July 8, 2004

July 7, 2004

  • ISSUES


     



     


    Police Politics and Runaway Crime in Dallas


     


    Reports out today say the City of Dallas is being sued because it is alleged the police department discriminated against 6 ethnically white and one ethnically hispanic police officer who say they were passed over for promotion by less qualified officers for the sake of Serbian-style racial quotas and because they did not speak Spanish…the language of Spain, the country that launched the terrifying armadas of death and destruction on the native populations of the Americas some of whom now seem to forget…but I digress.


     


    ---And one can certainly understand the City’s need to play demographic politics during this time that Dallas, for the sixth consecutive year has the highest crime rate of all major American cities. Something which is loathingly witnessed alongside an ever-rising rate of  dissatisfaction among citizens with police response times and other metrics of law enforcement performance.


     


    According to the Associated Press, on 7 July, “Sgt. Malik Aziz, president of the Texas Peace Officers Association, (who also is a Dallas police officer) said the complaints about transfers usually happen because supervisors fail to explain why an applicant was not chosen.”


     


    However, he later contradicted himself in an interview on Fox News’ The Big Story on 7 July when he admitted that in fact race was a deciding factor in choosing the promotions of officers and not performance, which would indicate that the officers did indeed know the reason why they were not chosen…and decided to sue!


     


    Aziz further steps in hot water by intimating that all white police officers are racist. As he says, "It's been common for white males on the department to allege racism or discriminatory practices given that they don't believe that any other black or Hispanic could be just as qualified or more qualified than them for a job…" Isn't such a leader as he supposed to be a unifier to all police officers. His job is to do just that and represent officers of all stripes in the state, yet he fails it seems to even be capable of doing this in one city. Sad.


     


    Naturally, his words are a pretty hefty charge coming from the President of the Texas Peace Officers Association. So let’s take a look at it for a minute. Obviously it is ridiculous to call every white male in the department racist. Most folks of all colors would agree with that. Racism certainly is not the ideological demographic of the general white population. So are we to assume police departments look to hire only racist whites? Of course this base canard gets only more insane the further you follow it. Even on Redneck Street right in the middle of Hick-Town Alabama you might not be able to say it’s so.


     


    But Mr. Aziz is alleging that most, if not all white males on a police force that numbers over 3,000 employees in a Metropolitan city made up of millions of people of different races who all grew up together, are. If he were right, that would be more white racists than the entire membership of any white hate group I know of. And do you think such rhetoric isn’t causing tensions both inside and outside the department? How much do you think it distracts from policing?


     


    Of course to Aziz, anyone who is not like him is automatically labeled a racist for political expediency; and possibly de facto less qualified to boot. Perhaps Mr. Aziz should be looking in the mirror for any racist in that department. Mr. Aziz, I dare say you are the racist and your policies are the ones causing racial tensions in your department as well as across the city.  Aziz has no interest in serving and protecting, he only wishes to stir the political pot so he can return to his comfortable life of ineffectual leisure, just as it has been in Dallas for several years now.


     


    It is however telling as one steps back and begins to see a picture of a department full of infighting and prejudice, resentment and mediocrity…and possibly corruption.


     


    And how does Mr. Aziz the Sneeze answer charges that he and the quota-police represent the real racism here (racism that in the end harms all colors and flavors of humanity)?


     


    Later, Mr. Aziz tried to project his sentiments on to the citizens of Dallas whom he is not serving when he insisted that his and the department’s seemingly racist views and actions were simply there to allow communities to be reflected in the officers that represent them. Sort of like one big Bosnia, but with Barney (you can determine whether I mean Barney Fife or Barney the Dinosaur). Aww. As he told Fox’s The Big Story, he feels the people of Dallas only want a cop if he looks like them and talks like them, who needs cops that catch crooks.


     


    Well of course you are wrong, Mr. Aziz, we want competent cops, something you wouldn’t know much about, Malik. A man should serve his community because he was chosen based on the content of his character, not the color of his skin.


     


    So by Malik Aziz saying what he has, contradictions and all, he is assuming every community is as racist as he is, once again admitting the deep seething personal issues he seems to have. It is folks with that mindset that are clearly the cause of the problem with crime in Dallas today. Malik wants to fit in, to be cool. Well that is all nice and cute, but we want cops who don’t have a high school insecurity complex and need the acceptance of criminals who happen to have big stereos and rad cars. Instead it's time they take the miscreants off the streets.


     


    Maybe somebody ought to remind our dear fellow of this. Perhaps Mr. Aziz should get some personal counseling and leave the policing to those who are ready to serve the Dallas community. I’ll even pay for his visits.


     


    But he has at least one lone ally. The associated press also reports, “Leaders of the department's minority associations said the complaints are absurd, and that there were probably other reasons why the officers were not selected.


     


    "’As the face of the department continues to change, minority officers will continue to be attacked in some sort or fashion,’ said Senior Cpl. George Aranda, Latino Peace Officers Association president.”


     


    On the “face” of that statement, it sounds like it could bear truth, after all, people are people and there will likely always be at least that one moron who can’t stand different hues of humanity. However again, we should remember that one of the officers suing is hispanic.


     


    It should be further noted that this ultimately may not be about race at all, but about those who want to work hard versus those who have an established status quo, whatever that may include, and resent having to think about moving somewhere off the bottom of the barrel when it comes to crime protection. I just hope Boy-George Aranda doesn’t read the Miranda…er, the periodicals over a latté, as the case more aptly seems to be, in my district.


     


    Slackers beware and be warned, the people of Dallas have had enough of your excuses and hiding behind politics to preserve your little doughnut fiefdoms. We are after all, one city, the great City of Dallas and it’s time to get off the collective butt and nipple, unite and take some pride in that fact. If you want to sit in Starbuck’s all day, fine: do it on a welfare check.


     


    The report however did say that the new police chief David Kunkle “is reviewing the department's transfer policy” and promises changes if warranted. David Kunke prior to this job was the City of Arlington, Texas’ Deputy City Manager for Citizen Services from October of 2002. If Chief Kunkle (gotta love that name) is the man for the job, what a job he has in store for him. Because this issue is but the tip of an iceberg that’s symptom has become the life and death matter of very poor performance in fighting crime for the department.


     


    In a recent Dallas “police efficiency study” meeting I attended which included representatives of the Dallas Police Department, as well as City Councilwoman Lois G. Finkelman, community frustration was more than evident.


     


    People from several parts of the area all had for the most part the same story: Emergency response times are often over half an hour, while non-emergency call response times were difficult to quantify because officers rarely if ever would show up at all.


     


    At the same time, a short trip to the Starbuck’s in my area (in a fairly high-fashion part of town) regularly reveals a virtual constant infestation of police officers, appearing as extras in some movie shoot waiting their turn.


     


    Some of them sit back and socialize, sometimes for over an hour in groups of two or three or more.


     


    Sure they could be on their lunch breaks, but that must mean this area has a lot of cops congregating in the same area which happens by coincidence to be a swank and relatively safe area (because of the community, not because of their presence), where all the good coffee and the pretty girls are.


     


    And those reports in our “Efficiency Study” meeting of police actually responding to non-emergency calls?


     


    When they get there in time to do any good those reports often bear stories of the officers not even bothering to get out of their cars, telling offenders to move on, and then quickly driving off in their cruisers. Back to Starbuck’s?


     


    Witnesses say that 10 times out of 10, the offenders just wait for the cop to leave and then return to whatever behavior got the call to begin with, without having to even bother so much as feigning an attempt to leave the area.


     


    Of course, this leaves the horrified citizen who placed the call and begins to suspect foul play in a position in which he or she must deal with a wiser (and more cocky) crook and the chore of calling the police again to tell them the offender has not left or ceased whatever he was doing, at which point the operator dutifully promises again that an officer will be out there shortly and, as expected, that officer may or may not come and if he gets there at all, may or may not do anything about the problem.


     


    And the criminal learns it’s a joke. So he becomes more dangerous.


     


    Other problems admitted to by the department and brought up by one officer who works for a department in a Dallas suburb are summed up in one phrase: bureaucratic red tape.


     


    Many text communications must be conducted not by e-mail or fax, but by snail mail. To send snail mail from inside the department the letter must first be sent unsealed to a clearing department which inspects the contents to verify if it qualifies as business mail. If it qualifies, it then is stamped (only this department has the stamps) sealed and sent.


     


    In theory of course this is to save the taxpayer money by curbing abuse. But I wonder how much this archain setup costs the taxpayer every year in dollars and cents as well as Police productivity.


     


    But then there is the matter with regard to the fact that Dallas is the only major city (according to one officer at that meeting) that does not employ PSO’s or Police Service Officers.


     


    These are non-commissioned officers whose main joy in life is writing parking tickets and investigating after-the-fact crime calls, collecting statements and the like. This would free up untold numbers of commissioned officers to—if the weather is right, do their jobs.


     


    That would be just another arrangement that could boost police productivity and may even score on the bottom line if they stepped up parking enforcement. And such combined productivity is key. After all, investigations must be waged, cops have their beats and doughnuts wait to be ravaged.


     


    While we certainly hope our new police chief brings back the word “police” to the Dallas Puleeeze Department, he to be certain will have to earn our trust. “Efficiency Studies” and the like are all well and good as a beginning, but substantively responding to those results and producing results will be what matters at the end of the day. Responding period, as we have learned, will be an improvement at the end of the day. In Dallas we hate losers. We don’t put up with it when the Cowboys, Stars or Rangers fail, and we really don’t tolerate it when our lives and livelihoods (really, the same thing) are at stake.


     


    Why is crime in Dallas worse than anywhere else in the nation…even Detroit, LA, New York and Philadelphia? Only because our police force is endlessly striving for excellence, to beat out all competition and rise to the pinnacle…of mediocrity. This, while the rest of us begin to wonder exactly who’s on the take and who’s really being taken to the cleaners.


     


     


    -Blogbat 


     


     


    Related AP article: White and Hispanic Police Officers Claim Discrimination


     


    Blogbat has worked extensively with law enforcement during his time with a private mounted patrol security outfit while he was in college. Both Blogbat and his horses were trained by the same people and techniques and conditions as the Dallas Mounted Police. Blogbat has enjoyed being active in his community in many projects and activities since well before his high school years.


     


     


     


    ISSUES


     

July 6, 2004

July 4, 2004

  • “My
    friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference.
    We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in
    good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.”

    The
    Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States
    of America

     

    Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776

     

    When,
    in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
    dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another,
    and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
    station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a
    decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
    declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

     

    We
    hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
    that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
    that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That
    to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving
    their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any
    form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right
    of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
    government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
    powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
    safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments
    long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
    and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more
    disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
    themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But
    when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
    same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,
    it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
    to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the
    patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity
    which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The
    history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated
    injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment
    of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be
    submitted to a candid world.

     

    He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

     

    He
    has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing
    importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should
    be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend
    to them.

     

    He
    has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts
    of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
    representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and
    formidable to tyrants only.

     

    He
    has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
    uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records,
    for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his
    measures.

     

    He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

     

    He
    has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others
    to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of
    annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise;
    the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of
    invasion from without, and convulsions within.

     

    He
    has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that
    purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing
    to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the
    conditions of new appropriations of lands.

     

    He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

     

    He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

     

    He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

     

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

     

    He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

     

    He
    has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
    constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to
    their acts of pretended legislation:

     

    For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

     

    For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

     

    For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

     

    For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

     

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

     

    For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

     

    For
    abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province,
    establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its
    boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for
    introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

     

    For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

     

    For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

     

    He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

     

    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

     

    He
    is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to
    complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with
    circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
    barbarous ages, and totaly unworth the head of a civilized nation.

     

    He
    has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to
    bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their
    friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

     

    He
    has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to
    bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian
    savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of
    all ages, sexes and conditions.

     

    In
    every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the
    most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by
    repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act
    which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

     

    Nor
    have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have
    warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to
    extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of
    the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have
    appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured
    them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations,
    which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
    We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our
    separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in
    war, in peace friends.

     

    We,
    therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in
    General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
    world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the
    authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and
    declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free
    and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to
    the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and
    the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and
    that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war,
    conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all
    other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for
    the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection
    of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our
    fortunes and our sacred honor.

     

    - 4th of July, 1776

    The Patriot’s Library


    "What July Fourth Means to Me"

     

    Happy
    Fourth- to all in the world where the Spirit of Liberty has
    henceforth spread. If she hasn't found you yet, may she do
    so in goodspeed.

     

    -Blogbat

     

     

    p.s. birthday nods to my sister (1965) and anniversary nods to my mom and dad (1964) on this day both 

     

     

July 1, 2004

  • BREAKING:

     

     

     

    01.July.2004 Hong Kong Stages Massive Democracy March

     

    Hundreds of Thousands protest lack of human rights including suffrage. (many fear arrests and disappearances to follow in coming weeks)

      

    Related...

     

    04.June.2004 Tens of thousands demonstrate in Hong Kong to mark Tiananmen anniversary

     

    01.July.2004 More Forced Organ Donors in CCP China
    Repressed peoples of China are seething and government human rights violators are becoming nervous

     


  •  


    TESTIMONY OF WANG GUOQI,



    FORMER DOCTOR AT A CHINESE PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY HOSPITAL



    before the
    SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS



    of the
    UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


     


    June 27, 2001


     


    My name is Wang Guoqi and I am a 38-year-old physician from the People's Republic of China. In 1981, after standard childhood schooling and graduation, I joined the People's Liberation Army. By 1984, I was studying medicine at the Paramilitary Police Paramedical School. I received advanced degrees in Surgery and Human Tissue Studies, and consequently became a specialist in the burn victims unit at the Paramilitary Police Tianjin General Brigade Hospital in Tianjin. My work required me to remove skin and corneas from the corpses of over one hundred executed prisoners, and, on a couple of occasions, victims of intentionally botched executions. It is with deep regret and remorse for my actions that I stand here today testifying against the practices of organ and tissue sales from death row prisoners.


     


    My involvement in harvesting the skin from prisoners began while performing research on cadavers at the Beijing People's Liberation Army Surgeons Advanced Studies School, in Beijing's 304th Hospital. This hospital is directly subordinate to the PLA, and so connections between doctors and officers were very close. In order to secure a corpse from the execution grounds, security officers and court units were given "red envelopes" with cash amounting to anywhere between 200-500 RMB per corpse. Then, after execution, the body would be rushed to the autopsy room rather than the crematorium, and we would extract skin, kidneys, livers, bones, and corneas for research and experimental purposes. I learned the process of preserving human skin and tissue for burn victims, and skin was subsequently sold to needy burn victims for 10 RMB per square centimeter.


     


    After completing my studies in Beijing, and returning to Tianjin's Paramilitary Police General Brigade Hospital, I assisted hospital directors Liu Lingfeng and Song Heping in acquiring the necessary equipment to build China's first skin and tissue storehouse. Soon afterward, I established close ties with Section Chief Xing, a criminal investigator of the Tianjin Higher People's Court.


     


    Acquiring skin from executed prisoners usually took place around major holidays or during the government's Strike Hard campaigns, when prisoners would be executed in groups. Section Chief Xing would notify us of upcoming executions. We would put an order in for the number of corpses we'd like to dissect, and I would give him 300 RMB per cadaver. The money exchange took place at the Higher People's Court, and no receipts or evidence of the transaction would be exchanged.


     


     Once notified of an execution, our section would prepare all necessary equipment and arrive at the Beicang Crematorium in plain clothes with all official license plates on our vehicles replaced with civilian ones. This was done on orders of the criminal investigation section. Before removing the skin, we would cut off the ropes that bound the criminals' hands and remove their clothing. Each criminal had identification papers in his or her pocket that detailed the executee's name, age, profession, work unit, address, and crime. Nowhere on these papers was there any mention of voluntary organ donation, and clearly the prisoners did not know how their bodies would be used after death.


     


    We had to work quickly in the crematorium, and 10-20 minutes were generally enough to remove all skin from a corpse. Whatever remained was passed over to the crematorium workers. Between five and eight times a year, the hospital would send a number of teams to execution sites to harvest skin. Each team could process up to four corpes, and they would take as much as was demanded by both our hospital and fraternal hospitals. Because this system allowed us to treat so many burn victims, our department became the most reputable and profitable department in Tianjin.


     


    Huge profits prompted our hospital to urge other departments to design similar programs. The urology department thus began its program of kidney transplant surgeries. The complexity of the surgery called for a price of $120-150,000 RMB per kidney.


     


    With such high prices, primarily wealthy or high-ranking people were able to buy kidneys. If they had the money, the first step would be to find a donor-recipient match. In the first case of kidney transplantation in August, 1990, I accompanied the urology surgeon to the higher court and prison to collect blood samples from four death-row prisoners. The policeman escorting us told the prisoners that we were there to check their health conditions; therefore, the prisoners did not know the purpose for their blood samples or that their organs might be up for sale. Out of the four samplings, one basic and sub-group blood match was found for the recipient, and the prisoner's kidneys were deemed fit for transplantation.


     


    Once a donor was confirmed, our hospital held a joint meeting with the urology department, burn surgery department, and operating room personnel. We scheduled tentative plans to prepare the recipient for the coming kidney and discussed concrete issues of transportation and personnel. Two days before execution, we received final confirmation from the higher court, and on the day of the execution, we arrived at the execution site in plain clothes. In the morning, the donating prisoner had received a heparin shot to prevent blood clotting and ease the organ extraction process. When all military personnel and condemned prisoners would arrive at the site, the organ-donating prisoner was brought forth for the first execution.


     


    At the execution site, a colleague, Xing Tongyi, and I were responsible for carrying the stretcher. Once the hand-cuffed and leg-ironed prisoner had been shot, a bailiff removed the leg irons. Xing Tongyi and I had 15 seconds to bring the executee to the waiting ambulance. Inside the ambulance, the best urologist surgeons removed both kidneys, and rushed back to the waiting recipient at the hospital. Meanwhile, our burn surgery department waited for the execution of the following three prisoners, and followed their corpses to the crematorium where we removed skin in a small room next to the furnaces. Since our director had business ties with the Tianjin Ophthalmologic Hospital and Beijing's 304th Hospital, he instructed us to extract the executee's corneas as well.


     


    Although I performed this procedure nearly a hundred times in the following years, it was an incident in October 1995 that has tortured my conscience to no end. We were sent to Hebei Province to extract kidneys and skin. We arrived one day before the execution of a man sentenced to death for robbery and the murder of a would-be witness. Before execution, I administered a shot of heparin to prevent blood clotting to the prisoner. A nearby policeman told him it was a tranquilizer to prevent unnecessary suffering during the execution. The criminal responded by giving thanks to the government.


     


    At the site, the execution commander gave the order, "Go!," and the prisoner was shot to the ground. Either because the executioner was nervous, aimed poorly, or intentionally misfired to keep the organs intact, the prisoner had not yet died, but instead lay convulsing on the ground. We were ordered to take him to the ambulance anyway where urologists Wang Zhifu, Zhao Qingling and Liu Qiyou extracted his kidneys quickly and precisely. When they finished, the prisoner was still breathing and his heart continued to beat. The execution commander asked if they might fire a second shot to finish him off, to which the county court staff replied, "Save that shot. With both kidneys out, there is no way he can survive." The urologists rushed back to the hospital with the kidneys, the county staff and executioner left the scene, and eventually the paramilitary policemen disappeared as well. We burn surgeons remained inside the ambulance to harvest the skin. We could hear people outside the ambulance, and fearing it was the victim's family who might force their way inside, we left our job half-done, and the half-dead corpse was thrown in a plastic bag onto the flatbed of the crematorium truck. As we left in the ambulance, we were pelted by stones from behind.


     


    After this incident, I have had horrible, reoccurring nightmares. I have participated in a practice that serves the regime's political and economic goals far more than it benefits the patients. I have worked at execution sites over a dozen times, and have taken the skin from over one hundred prisoners in crematoriums. Whatever impact I have made in the lives of burn victims and transplant patients does not excuse the unethical and immoral manner of extracting organs.


     


    I resolved to no longer participate in the organ business, and my wife supported my decision. I submitted a written report requesting reassignment to another job. This request was flatly denied on the grounds that no other job matched my skills. I began to refuse to take part in outings to execution sites and crematoriums, to which the hospital responded by blaming and criticizing me for my refusals. I was forced to submit a pledge that I would never expose their practices of procuring organs and the process by which the organs and skin were preserved and sold for huge profits. They threatened me with severe consequences, and began to train my replacement. Until the day I left China in the spring of 2000, they were still harvesting organs from execution sites.


     


    I hereby expose all these terrible things to the light in the hope that this will help to put an end to this evil practice.


     




    Reprinted from the House of Representatives official Archives - click here to read additional statements


     


    Dr. Guoqi has more information available about prison camps and persecution at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) here


     


    BBC article covering this story


     


    Videos of Human Rights abuses by the CCP in China 


     


    Political Prisoners Making Your Child's Toys 18 Hours a Day


     


    Map by Prison Camp and some of the products each prisoner cheaply produces at gunpoint


     


    Official Human Rights in China website


     


    Human Rights Fact Sheet


     


    U.S. State Department Assessment of Human Rights in China under CCP


    2001


    2002


    2003


     


    Human Rights Watch: China & Tibet


     


    Derechos Human Rights Group outlines situation in the PRC


     


    Recent Headline: Priests Arrested, Ideological Prisoners



     


     


     


    A note about the testimony's current relevance


    The above testimony is a few years old, but the problem is on-going. As such, I think it is vitally important that we return to the matter that was first brought to light just before the attacks of September 11, 2001 and was understandably swept under the rug by the ensuing chaos. It is time however, as we remember those that died 15 years ago last month in the horrifying Tienanmen massecre, that we revisit the entire matter of the deplorable state of human rights there and give it the attention it deserves. As Americans, as human beings, we cannot stand idly by while this NAZI-style butchery is allowed to continue once more in history.


     


    You can contact your U.S. Representative by clicking here


     


    Non U.S. Citizens are urged to likewise contact their officials so that the appropriate pressure can be applied to the CCP government in China. None of us wants another tragic Auschwitz story for our grandchildren.


    - Blogbat



    Never Forget


     

June 30, 2004

June 26, 2004




  • The Panama Canal, American Sovereignty and Self-Defense, Part III of III


     


    Also see


    Part 1


    Part 2


     



     


    Panama: Tomorrow’s Cuba?


     


    At the dawn of the new millennium began a new and even more controversial era for the Canal. Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd., a Chinese company took over control of the Panama Canal after a lucrative deal with the Panamanian government, which went directly against the direct national interest of the United States and the will of the people of Panama. As some might know by now, the Chinese government swore that war with the US would transpire by 2008 at the latest*, but the Clinton administration in another act of “Benedicting” chose to look the other way. And who could blame him, he owed the Communist Regime in China for funding his election efforts and stroking his ego- something a bit bigger perhaps than that which Monica became acquainted a few years earlier and to which Mr. Clinton would very recently quip quite revealingly that the latter was initiated simply “just because [he] could”. Character as we have learned, does matter. The details of course relating to Chinagate and the rest of it were outlined everywhere but in the mainstream press which found it contrary to their political interests to expose the real scandal and treachery in the Oval Office. The facts, though under-reported point to Clinton’s game of footsie with the Communist Chinese who have sworn enmity with us and for that matter might well cost us—and them an incomprehensible number of lives at the end of the day. And if anyone were ever to doubt this, they simply need to see what his neglect of the Al Qaeda problem has cost us thus far. Regardless if war comes from China in the near future or not, the prospect of war from limitless other sources most certainly is more likely in the aftermath of an era in which we had become perceived as naïve and weak; something of which Osama Bin Laden was quite aware.


     


     


    According to an ABC poll reported by the BBC back in April of 2001 immediately following the capture of the American EP-3E Aries II reconnaissance plane and crew by the Chinese government, only 20% of the American public knew enough to consider China an enemy. Many are still shocked to discover the degree of saber rattling and war preparations which have been underway in East Asia for a great number of years. Indeed, hostilities have run on and off since the beginning of the Korean War in the 1950’s where the US squared off directly with Chinese troops pouring over the boarder to take part in the conflict. American troops were shocked by the sheer numbers who, by virtue of this alone literally over-ran positions with their “human waves.” What many do not see is a long term plan set about by the Chinese leadership for military superiority and confrontation set in gear decades ago with their “Five Year Plan” strategy, a method of quantifying their progress over a period of time. China is currently nearing the end of that strategy where it relates to us, embarking on one of their final Five-Year terms during this decade.


     


    Despite warnings from US intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1998**, along with senior members of Congress and the Pentagon, the Clinton administration chose not to act when it was warned of the threats posed by a stated enemy controlling a strategic American Naval waterway. A waterway no doubt of necessity if we came to blows with the Asian power. And certainly Beijing was aware of its significance. China was willing to not only dole out 22.5$US million a year to Panama, but also according to some Panamanian sources, passed along “Bucket-loads of money” in the familiar under-the-table way that worked so well in funding Clinton’s re-election a year or so prior. Still, the go-ahead with the US pullout was completed in 1999, replaced shortly thereafter by the Chinese PLA front company, Hutchison Whampoa despite overwhelming support for a continued US presence in Panama among Panamanians polled at the time.


     



     


    Law No. 5 with side of Egg Roll or Wan Tan Soup


     


    And so China, originally fourth among original bidders, won the 50 year lease. Law Number 5 was passed in Panama on 16 January 1997. The law, in direct violation of the Panama Canal Treaty (articles V and VI) which Panama signed with the US twenty years earlier in 1977, was hardly noticed by President Clinton or the vast American press.  The articles of the treaty in violation pertain to the rights of American warships to be granted “expedited” and “head of line” passage through the Canal. 


     


     



    Law Number Five didn’t stop there. It also gave the company operated by the Chinese government which has sworn inevitable war with us the right to operate the piloting services, tugs, workboats, piers, access roads particularly at strategic points of entrance and so forth. Additionally, Hutchison Whampoa was given permission to transfer the rights of control to any third party it so wished.  Hutchison was also granted first rights to the US Rodman Naval Station, on the Pacific entrance to the Canal- a base capable of holding any modern deep-water warship. And many argue that this could lead to a standoff not altogether dissimilar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. China could easily conceal short range missiles at the Panama port until they felt the time was right. Or China could simply impede our passage in a different crisis, forcing us to look at the prospect of direct confrontation with China in order to use the Canal. They could also use the port to illegally smuggle in other technology, including weapons for drug traffickers, insurgents and American crime gangs, as they have done at least once before when 100,000 AK-47’s were seized at a Los Angeles port en route to local gang members care of the Chinese government a few years ago. This as China is also beginning to cozy-up to various Latin-American countries. According to China’s own news sources, military ties are being developed and strengthened with a number of Latin American interests, many of whom are already openly politically opposed to the United States (some have been looking into developing a nuclear weapons program), which could be the stepping stone for establishing a fortified foothold at our very doorstep. 


     


     


    Lastly, in a future where trends continue and there is a much weaker America plagued with infighting and apathy, a much stronger China or another country could use Panama as an invasion force staging ground. Travel back down the roadway of history and you will see a lot of such roadkill- nothing is impossible, rather everything is likely. Any of these scenarios naturally be they immediate or seemingly far-fetched at present could easily cost many precious American lives.


     


     




     


     


    But the legality of the Hutchison contract isn’t only in question with regard to the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977. The contract with China also is said to violate the Panamanian constitution as well as the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine prohibits foreign powers from setting up shop in the Americas or the Caribbean. Where in the world do we have a vested national interest deserving of a real strategic investment? The answer must be avoided no further.


     


     


     


     


    Congress hears noise in the night, goes back to sleep


     


    Not altogether lost in the late 90’s by Elected US officials, Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and other members of Congress called on the US to intervene in her own interest and dubbed the known Chinese front company given control of the Canal, Panama Ports Company (under Hutchison Whampoa, LTD.) “an agent of espionage -- economic, military, and political -- for China.”  Not altogether out of character for the Communist regime which in the late 90’s acquired the Pacific island of Tarawa, located between the Continental United States and China and sits just 1,500 miles off of Hawaii, according to an article from that period. The island is able to monitor American communications,  satellite and missile tests and other exercises in the area. In addition to testimony and statements by members of Congress regarding Chinese control of the Panama Canal zone, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June of 1998 Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and one of the United States’ most acclaimed Navy Admirals as well as a World War II hero and Pearl Harbor survivor voiced ominously, “we are on what I consider to be a collision course with disaster in the very near future…I truly can’t remember a time when I have been more concerned about the security of the country.” Since then however, little has been discussed publicly in the halls of Congress or within the Bush administration to deal with this foreboding catastrophe.


     


    What can be done to stave off this dire threat to our national security? A list of what are arguably some very common-sense suggestions are made in a well put together article of the time in the Eagle Forum:


     


    “1) Renounce or renegotiate the Panama Canal Treaties in light of new evidence that the United States and Panama did not ratify the same text. The DeConcini Reservation, which was added to get the treaty through the Senate, gave us the unilateral right to intervene in Panama if we believe the Canal is threatened.


     


    Carter hid from the American people the fact that Panama ratified the treaty without our reservation. Panama's version contains a three-paragraph counter-reservation, never submitted to the U.S. Senate, that requires Panama's "cooperation" before we try to defend the Canal. Another reason to renounce the treaty is that Panama's Law No. 5 violates the Panama Canal treaties over and over again.


     


    2) Demand that Panama nullify the lease agreements granted to the Chinese and initiate a new bidding process that is open and fair. No one should be bound by the current agreements because the process was corrupt and discriminatory against a U.S. company.


     


    3) Exercise our rights under the 1978 Panama treaties to protect and defend the Canal beyond the year 2000. Halt any more transfers of U.S. military installations, including Howard Air Force Base, the most important U.S. base south of the Rio Grande; Rodman Naval Station, a deep-draft port capable of logistic support for any warship; and Fort Sherman, our only base specializing in jungle warfare and survivor training.


     


     


    Depending on Panama to defend the Canal against China's aggressive acts, or against the Colombian drug cartel, is a bad joke. Panama has no army, navy or air force, and the country's police are completely unable to defend the canal against sabotage or terrorism by narcotics-funded forces coming in from Colombia.”


     


    As one of my previous “Philosophical Notes” (#16) has stated before, “Moral matters can often be very complicated… for the ambivalent”. Let’s not hope that our politicians and those who were elected to represent our best interests in Washington have any ambivalence as to which national interest they should serve. The world is fast approaching the moment for that decision.


     


     


     


     



     


    Footnotes


     


     


    *Cited as a possible deadline for war by Several Chinese officials and very much a hot topic all over Chinese and Asian news outlets and message boards today, particularly in light of a possible Taiwan bid for independence during the 2008 Olympics which are to be held in Beijing (anyone remember Berlin?. Indeed the Chinese military have long admired the former NAZI regime's own military.) All of this while scandal has broken out due to diverted funds meant for construction at the Olympic event sites in China


     


    Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian publicly said: 'War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it. The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war. … We must be prepared to fight for one year, two years, or even longer."



     


    **A report from the Defense Intelligence Agency with the title "Panama: China Awaits U.S. Departure", said that "Li Ka-shing, the owner of Hutchison Whampoa Lt. (HW) and Cheung Kong International holdings Ltd. (CK) is planning to take control of Panama Canal operations when the U.S. transfers it to Panama in December 99."  "Li is directly connected to Beijing and is willing to use his business influence to further the aims of Chinese government," the report states. An army intelligence analyst is quoted in the report as noting that "Li's interest in the canal is not only strategic, but also a means for outside financial opportunities for the Chinese government."


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    Additional Resources


     



     


    If you can read Chinese, an interesting essay might be of interest to you. It is titled, “Why China Needs a War”.


     


    Report says Hutchison Whampoa is seeking commercial control of vital ports on US mainland was the plan of some Democrats in the Senate in 2002. HW controls about 70% of the worlds shipping container needs, but a plan in the works was to allow them in on a port-security plan meant to keep out bombs and other no-no’s in order to secure the Homeland. The Defense Intelligence Agency had some misgivings, naturally. Compared by opponents to something akin to letting the foxes guard the hen-house, the idea ran afoul with many, to say the least.


     


    Hutchison Whampoa also has holdings in the Bahamas


     


    Hutchison Whampoa moving into the high-tech communications market


     


    Hutchison Whampoa top player in China


     


    76 Million USD strong and growing


     


    Hutchison Partners


     


    Video of Human Rights Abuses in China 


     


    China Facts


     


     


    Related Blogbat articles:


     


    Making War with Lilliputians (and other giants)


     


    Lilliputian follow up article in which claims that Libya would be found passing nuke secrets were exposed in the world community and lamented by IAEA director


     


    Notes from the Garden Journal spotlight: Human Rights in China


     


    More on Chinese war plans and the Human Rights scene in the country which spans more than 9,596,960 square kilometers


     



    -Blogbat


     


     




     

June 5, 2004

  •  



    We will always miss President Reagan, but we must never forget what he taught us about ourselves.


     


    Remember Ronald Reagan


     




     


    Born 1911, with us eternal


     


     

June 3, 2004



  • Big News, Relevant Thoughts


     


    Before I start, let me say that as far as his personal reputation is concerned, CIA director George Tenet is said to be a likeable man. There is no question to our knowledge that he is true, loyal and capable, among those who know him. And there is a reason why so many people around him genuinely like him. However, there are likely also some timely benefits to arise from his departure. That being the case, it is my hope the U.S. finds it a catalyst for change within the CIA, where folks begin to realize the fat days of the 90's are over and it is time to get to work and decide who your team is.


     


    Below are a few timely excerpts from my personal journal, as entered two days ago on the 1st of June. I share them now because I think they bring some very valid points to the table; points which no doubt will be expressed (and have, even as of today) all across the print and broadcast media by others who have come to similar or dissimilar conclusions as the fallout continues. While naturally, I do not feel we need to fire everyone in that agency, it has been frustrating for me, as indeed it most certainly has been for most Americans as they see one fumble after another in a very important football game.


     


    “…Sometimes I wonder if we just need to fire everyone at the CIA, bulldoze their buildings and start completely over. It is historically obvious that more than a few of these guys are complete morons who can’t (or won’t) tell good intel from bad when it has to do with so much as determining the differences between their butts and a hole in the ground. As such, they interfere with the work of others and tarnish the reputations of others.


     


    A few glaring examples?


     


    -The amount and location of WMD’s in Iraq*


     


    -Global Terrorism since far before 9.11 including the first World Trade Center attacks, the Attacks in Africa and the middle east including the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole**


     


    -Ignoring the emergence of 5th generation fighter aircraft coming out of China and Russia which according to many, far out-class our old F15. Also for denying we have needed a replacement such as the F/A-22 for the past 7 or more years and that by doing so have managed to sacrifice an important tactical advantage in the Taiwan Straits and elsewhere.


     


    -Failing to guard tactical and technological (including nuclear) secrets particularly throughout the 90's


     


    For too long they (the CIA) have had quite a fair share of politicos (placed there by administration policy wonks and ideologues in times past) who make it their aim to help the administration they favor look good, while helping the others look bad, all the while working alongside folks who are trying to perform just the opposite. This has arguably amounted to nothing more than a policy (or perhaps, ideology) wave-machine, where attitudes and policies work their way to the bottom at about the same time contradicting ones are introduced by a new Administration at the top and begin the long journey to the bottom again. Not unlike many other federal agencies, but a big reason why politicization needs to be kept to a bare minimum.


     


    It is clear today that President Bush, Secretary Powell and others have been forced to work within the limitations of an occasionally dysfunctional executive system (including the State Department, the Pentagon and so forth) that has caused logistical, as well as huge P.R. nightmares for the people who count on correct data to support their credibility in foreign policy and elsewhere. And of course, habitual high-profile failures = executive turnover. 


     


    Summery: aspects of the CIA are overrun with bureaucracy and ineffectiveness at their worst, (which is more often than it should be) despite recent improvements. Red tape, inept bungling and conflicts of interest have at times prevented the agency from fulfilling its mandate in a timely and effective manner. While there are many within the organization who obviously earn their keep, a portion of the group-think is arguably one of a similar fashion as that widely known to be found in the departments of education, HUD and countless other "civil servant" branches whose jobs now more resemble the glorified welfare of job-entitlements and immunity than Jack Kennedy's 'Ask-not' vision.”


     


    Naturally, venting this in my journal the other day was expectedly therapeutic. I just had no idea I was out in front of the train again. I do want to say how proud I am of the officers who are doing a good job, working with our officials and ultimately our troops and law enforcement to provide for, as they say, "the common defense." If it weren't for these guys we would have been getting "Spained" on a regular basis. I think of Mike Spann as an example of just such a hero. I also realize that security is a team matter and requires the cooperation of all governmental agencies, which has lacked in the years leading up to the attacks of 9-11. We know the FBI and the INS still have a LONG way to go, for example. But these guys do need to work together better, there is no doubt, and that I think needs to happen in short order for the benefit of everybody.


     


    I would bet it's not an unpopular thing to state that what is needed is a massive house-cleaning at the agency and in this vein, I think a new director is a good start- even though I know there were many reasons to like Tenet. Such a change is something that without a doubt has been, and will be met with varying degrees of opposition by the old trolls whose bretheren exist on every government payroll.


     


    Of course we will have to wait on the official Commission report about the shortcomings of the CIA in recent years, delayed for a few weeks so it doesn’t look as if it is tied to Tenet’s resignation, to see what the official take is. As well as how George Tenet is portrayed by the findings. However despite claims to the contrary, one wonders in the very least if Tenet’s personal matters (the reason for which he says he now resigns) could possibly have served as part of a real distraction from his duties as chief. Of course that at present is difficult to say. 


     


    -Blogbat 


     


     


    Additional Notes:


     


    *It remains very likely that the information on the existence of WMD’s was not completely off, however we also know that were it not for confirmed Israeli sources on the ground, we would not know with any great certainty exactly what was buried by Saddam’s troops just across the border in the sands of Syria immediately before the allies began strikes.


     


    **This was also touched on today in various media outlets