statism watch

By David McKie CBC News
Wednesday, June 11, 2008

RCMP officers are likely to fire their stun guns multiple times during an altercation, despite a policy that warns it may pose health risks, according to a joint investigation conducted by CBC News/Radio Canada and the Canadian Press.

The media outlets, which analyzed the Taser-use forms RCMP officers are required to fill out if they draw their stun gun, also found that multiple use of Tasers is increasing.

The data from 2002 to 2007 is heavily censored but reveals that Mounties used their Tasers more than 3,000 times nationwide during the period. In more than 1,300 of those cases, officers fired their stun gun more than once.

The analysis also revealed that in nearly 18 per cent of the incidents, officers had fired three or more times.

The RCMP policy, in place since 2005, states that “multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW [conducted energy weapon] may be hazardous to a subject. Unless situational factors dictate otherwise, do not cycle the CEW repeatedly, for more than 15-20 seconds at a time against a subject.”

…

B.C. resident Curtis Wasylenko said he was hit multiple times with a Taser when the RCMP showed up for a dispute he was having with a Kelowna cab driver in 2004. He said he was astounded that within moments he was zapped with a stun gun, which is designed to incapacitate a person by delivering a high-voltage electric shock.

Wasylenko said the first hit knocked him off his feet and that the officer continued to zap him as he cried out in pain. Wasylenko said a second officer fired his stun gun at him as he lay on the ground.

“I can’t really remember how many times they got me but I know it was a lot. I felt my heart — boom, boom, you know, all I could feel was my heart,” he said.

“It felt like I had the wind knocked out of me. I couldn’t breathe.”

The RCMP rejected a request for an interview about the analysis of the data. An interview with one of the Mounties’ use-of-force experts was scheduled and then cancelled at the last minute.

But the RCMP has defended the use of multiple stuns by suggesting that there are instances where it is necessary. In the letter to Day, Elliott spelled out reasons for permitting so-called “multiple applications,” though the details of his arguments were blacked out when the letter was released.

Full Story | See Also: U.S. jury shocks Taser, investors, with rare loss in court | Tasering violated suspect’s rights, judge rules | RCMP willing to change Taser policy, inquiry told | Tasers pose risk to heart, MDs testify | ‘Peel and Stick’ Tasers Electrify Riot Control | Canadian police have been brainwashed, Taser inquiry told | Mounties censor Taser report | Taser group’s chair to defend stun guns at public inquiry | Chicago study calls Taser’s safety claims into question | Officer injured in Taser demonstration

Chris Boutet, National Post
June 11, 2008

With a string of 69 straight trial victories under its belt, it’s safe to say that Taser International – makers of the controversial stun guns used by police forces across Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere – is not a company that is accustomed to the sting of defeat.

But stung they finally were last Friday as, after having swatted away 45 previous wrongful death or injury lawsuits and even convincing an Ohio judge to reverse autopsy results that found Tasers at least partially contributed to three deaths, the company was found liable in the death of 40-year-old Robert Heston Jr. by a federal jury in San Jose and ordered to pay the family more than $6-million in damages.

From the Monetrey County Herald, via Wired blog Danger Room:

An autopsy found that Heston died from a combination of methamphetamine intoxication, an enlarged heart due to long-term drug abuse, and Taser shocks.

Heston’s parents, Betty Lou and Robert Sr., and their daughter sued Taser International. They alleged the company failed to properly warn users that its product could be dangerous, and even lethal, when used repeatedly in conjunction with chest compressions and on people under the influence of drugs…

The six-person jury found that Arizona-based stun-gun manufacturer Taser International should have more effectively warned police that Taser shocks were potentially dangerous. Salinas police testified during the trial that they were not warned that the shocks could be dangerous.

Plaintiffs attorney John Burton said the verdict is precedent setting, noting that this was the first time a jury found Tasers are dangerous when used too often…

Taser executives responded to the court loss by calling it a victory, releasing a company statement titled “Jury Finds Extended Taser Device Application 15 Percent Responsible for Arrest Related Death.” But as New York Times blog The Lede noted yesterday, the company’s stock nonetheless dropped 12% in trading Monday and Tuesday, with one analyst telling Barron’s that “investors will assume heightened operating risk in the Taser model in the short term.”

The news of Taser’s court loss comes as a B.C. commission prepares to release its report on the RCMP’s use of Tasers tomorrow. Commission chairman Paul Kennedy’s report will then appear at the Braidwood inquiry into Taser use in B.C. on June 25 to explain his findings and field questions.

Full Story | See Also: Tasering violated suspect’s rights, judge rules | RCMP willing to change Taser policy, inquiry told | Tasers pose risk to heart, MDs testify | ‘Peel and Stick’ Tasers Electrify Riot Control | Canadian police have been brainwashed, Taser inquiry told | Mounties censor Taser report | Taser group’s chair to defend stun guns at public inquiry | Chicago study calls Taser’s safety claims into question | Officer injured in Taser demonstration

John F. Burns, New York Times
June 12, 2008

LONDON – Prime Minister Gordon Brown faced down a revolt within his governing Labor Party on Wednesday, winning a precariously narrow victory in the House of Commons for a measure that among other things would allow authorities to hold terrorism suspects for up to 42 days without charges.

Whether the measure becomes law, and when, now depends on the government’s success in navigating the new counter-terrorism bill past the House of Lords, where it is expected to meet stronger opposition. Opponents of the measure, who say it would give Britain detention powers that have few parallels in other Western democracies, have also promised a legal challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights, a recourse that has led to increasingly frequent rebuffs for the British government on issues affecting civil liberties.

The House of Commons vote was 315 to 306, with the nine-vote margin supplied by a last-minute decision to vote for the measure by the Democratic Unionist Party, a group of Northern Ireland Protestants who share power in the Belfast government with the predominantly Roman Catholic Sinn Fein. More than 30 Labor rebels who voted against the measure appeared to have stood firm in their opposition despite intense pressure from Mr. Brown, whose determination to press ahead with the measure had turned the vote into a test of his own embattled leadership.

For weeks, backbench opposition within the Labor party had threatened Mr. Brown with a humiliating parliamentary defeat. The Labor rebels were joined in their opposition to the measure by the opposition Conservative and Liberal Democrats, by Britain’s leading civil liberties groups, and by organizations representing Britain’s population of at least 1.5-million Muslims, which warned that use of the extended detention powers against Muslim terrorist suspects would further alienate the Muslim community and weaken the wider struggle against Islamic militancy.

…

The Brown government’s decision to push for the new detention limit marked a new step in a process that has seen Britain progressively strengthen its detention law in recent years. From a limit of 48 hours in the year 2000, the limit was extended to 14 days in 2003, and 28 days in 2006, after the Blair government was defeated in 2005 in a bid to push the limit to 90 days. After taking office last year, Mr. Brown proposed that the limit be set at 56 days, but settled for 42 days in the face of widespread opposition.

Ahead of the vote, Mr. Brown told the Commons the government wanted to change the law “in a moment of calm,” rather than wait to for a “a moment of panic” after a major terrorist attack. “Our first duty is the protection of national security, and we fail in our duty if we don’t take preventative measures,” he said.

David Cameron, the Conservative leaer, suggested Mr. Brown was seeking to reverse his sinking popularity by acting tough on terrorism, even at the cost of legal safeguards that had taken centuries to develop.

“Isn’t it clear that terrorists want to destroy our freedom, and when we trash our liberties, we do their work for them?” he said.

Full Story | See Also: British Terror Bill Divides Labor | Brown urges terror plan support | Britain is slithering down the road towards a police state

Faisal Enayat Khan, The Local
June 11, 2008

As Sweden’s parliament prepares to pass a controversial new surveillance law, Faisal Enayat Khan takes a closer look at the development of a far-reaching tapping scheme.

• Sigfrid defies party over surveillance (17 Jun 08)
• Dissenters put snoop vote on knife edge (17 Jun 08)
• Centre Party split over surveillance (17 Jun 08)

When planning the 9/11 attacks, the twenty al-Qaeda members involved referred to the plot as “The Big Wedding” and to the hijackers as the “brothers” attending the wedding.

Seven years on from the attacks that killed over 3,000 people in New York and Washington, the Swedish government is ready to present a new surveillance bill to parliament for debate on June 17th that it hopes will help prevent a similar tragedy from happening in Sweden.

A vote on the measure is planned for June 18th.

If passed, the new law will enable Sweden’s National Defence Radio Establishment (Försvarets Radioanstalt – FRA) to scan all the outgoing and incoming communication crossing Sweden’s borders.

The legislation will also require all telecom operators in Sweden to bring their systems into line with FRA’s surveillance system.

But is FRA likely to catch any actual terrorists or international criminals in this vast net?
…

Pär Ström, privacy ombudsman at the independent New Welfare Foundation, is enraged by the proposed legislation, which he refers to as ‘Lex Orwell’ and regards as little more than a tool with which to invade the privacy of the general public.

“FRA is going to read all Swedes’ emails and text messages, listen to their telephone conversations and see which web sites we are browsing. This is absurd,” he says in a statement.

In the extensive draft document behind the proposal, the Swedish defence ministry contends that the changing face of international politics, new security threats, and the development of information technologies all mean that the Swedish government needs to find new ways to safeguard the sovereignty and security of the kingdom. The dangers cited include terrorism, international crime, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, major refugee movements and threats against the country’s technological infrastructure.

According to the draft, FRA will initially invest 200 million kronor ($32 million) in the construction of a supercomputer, much like the US Echelon system, programmed with key words, phrases and dialects, as well as physical and electronic addresses.

FRA would not reveal the number of key words programmed into the system or the methods used to select key words. But writing in its consultation response to the draft proposal, the Swedish Data Inspection Board said the list would include not only the names and addresses of individuals and agencies, but also media companies, law firms, health care institutions, and charitable organizations, among others.

Nevertheless, FRA has tried to reassure the public that the law would not lead to a form of general or intrusive surveillance.

“One can describe the search terms as fish hooks that are plunged into a river. Some fish get caught, but most of the catch is off limits and will not be caught. Instead it will disappear forever with the current,” says FRA on its website.

Full Story | See Also: Whistle-Blower: Feds Have a Backdoor Into Wireless Carrier – Congress Reacts | Listening in on the enemy: Canada’s master eavesdroppers

CBC News
Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Police forces in Ontario say new laws allowing them to seize cars and suspend licences at the side of the road are justified by public safety concerns, even though government statistics appear to show a different story.

Eight months ago, Ontario brought in tough anti-street-racing legislation, which gives police the authority to take those actions.

Between October 2007 and this May, police laid 5,139 street-racing or stunt-driving charges.

But critics say the conviction rate is too low – about 33 per cent – to justify penalizing drivers who may never be found guilty of racing.
Source: OPP Highway Safety DivisionSource: OPP Highway Safety Division

At the Ontario legislature on Tuesday, the opposition parties suggested the law needs to be reviewed.

“It’s clearly being misinterpreted by the police, or the Crown, or the courts,” said Conservative MPP Bob Runciman.

NDP justice critic Peter Kormos said the law needs to be changed, saying it’s always dangerous to give police the discretion to suspend licences and impound cars.

“When police have unfettered powers, you’re entering into the realm of police state-ism,” said Kormos.

…

Premier Dalton McGuinty says his Liberal government will do whatever is needed to make the roads safer.

Full Story

Reuters
June 11, 2008

LONDON, June 11 (Reuters) – The government is to offer wavering Labour MPs a last-minute concession over the issue of pre-charge detention in an attempt to stave off a Commons defeat that could cause potentially irreparable damage to Gordon Brown.

Terrorist suspects held for more than the current limit of 28 days but not subsequently charged could receive 3,000 pounds for each extra day in custody, the BBC said.

Up to 30 Labour MPs are expected to join opposition parties in voting against the planned extension to 42 days on Wednesday evening.

The government says it may need to hold terrorist suspects without charge for that long in particularly complex cases but opponents of the plan say it is a gross infringement of civil liberties.

…

Brown’s poll ratings are at an all-time low after the loss of the formerly safe Crewe and Nantwich seat and a drubbing in local elections.

Defeat in the security vote would erode the prime minister’s authority still further and, analysts say, would be bound to fuel talk among Labour MPs of replacing him as Labour leader before the next general election due by 2010.

Attempts by his predecessor Tony Blair to extend detention without charge to 90 days in 2005 ended in his first Commons defeat as prime minister.

Full Story

Terry Macalister, guardian.co.uk
Wednesday June 11 2008

The world is not running out of oil and can continue to produce hydrocarbons for the next 40 years provided restrictions are lifted on where companies can operate, the head of BP said today.

The Arctic and currently closed areas off the coast of America should be considered for exploration if rising global energy demand is to be met in future, said chief executive Tony Hayward.

He insisted that all other forms of energy, whether clean-tech or otherwise, also need to be developed simultaneously while rising carbon emissions could still be curbed.

“Declining oil production in the OECD highlights the fact that, while resources are not a constraint globally, the resources within reach of private investment by companies like BP are limited,” said Hayward.

“Political factors, barriers to entry, and high taxes all play a role here. In other words when it comes to producing more oil, the problems are above ground, not below it. They are not geological, but political,” he added.

Some of the difficulties of access were in nations such as Venezuela, Russia and the Middle East which have adopted clear policies of resource nationalism where the state has grabbed assets previously in the hands of independent oil companies, but Hayward also noted the 92% of the US is off-limits and the Arctic needed opening up.

The BP boss was talking at the launch of his company’s annual statistical review of world energy which showed that world oil consumption grew by 1.1% in 2007, or 1m barrels a day, slightly below the 10-year average, while production fell by 0.2%, or 130,000 barrels a day, the first decline in five years.

An increasing number of oil industry commentators have put forward the view that “peak oil” has now been reached – or shortly will be – and is responsible for a 40% rise in crude prices this year to record highs of nearly $140 a barrel. BP, though, said today that proved oil reserves at 1.24tn barrels are enough to meet current production for 41 years.

Hayward also batted aside Opec arguments that the extremely high price of oil could be attributed to financial speculators playing the commodity markets and the slump in the dollar’s relative value to other currencies.

“The defining feature of global energy markets remains high and volatile prices, reflecting a tight balance of supply and demand,” he said, adding that “I am certainly not a subscriber to peak oil (theories).”

Source