, please see the AI USA website, the AMICC website, the CICC website, or the Washington Working Group on the ICC website.

US Impunity Agreements

The USA is currently approaching governments around the world and asking them to enter into illegal impunity agreements. These agreements provide that a government will not surrender or transfer US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes to the ICC, if requested by the Court. The agreements do not require the USA or the other state concerned to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, to prosecute such a person in US Courts. Indeed in many cases it would be impossible for US courts to do so, as US law does not include many of the crimes under the Rome Statute.

On 1 July 2003 the USA announced the withdrawal of military assistance to 35 states who are parties to the Rome Statute and have refused to sign an impunity agreement with the USA. On 8 December 2004, the USA went even further, withdrawing economic support from states that still refuse to sign impunity agreements. The withdrawal of this economic funding threatens to undermine counter-terrorism efforts, peace process programs, anti-drug trafficking initiatives, truth and reconciliation commissions and HIV/Aids education, and threatens states such as Jordan, Ireland, Cyprus, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and South Africa.

The USA claims that these agreements are legal and in conformity with Article 98 of the Statute. However, Amnesty International has conducted a legal analysis which demonstrates that US Impunity Agreements do not fall under Article 98, and states that enter into such agreements with the USA are in breach of their obligations under international law. This legal analysis (International Criminal Court: US efforts to obtain impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war

If you're looking for higher-quality, non-politically-motivated info, or think that the Cuban government is being unfairly maligned, check out Amnesty International's evaluation: http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/cub-summary-eng/

There are rather more worrisome things about Venezualan police than their use of UAVs.

they'll still keep murdering anyone who makes a stand for human rights

I wouldn't source People's Daily Online, which is known for having just a little bias, especially when China hasn't been doing very well in the area of abductions or human rights itself.

they'll still keep murdering anyone who makes a stand for human rights

I wouldn't source People's Daily Online, which is known for having just a little bias, especially when China hasn't been doing very well in the area of abductions or human rights itself.

I like to believe that, in America at least, we avoid this "Catch-22" wherein we assume from the get go that the alleged criminal is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm sure you'd like to believe that, but I have two words for you: Guantanamo bay.

Feel free to tell his principal how you feel about the whole guilty until proven innocent thing she has going on.

Exactly, especially considering in Sri Lanka, since Independance, Tamils have been racially and xenophobically put down, by a a majority ruling party, who just happen to speak a different language.

See "Black July" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_July and other awful cases of poor human rights and racist actions by a few in power.

I have seen the problem at face, as I have recently (November 2006) been to Sri Lanka myself: as a tourist, and stayed in a hotel, in Colombo, for only 3 nights, to see my girlfriend who lives in Colombo (she is half Singhalese, half Tamil, by the way) Whenever my hotel car was stopped at numerous checkpoints, and they saw on my BRITISH passport, that I was born in Jaffna, I was given "special treatment". I usually responded with a query of the officers Badge Number, as well as reasons for the delay in letting me through, which usually for me, made them back off.

But others are not so lucky.

A friend of mine, was recently spotted as a Tamil at the immigration in Colombo airport, and was kidnapped en route to the capital, and was help, until he paid a ransom of £2000. The kidnapping was done by gangs, supporting the current administration, with the help of the police, and authorities.

Unfortunately the current administration in Sri Lanka, has a unwritten, but oft repeated view that all Tamils are LTTE. Amnesty International has been recently doing a large campaign highlighting the general lack of human rights in Sri Lanka http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA3701020 07.

No Tamil Sri Lankan wants to separate from the rest of the country, they just desire to live together in harmony. But when the government does not protect, and then attacks members of their own people, of cause people will support the LTTE in desperation.

It's a really sad tragic situation, and destroying a very beautiful country.

kettle pot black http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-e ng/

there is no legal opression of 10 year olds by established big buck companies here.

Oppression is a harsh term. The worst thing that can happen here is this girl is ordered to pay money to the plaintiffs. If she doesn't have the money, then she doesn't have to pay it. And I find the idea of her actually losing incredibly remote.

As for Turkey, I'd rather be sued by the RIAA than face some of the human rights deprivations in Turkey:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/tur-summary-eng# 3

That's not to say there aren't civil rights violations going on in the US. But this lawsuit is minor compared to them.

Glad to hear things have changed.

I do not agree...at all.

Certainly, we are not without sin, but the current rift is more complex than you portray. At the very least, it is due in part to a clash of cultures and religions that are almost diametrically opposed to one another. Freedom of speech, expression and, yes, religion are basic tenets of American society. We have grown so used to these basic freedoms that we assume that they are universally true...and they are not...regardless of how much we (or others) would like them to be.

I am not attempting to flame, but I think that it is fair to say that some societies (especially some of those in the Mid-East) hold a specific religious dogma to be of principal importance to their society. All other laws and rules of behavior flow from that religious dogma...or, at the very least, cannot conflict with it. I think that it is also fair to say that the level of tolerance for conflicting beliefs is fairly low. Doubt it? Try carrying a stack of bibles into Saudi Arabia and see how far you get through customs. I'll tell you how far - to the line that leads to jail:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE2300220 00
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1 012.html

In America, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I worked in Japan for some time and realized that a somewhat similar Japanese phrase crystallizes the difference between our two cultures - the nail that sticks up gets hit. The clash of philosophies between Islam and the West make the differences between the US and Japan look trivial.

Can you tell the difference between a violent person and a nonviolent person? I can't.

Yeah, the one in a position to and attempting to hit me is the violent one, the one lying on the floor refusing to move is the nonviolent one.

Cops are using the threat of taser as a means of getting people to cooperate WITHOUT resorting to physical force that could harm both the officer and the individual.

COULD harm the individual as opposed to using the taser which WILL harm the individual but greater shields the officer from the minor risk of injury posed by 6 burly men trying to move one student. An inherent risk in taking the job of police officer is that you might get hurt doing your job, so I don't see a tradeoff which means that the public (who didn't sign up to be police officers) get hurt more so the police get hurt less as a fair one.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr5113920 04

I don't get it. I read that all the way through and what you referenced isn't in there (indeed, it seems to have been written about 2 years ago, before this incident), so I'll just have to address your points as if it's you making them

From what I can put together the student was in the library after hours without ID. In order to be lawfully in the library after a certain time a student must be able to produce ID. A University library is allowed to lawfully restrict access by employing reasonable rules and regulations. I think it is pretty reasonable to limit library access to students with ID after 11pm.

I don't - why would keeping people who, (not possesing a university ID card,) may or may not be students out during off-peak hours make sense?

The student apparently wanted to protest this policy and chose to do so by violating it.

A quite well established method of demonstrating the stupidity of a bad policy.

When asked for ID he refused to produced it and refused to leave the library.

When told to by who? when a minor busy-body tells you to do something, is it unreasonable to consider whether that person is overstepping their authority? (for instance, if I tell you to run out of your house singing 'tie me kangeroo down sport' right now, should you immediately comply just incase it is actually within my authority to tell you to do that?)

At that time he probably was considered to be tresspassing under applicable state law. The student cop called the real cops who showed up to arrest him for violating that law. But, when the real cops showed up he then decided he should leave because he didn't want to be arrested.

Possibly, possibly not, but since when the real police arrived he went to leave, the opportunity to resolve the situation sensibly was available (he's out of the library, point made, nobody arrested, everybody's happy), instead, the police chose to unnecessarily escalate the situation.

He got up from his seat, ignored the officer's orders to stop, and attempted to leave the library.

So he complied with the initial instructions, albeit late

Because he had already committed a crime (and their was probable cause he did), the police had every right to arrest and detain him. I guess your average UCLA student isn't educated enough to know that you can't break the law and then make everything OK by simply leaving (it's as silly as saying "sorry for robbing your bank - her is the cash back and we will call it even.")

They may have had every right to arrest him, they didn't have every right to assault him in the process, which is the point at issue. There is a difference between 'breaking the law and making everything ok by leaving' and 'being told to leave and, when you've esta

I have watched the video on YouTube, read many conflicting reports about the incident, and even spoke with a student who witnessed part of the incident at the library and I really don't see a problem with what happened.

From what I can put together the student was in the library after hours without ID. In order to be lawfully in the library after a certain time a student must be able to produce ID. A University library is allowed to lawfully restrict access by employing reasonable rules and regulations. I think it is pretty reasonable to limit library access to students with ID after 11pm.

The student apparently wanted to protest this policy and chose to do so by violating it. When asked for ID he refused to produced it and refused to leave the library. At that time he probably was considered to be tresspassing under applicable state law. The student cop called the real cops who showed up to arrest him for violating that law. But, when the real cops showed up he then decided he should leave because he didn't want to be arrested. He got up from his seat, ignored the officer's orders to stop, and attempted to leave the library. Because he had already committed a crime (and their was probable cause he did), the police had every right to arrest and detain him. I guess your average UCLA student isn't educated enough to know that you can't break the law and then make everything OK by simply leaving (it's as silly as saying "sorry for robbing your bank - her is the cash back and we will call it even.")

It appears that the police tasered him multiple times because he was being insubordinate while actively and passively resisting arrest. He refused to stand and walk while in custody (I have been told by my criminal defense attorney friends in CA that the courts have found it lawful to use pain compliance techniques to force a detainee to walk while in custody and that officers, under normal circumstances, are under no obligation to carry them around like other jurisdiction do.)

Also, it appeared on the video, that the student called for the crowd of students to assist him resist arrest. Now I've got no problem with saying a person has a 1st amendment right to verbally protest an arrest and tell a cop to fuck off. But, when you call for immenent lawless action that is quite a different story. The growing crowd appeeared restless and students began aggressively protesting their fellow student's arrest. The possibility that the situation could have escalated had the arrested student continued his calls was pretty high. I think under the circumstances the officers were quite justified.

With all that said, I don't know why they simply didn't hog tie him and carry him out to the paddy wagon while letting him yell and scream. That's what the cops do around here and it works pretty well.

80% of those executed have been executed for murders involving white victims. Focusing only on racial disparities in who commits crimes is leaving out an important part of the story.

Oh, did the UK start using Mobile Execution Vans to eliminate dissidents? No? Just had a harebrained idea of how to deal with convicted sex offenders ?
I fail to see the similarities.

The real trouble with the slippery slope argument is that I'm OK with tracking cattle using machine-readable unique IDs and I'm not OK with the same technology being used on humans. Cattle tracking, I don't think it's a privacy issue. The moment someone suggests we put this on people, then I'll raise all hell.

Having said that, someone (albeit a nobody) did suggest it, so hell-raising is appropriate, for once.

As a side note, when I renewed all three of my passports in May 2006. The Australian and EU (British) both had RFID chips with the explanation that it was required by the US Government for all passports. My US passport came without one.

As a side side note, the entire Guantanamo Bay situation is the single thing that horrifies and offends me more than anything else. Help me do something, please.

In case you don't remember, habeas corpus has been suspended indefinitely in the U.S. of A last October. If the U.S. authorities file those two people (with no justification necessary) under "funding terrorist organisations," the authorities can do whatever they please with them. Yay for the checks and balances!

And what will a corrupt government realistically do with video cameras?

Your Amnesty International link seem to be to the 2003 report. It would probably also be a good idea to provide the links the US reports as well, since you are (presumably) doing a comparison. A good summary is that you don't want to be in the wrong group in either country:

Iran:
amnesty international
human rights watch

US:
amnesty international
human rights watch

It's also worth remembering, whenever Iran is being discussed, that the present government is a fairly direct outcome of Operation Ajax, in which the US and Britian overthrew the original (and very progressive) Iranian democratic government and installed a very brutal dictator (the Shah) because Iran planned to nationalize its oil (which was the result of, amongst other things, them being denied the right to even audit British Petroleum's books).

Your Amnesty International link seem to be to the 2003 report. It would probably also be a good idea to provide the links the US reports as well, since you are (presumably) doing a comparison. A good summary is that you don't want to be in the wrong group in either country:

Iran:
amnesty international
human rights watch

US:
amnesty international
human rights watch

It's also worth remembering, whenever Iran is being discussed, that the present government is a fairly direct outcome of Operation Ajax, in which the US and Britian overthrew the original (and very progressive) Iranian democratic government and installed a very brutal dictator (the Shah) because Iran planned to nationalize its oil (which was the result of, amongst other things, them being denied the right to even audit British Petroleum's books).

Bzzt. "Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented 47 executions of child offenders in eight countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the USA and Yemen."

Read about it here

"The USA and Iran have each executed more child offenders than the other six countries combined and Iran has now matched the USA's total since 1990 of 19 child executions."

That's right folks, Iran has caught up with the USA. CAUGHT UP!

You forgot a link or two.

-Grey

You forgot a link or two.

-Grey

Human Rights Watch Iran
Amnesty International Iran

Take your jaded world weariness and shove it up your ass. The USA has problems, but comparing it to Iran with a smirk and a shrug is the opposite of helpful.

You mean, "poisoning a British citizen so he cooks from the inside-out" is the more civilized alternative usual pattern of Russian soldiers murdering , raping and torturing Chechen civilians, and running "filtration" camps where they rape 13 year old girls ?

(and the occasional retaliation?)

The site they're talking about seems pretty harmless (and even a little immature), but I guess the case isn't about one particular site as it is about setting a precedent. Still, I think it's kind of silly that a bunch of high-powered lawyers spent so much time arguing about a Barney parody page.

I'm glad the EFF won, and I'm glad the EFF exists, but there have to be more important problems to spend time and money on than this one - like human rights and hunger, to name a few. Nothing against the EFF... it's just that this whole case rates a 9 on the WTF? meter.

For fun, recently, I was tasered. I will say this. It hurts fierce, but it didn't keep me from moving at all.

For fun, a few times a month some of us strap on some thin protective pads and hit each other. I will say this: shots that will knock the wind out of one person, leaving them curled up on the floor unable to move, will have no effect on another.

Just like a punch or kick, the impact of a taser varies widely. Dozens of people have have killed by them; others laugh it off.

However, big bad criminal breaks into your house in the middle of the night...Police come in. Now, do you want a nice or a jerk cop?

Never mistake niceness for weakness, or cruelty for strength.

Ruddock has been pushing these copyright reforms. It makes my blood run cold when the architect of the pacific solution wants to "reform" anything.

For extensively documented long list of police brutality in the U.S. circa 1999 see:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR5114719 99?open&of=ENG-USA

Police killed almost 10,000 people in a 20 year period between 1976 and 1998:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0428-04.ht m

Police have tasered 167 people to death in just the last 7 years, clearly when a taser is deployed death ought not to result.

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articl es/1224taserlist24-ON.html

According to Human Rights Watch an internationally respected human rights organization these conditions obtain in American prisons:

"In recent years, U.S. prison inmates have been beaten with fists and batons, stomped on, kicked, shot, stunned with electronic devices, doused with chemical sprays, choked, and slammed face first onto concrete floors by the officers whose job it is to guard them. Inmates have ended up with broken jaws, smashed ribs, perforated eardrums, missing teeth, burn scars--not to mention psychological scars and emotional pain. Some have died.

Both men and women prisoners--but especially women--face staff rape and sexual abuse. Correctional officers will bribe, coerce, or violently force inmates into granting sexual favors, including oral sex or intercourse. Prison staff have laughed at and ignored the pleas of male prisoners seeking protection from rape by other inmates."

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/14/usdom8583.h tm

And the use of restraint chairs as torture devices in U.S. jails and prisons:

" restraint chairs have been used for punishment of nonthreatening behavior;

children have been strapped into the chairs for nonviolent behaviors;

nude inmates and detainees have been strapped into restraint chairs;

prisoners have been left in restraint chairs for as long as eight days. In some cases, the jail staff failed to manipulate the prisoners' limbs to protect against blood clots;

prisoners have been required to testify while in restraint chairs;

prisoners have been interrogated while in restraint chairs;

prisoners have been injured while in restraint chairs;

prisoners have been tortured by being hooded, pepper-gassed, beaten, or threatened with electrocution while in the chairs;

at least eleven people have died under questionable circumstances after being strapped into a restraint chair.

Use of the restraint chair is widespread: Jails, state and federal prisons, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Marshals Service, state mental hospitals, juvenile detention centers, and foreign governments are all equipped with the chair.

Amnesty International has called for a federal investigation into use of the restraint chair. The device "is an issue of great concern to us," says Angela Wright, a researcher at Amnesty's headquarters in London. "It appears to be used in some jurisdictions as a front-line or even routine form of control, including as a punishment for disruptive or annoying behavior."

http://www.progressive.org/mag_cusacchair

And swat teams are being militarized and given ex-military hardware:

"It's unlikely that the officer who shot Culosi did so intentionally. But it's also unlikely that the investigation into this shooting will address why police sent a military-style unit to arrest an optometrist under investigation for a nonviolent crime and why the officers had their guns drawn when approaching a man with no history of violence.

Chavez is considerably worse than just "not a saint". And comparing him to an elected President of the US is somewhat absurd. Anyone who thinks life in Venezuela under Chavez would be nicer than life in the United States under Bush should put their money where their mouth is and move there.

If you read the details about India on the RSF website, you will find out why it has been placed at rank 105. Journalists who "cover Maoist activities" can find themselves arrested for up to three years in some regions in the south, and in Kashmir journalists have been attacked by both the police and radical seperatists. Furthermore, according to RSF, there have been government officials filmed accepting bribes from a privately owned media company. Unless the United States has similar extreme problems which I am not aware of, then India probably deserves its 105th place ranking.

To continue with your example of India as a democratic country, I'll point out that they still have a hierarchical caste system, which includes the dalit caste. These dalits are generally not allowed to practice the religion which they are integrally a part of; and even though the caste system has been legally abolished, the legal systems are not enforced to protect them. There is a report on the social climate of India available on here.

Amnesty International says "AI's vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"...

Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-udhr-eng

...I look forward to their defence of this guy.

Having said which, IMHO many posts on this subject are a bit binary/ all-or-nothing: I personally feel that (in spite of the declaration above) that it's fair enough to give this chap a fine or maybe a week inside. But almost THREE YEARS?!? That is clearly unfair. I was talking to a friend from China, and she commented that sentences of this length for such trivial utterances were a characteristic of the Cultural Revolution.

Part of the problem is the law: it outlaws "publishing" hatespeak -- but the law was framed (I assume) at a time when to "publish" something required printing presses -- and thus plenty of effort and forethought. Surely sticking something on a webpage is far closer to casual speech.

"a number of military officers, including Generals Aussaresses and Jacques Massu, publicly admitted their involvement in torture and extrajudicial executions"

http://www.web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR210 022001?open&of=ENG-313

There is no such thing as a clean war. I think you sound too smart to claim otherwise, even in a moment of patriotism.

The sad part is, this is actually what they do in China.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ec-index-eng