Tag Archive: Torture


Jail Inmate Pepper Sprayed While Fully Secured In Restraint Chair

 

 

 

 

Published on Jan 29, 2014

Media Inquiries: RutherfordBeacon@gmail.com

” On December 9, 2013 an inmate was brought to the Rutherford County (TN) Sheriff’s Office jail facility on a charge of “Resisting” and “Hold – Other Department”. The inmate was placed into a restraint chair in the sally port, which binds your wrists and ankles into restraints, as well as various straps to limit movement.

  Upon being brought into Holding Cell #133, a strap that goes across the inmate’s legs to keep movement limited came loose. According to department records, this strap had been malfunctioning for several months prior.

  Deputy James Vanderveer, who was re-hired after being forced to resign due to a DUI arrest, and is the nephew of Sheriff Robert Arnold, enters the holding cell and begins to re-secure the strap. The inmate’s ankles and wrists are still securely in their restraints and he is unable to move his legs or arms more than an inch or two. There appears to be no struggle taking place when Deputy Vanderveer sprays pepper spray into the gap in his spit shield. The spit shield remains in place for ten minutes before being removed.
For one hour and fifteen minutes, the inmate receives no medical attention and can be seen convulsing, yelling for help, and struggling. 

  Deputy Vanderveer stated in a subsequent incident report that the inmate was combative and that his legs had come lose, which is contradictory to video evidence. Jail supervisors later documented that they informed him that “he better write a good report and … hoped he could justify spraying someone while they were restrained in a restraint chair.” Deputy Vanderveer later received a written reprimand for “Disproportionate Use of Force” and is still employed as a sheriff’s deputy.

  Sources: RCSO Incident #33690, RCSO Complaint #13120964007, RCSO Booking #329368, Report of Action from Cpt. Derrell Cagle Re: James Vanderveer on 12/12/13″

‘Eyes Gouged Out, Bodies Hanging From Hooks, And Fingers Removed With Pliers’

 

Soldiers told of the horrific torture meted out by terrorists in the Nairobi mall massacre yesterday with claims hostages were dismembered, had their eyes gouged out and were left hanging from hooks in the ceiling

 

” Soldiers told of the horrific torture meted out by terrorists in the Nairobi mall massacre yesterday with claims hostages were dismembered, had their eyes gouged out and were left hanging from hooks in the ceiling.

Men were said to have been castrated and had fingers removed with pliers before being blinded and hanged. 

Children were found dead in the food court fridges with knives still embedded in their bodies, it was claimed.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Torture, Murder, and Terror: Three Drug War Programs Your Taxes Pay For

 

 

 

 

” When’s the last time you heard someone argue that we need to raise taxes to fund torture? Or to pay for violent paramilitary raids on peaceful U.S. citizens? Or to incentivize extrajudicial killings carried out by our own government, yes, but also by a neighboring country? Probably never. As every good citizen knows, taxes are for taking care of the poor and the indigent, paying (good) teachers and (good) cops, investing in the future, and making sure the elderly have enough Viagra and cat food to fuel 25 years of post-workforce bingo, golf, and unprotected sex.

But it’s also the case that your taxes pay for unquestionably vile things. Incontrovertibly evil things. Plainly awful things. If you’re finishing up your taxes today, you should know that the U.S. will spend $14.7 billion of next year’s $25.4 billion drug control budget on government-sponsored violence; which means that your tax dollars—even if it’s just a fraction of a cent—will make possible acts of state-sponsored terror, torture, and murder. 

Here are three ways the government is spending your taxes.

 

 

 

Afghan Expels US Special Forces For Torturing And Murdering

 

 

 

” Afghanistan’s President today ordered U.S. special forces to leave Wardak province in the nation’s east within two weeks after investigators said Afghans working for the forces were torturing and murdering fellow citizens.

Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai ordered an investigation which later found that Afghans working for the U.S. special forces in Wardak were “harassing, annoying, torturing, and even murdering innocent people,” according to an e-mailed statement from Karzai’s press office in Kabul today. The investigation had been asked to identify causes of insecurity in Wardak and Logar provinces.”

 

Is Obama’s Drone Policy Really Morally Superior to Torture?

 

 

” Here is the worst-kept secret in Washington: Instead of capturing and grilling suspected terrorists, as agents did during the 2000s, the United States now kills them from above. Yet where the morality of President Bush’s tactics chewed up years of public debate, Congress and the press seem less interested in the legitimacy of drone strikes than in the process (and secrecy) that surrounds them. Members questioned John Brennan, the CIA nominee who helped build the administration’s drone strategy, along exactly these lines. “[The debate] has really all been about the legality of targeting American citizens, not the overall moral issues raised by the drone program, or collateral casualties, or classifying any young men between a certain age-group default as terrorists,” says Bruce Hoffman, director of Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies. In a CBS Newspoll last week, 71 percent of Americans said they support the strikes.

Compare that with the PR crisis unleashed by the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse photos in 2004. Congressional, military, and independent investigations sprang to life. The phrase “enhanced interrogation techniques” entered the lexicon. Bush first argued that these were legal, but a Reed College analysis of polls shows that the public broadly opposed torture during his presidency. So why are drone strikes—which have reportedly killed 2,500 in Pakistan alone—different? Why do people impute more legitimacy to killing from afar (which sometimes ensnares innocent bystanders) than interrogating up close?”

 

Getting a Handle on ‘Zero Dark Thirty’

 ” How factual does a movie have to be when it’s inspired by real events? Can a filmmaker really tell a story without filtering it through a hardline political perspective? We’ve finally got a trailer for Zero Dark Thirty that gives some idea of how director Kathryn Bigelow decided to tell the story of the hunt for Osama bin Laden, so let’s check it out.

Let’s get some facts out of the way here: none of us here at Military​.com has a security clearance that gives us access to the classified files that would allow us to come up with any kind of informed opinion about the technical accuracy of this movie. But it’s also true that anyone who’s ever had access to truly classified material of any kind would probably admit that it’s often (read: always) full of conflicting information. An objective retelling of any true life event is pretty much impossible.”