|
|
Wednesday, August 30th, 2006
| |
5:57 pm
|
|
Ok, so I went to Guitar Center a few minutes ago and even though I haven't played guitar in a long time, I have come to the conclusion: I suck at guitar. I was never that good, but I think it is official now.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, August 27th, 2006
| |
12:33 pm
|
|
It is my birthday. Instead of that Happy Birthday song, I want that song that Shake wrote with Zakk Wylde and Geddy Lee. Even though I hate Rush.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, August 15th, 2006
| |
10:52 pm
|
|
| Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006
| |
6:44 pm - TAKE THAT, BIRTH OF MAN!!!
|
|
One year ago I was at Loyola University Hospital getting prepped and waiting for my lungs to arrive by helicopter. Sometime before midnight I was cut up and my lungs were replaced, all while doctors stared at my old mucus-filled chunks of meat, wondering how I was able to breathe in the first place. Because I'm the Highlander, bitches.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, July 23rd, 2006
| |
10:14 am
|
|
I've been re-reading the Transmetropolitan series. Every time I need a reason to write, be it some sort of fiction or rantings, I turn to Spider. A while ago I started a story and haven't finished it. It was supposed to be for the literary magazine for my school but I got lazy and nothing came to at the deadline. There are a number of ideas floating around in my head, but for some reason for the past several months I've been reluctant to put anything down. Despite proclaiming the contrary to other aspects of my life, I let fear guide what I write, afraid to put down the wrong thing. Even now I have the feeling that I shouldn't be writing this. I feel I should be writing something better. Something with substance. I dunno.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Monday, July 10th, 2006
| |
4:44 pm
|
|
I need a new fucking job. Something real and actually pays something I can live on. Everything in journalism, print, media, etc requires years of experience. Can't even find an internship. Fuck.
|
|
(9 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, July 9th, 2006
| |
10:36 am
|
Bush was in Chicago the other day. He also went to Aurora. Come on, John, they hand him to us on a plate for Christ's sake! We have failed. Kennedy gets shot in whitebread Texas and Bush goes to Chicago and we can't get one gangland goodwill assassination? For shame.
On another note, does anyone else hate emo and indie rock as much as me? This is why we need metal. The top 40 metal songs were on VH1 last night and it kicked ass. That is the only place you will see "Balls to the Wall" by Accept and "Raining Blood" by Slayer in the same place. Emo is to music what "Big Momma's House" is to cinema. Your girlfriend dumped you in high school and you're still not over it? Deal with it (we've all had this teenage hurt, but please don't write songs about it). We need to get a band together and tour the world killing emo fucks. Lemmy on vocals. Kerry King on lead guitar. Scott Ian on rhythm guitar. Zombie Cliff Burton on bass. Vinnie Paul on the drums. On the second stage, Chris Barnes on vocals. Trey Azagtoth on guitar. Dave Mustaine on guitar. Les Claypool on bass. Dave Lombardo on drums.
I want a gun.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, July 5th, 2006
| |
5:46 pm - Getting married
|
|
I'm finally getting legally married on September 9th at Allyson's mom's house. Make a note of that, it might be important. I need addresses to send out invitations.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Friday, June 2nd, 2006
| |
4:27 pm
|
|
There has been a lot of hoopla in the past year or so about "The Da Vinci Code," the novel by Dan Brown as well as the movie. I know people who have read it and I was even given a copy by my stepmom. To this day I have not read it, but due to the release of the movie and the increase in publicity over it, I decided to look at a few pages. My response: why has this book been successful? The writing is TERRIBLE and reads with the creative nature of a pamplet explaining insurance benefits. I had no desire to actually read it, for even before looking at one page I knew it was bound to be shitty. I cannot believe that there has been so much uproar about this "controversial" book, a fictional book at that. It's not real, so what it says about Catholicism, Christ, and the Holy Grail do not even matter. If I sprayed liquid shit on my hands and put it to paper it would be a better read than this ever would be. Just reading a few sentences was as excruciating as trying to read my school's literary magazine.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, May 30th, 2006
| |
3:55 pm
|
|
I am a college grad now. And what do you do with a degree in English and a minor in Communications? Ummmm....uhhh.....fuck.....dammit, I know this! Allyson and I have the two most useless degrees: Sociology and English. Phony majors.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, April 17th, 2006
| |
7:21 pm - Skool
|
This is what I am supposed to have for my professional portfolio tomorrow for Senior Sem in Communication:
1. Resume of academic and work experiences (rough draft and revised)
2. At least 2 recommendation letters
3. 3-5 potential job profiles
4. Conduct a 15 min interview with a person who holds a job in the field you wish to go in. Each fill out an evaluation form which you keep in a sealed envelope and bring to class.
5. Find and answer 2 job postings in your area of specialization. Write cover letter for each, inclusion of resume.
Well, I had the resume and the job profiles, but I lost a bunch of my stuff last week when I rushed out of the computer lab. Or it could be in my car, but I highly doubt that. I have no recommendation letters or the other stuff. I am SOL and JWF. Shif out of luck and jolly well fucked.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, April 11th, 2006
| |
6:12 pm
|
What is it about tits that can make a straight man lose all concentration and force him to focus his attention on the bouncing round objects that dwell in sweaters and blouses? I'm doing some homework at school and this chick keeps walking by to pick up print outs and although she is only in a loose t-shirt, the tits look great. Perky and bouncy.
Wow. No update in quite some time and my new one is about tits. That is the power of breasts. Not only do they make you lose focus, but they also force you to want to write about them or tell your friends about them. Guys, how many times have you told a buddy about a pair of tits you saw 3 weeks ago because they were imbedded in your mind so sharply?
Tits: bringing humanity together since the invention of the corset.
Note: pictures of tits in corcets will be accepted at comments, as will nude tits and any other tits that are not old and saggy. Or belonging to animals.
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006
| |
10:08 pm
|
|
I feel like such a big fuck up it's not even funny. Well, maybe a little. Behind on school, not keeping track of insurance, all screwed up with doctors appointments and the such. I know all of these things are extremely important, but for some reason I cannot get myself to do anything about them. It's not that I don't care, because I do. I think the only word I can use to describe my situation is detatched. I feel like I have detatched myself from everything and am unable to get back on track. Granted, I rarely read my assignments, but that detatchment from school has transfered to other aspects of my life. Or, maybe I'm just realizing how fucked up I am regarding everything in my life. Maybe I was able to use my declining health as an excuse for not doing anything and it is now catching up with me. I don't want to keep feeling that my education was wasted and that I don't deserve what I have received. I wish I could feel accomplishment....or anything really.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, February 14th, 2006
| |
5:22 pm - The Aristocrats (also posted on myspace)
|
Check out the movie "The Aristocrats" and you may have a better appreciation for this joke. Or not. It's still funny because it has dirty words.
Here it goes.
Somewhere in a rundown office on the Sunset Strip is a talent office run by the shaddiest of shady talent managers/promoters. After a long day of heavy drinking and smoking, all while NOT working with clients, this agent decides it is time to go home for the day and drink until his wife looks attractive. Suddenly there is a knock on his door. He tries to ignore it. There is then a series of very loud knocks and the talent agent gives in, opening the door and revealing a man in his late 50s. The man is desheveled and obviously hasn't bathed or eaten in days.
The talent agent tries to tell the man that he is closed for the day and that it would be better for him to try a more successful talent agency. The desperate man claims that he has tried every talent agency in 100 miles and cannot get a break. His family is dirt poor, living out of a van, and have not eaten for quite some time. The mother and father did not graduate high school, therefore they do not have much in the way of an incentive for an employer to hire them. Their two children, a 13-year old boy and a 5 year old girl, had to drop out of school to panhandle and earn extra money. The family dog is growing increasingly worried that he will be carved up and eaten.
The talent agent relents and agrees to here the man out. The man says that he can do him one better and perform the act in person. He says that it is a family act and that people will come from across the globe to see him and his family in action. The talent agent shrugs his shoulders and pulls up a seat behind his desk. He lights up a smoke and pours another glass of whiskey. He tells the man to begin.
The man sticks his head out in the hall and calls his family in. In walks his wife, son, daughter, and little dog. He walks up to his wife, kisses her on the lips gently. He then gives his son a pat on the head and a little punch on the arm. He gives his little girl a kiss on her forehead. Finally, he pets the dog, who abliges with a tail wag.
Then, the man takes a .44 Magnum out of his coat pocket and proceeds to smash his wife repeatedly in the face with the but of the gun. As the wife collapses to the floor, blood gushes from her mouth, nose, eyes, and ears. The son, daughter, and dog begin to lap up the blood. The son and daughter start spit-swapping the blood while french kissing. The father undresses completely and then strips off his wife's clothes. He wipes his hand across his wife's face, taking a handful of spit, tears, and blood, and begins lathering up his cock with this mixture. As he stokes it, the penis that was only a few inches grows to a mamouth 14-inches long and 6 inches thick. The son sees this cock and begins to suck the blood and spit and tears off the dong, deep throating the entire shaft and even managing to get the balls just beyond his teeth. The little girl begins to undress her brother, all while jamming her fingers in her mothers asshole. The mother is cumming and crying at the same time, a mixture of extreme pain and pleasure. The husband smashes her in the face again with the butt of the gun, pulverizing all of her teeth in the process. All this pain and agony causes the mother to piss herself, which the dog begins to lap up. Shortly after the dog drinks the piss, the dog pisses on the floor. The father then bends down and laps up the piss. He holds it in his mouth and then spits it all over the open sores and cuts on his wife's face.
The father then moves on to the little innocent girl, stripping her jumper off and ripping off her Strawberry Shortcake underwear. The little girl has also urinated herself, but she has also left a rather large mound of shit in her panties. The father takes the panties and shoves the shit into his son's mouth, who munches, swishes, ans swallows the mess. He takes the leftover shit and liquid diarreha from the panties and brushes his teeth and gums with it. The father then pulls out his little daughter's hair and eats his. He hits her on the top of the head with the butt of the gun and then slices open the bruises with his finger nails. Blood and puss pour out and he, the wife, the boy, and the dog all thirst on the liquids. The little girl tries to cry, but the father grabs a stapler from the talent agent's desk and staples the girl's mouth shut.
The father then spreads the daughter's legs apart and shoves his mouth into her virgin cunt. He pushes his face as far as it can go and then spreads the girl's legs further apart. Her pussy starts to bleed as it stretches out and he is able to fit his mouth inside the slit. He begins to gnaw at her crotch and after many tears on the child's part he pulls back, blood dripping from his mouth having deflowered the girl with his teeth. The son begins licking at the girl's eyeballs, drinking the tears. The little dog takes to licking the boy's asshole, the dog getting an erection in the process. The mother sees this doggie boner and proceeds to ride the dogs cock, her cunt gripping and girating around the dog's dick until the dog sprays an enormous volcano-like load into the mother's twat until cum drips out her lips.
The father then lathers his hands his blood from his daughter's cunt and begins to fist her asshole with both hands. It takes a good 5 minutes of effort to fit both fists inside her, but he does! He fists her cornhole fast and violently, blood and shit dripping out and sliding down his arms. The little girl is attemting to scream so hard that her lips tear away from the staples. An enormous scream erupts only to have it silenced by the mother punching her and shoving her tit in the child's mouth. The child bears down on her mother's nipple while her ass get's gang raped by her father's fists, her teeth cutting into her mother's tit until blood and breast milk pour out. The child eagerly gulps down the blood and milk.
Covered in blood, the father removes his fists and picks up the gun once again. He shoots his son in the stomach, an enormous whole punching through the boy's abdomen. The father's cock gets even harder watching this hole bleed and pulsate with every breath the boy attempts. Dad's cock grows another two inches. He shoves his other family members aside, the mother, daughter, and dog engaged in an intergenerational, inteer-species fuck fest, and the dad begins to fuck the boy's belly wound. He fucks hard and fast, the boy coughing up blood and crying, despite the fact that his cock is also a raging erection that he is jerking. The father gets more violent in his fucking, pulling his son's hair and punching him in the face. He gouges out the boy's eyes and spits in the eye sockets. They fuck and fuck and fuck and suck until the father cannot take it anymore and pulls out, his family all sitting underneath his cock in anticipation until the father's cock head explodes in gallon after gallon of semen. The family is covered an they all begin to lick the cum, blood, sweat, tears, piss, and shit off of each other.
They all then get up and take a bow.
The talent manager is just horrified, and a little bit turned on. He contemplates calling the police, but the only words that escape his mouth are, "What do you call yourselves?"
The father responds, "Why, the Aristocrats, of course!"
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, February 8th, 2006
| |
9:58 pm
|
|
I haven't updated in a while. Tough shit. Everytime I think that I should write in here I realize that I cannot think of anything to write about. And I want to be a professional writer? Phil and John: Would you like to become bounty hunters? Or should we just become hitmen? Or should we just go on a cross country killing spree? I can be the driver and John will of course supply the nachos. Phil, your job is to Phil-rig a car like Mad Max had in The Road Warrior.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, January 7th, 2006
| |
12:21 am - AC/DC movie "Thunderstruck" on DVD
|
|
| Wednesday, December 21st, 2005
| |
12:38 pm - This is going to take up a lot of space on friends lists. Suck it.
|
Introduction
In this essay I set out to show that the US is operating an illegal prison that robs detainees of their human rights and routinely abuses them physically, psychologically, emotionally, and, at times, sexually. This is an extremely important topic given the traditionally hostile climate towards dissent, but also because support for the president and the wars are dwindling. Despite faltering support for the president, which is only due to the loss of American life, ignorance still abides as to government and military attitudes and practices towards detainees. Why this is so important for me is because, like many other Americans, I too was at first swept up in the stink of nationalism and the desire for revenge. Anger and hate breed ignorance, which lead to blind support of things that we as a people should know to be wrong. As the war went on, I knew something was wrong and was ashamed of the support I had initially shown and felt embarrassed for simply wanting to believe my president.
This essay shall follow in five sections. The first section discusses the definition of prisoner status at Guantanamo Bay. Are they POW's, which would make them eligible for all the stipulations of the Geneva Convention, or do al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners being defined as an “unlawful combatant” or “enemy combatant” ensure that the government can operate outside the jurisdiction of human rights treaties? The second section will discuss aspects of the Geneva Convention, outlining proper interrogation techniques, humane treatment of prisoners and how the US is operating without regard to those guidelines and lying to the public about it. The third section will discuss military tribunals, how the government does not see it fit to try these individuals in a federal court, and how the tribunals will never be fair and impartial. The fourth section will discuss various abuses of prisoners by the government, the military, and by medical professionals employed by the military who are operating against the Hippocratic Oath. The fifth section will then discuss the case of Rasul v. Bush, in which four lawyers filed an application in federal court seeking a writ of habeas corpus and demanding a justification for prisoner's detention.
Overview
On the morning of September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, forever altering our county's perceptions of terrorism, national security, and human rights. What followed was a sweeping feeling of fear, paranoia, racism fueled by ultra-patriotism. Dissent was criticized and support for the President was over ninety percent. The air of America was a notion of “Us Against Them” and “If you aren't with us, you are against us,” a phrase repeated by President Bush. In the wake of the attacks, which some conspiracy theorists believe to be orchestrated by the US government, President George W. Bush set the course for three wars: The War on Terror, the war in Afghanistan, and, later, the war in Iraq. Furthermore, a new bill, entitled the Patriot Act, was forged to grant the government greater powers in gathering intelligence, such as accessing library records, email and Internet conversations, and multiple wiretaps on land lines and cell phones. Many have come to view the Patriot Act as a fourth war, a war on the American people and their civil liberties.
While the stipulations of the Patriot Act may be a great injustice the ideology that this country was founded on, an even greater injustice is being carried out just over our borders and under control by our government and military. Following the September 11th attacks, two memos were sent out by White House attorneys to question what actions should be taken regarding detainees in this War on Terror. The first, dated December 28, 2001, was written by Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals Patrick Philibin and John Yoo and inquired as to if a federal district court would have the proper jurisdiction to entertain a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of an alien detained at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The second, written by Yoo and Special Counsel Robert Delahunty, dated two weeks later, analyzed whether or not prisoners captured in connection with the war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror were protected by the laws of armed conflict, which included the articles of the Geneva Convention.
These two memos have made it so that a prison under US government and military control can operate outside the rules of the Geneva Convention and international human rights law. Although the US and President Bush publicly denounce the use of torture in interrogation and profess that prisoners are treated with dignity and respect for their rights, prisoners are not given legal counsel, have been held for over two years without any charges or any sort of trial, and the articles of the Geneva Convention are not posted anywhere for the prisoners to view, or in their native language for that matter. Accidental deaths have been found to be homicide, allegations of torture abound, and photos were even leaked of tortures being mistreated and degraded (albeit much later after they occurred). Loopholes have been created to ensure that prisoners are not treated as human beings and the American public is either unaware or in full support because of blood lust and a misdirected desire for revenge.
Legal Status of Detainees
After World War II, the Geneva Conventions were adopted after it had become apparent that combatants and detainees had been tortured while being held prisoner, as well as often being executed. The third Geneva Convention creates a comprehensive legal regime for the treatment of detainees in armed conflict. The USA and Afghanistan are parties to the convention (Schneider, 2004). A prisoner of war (POW) is a combatant “in an international armed conflict who [has] fallen into the hands of the enemy. They are neither criminals nor hostages, but individuals who have been detained after capture solely for the purpose of preventing them from rejoining the enemy's armed forces” (Schneider, 2004). The convention provides that POW's be held under humane treatment and are not to be punished unless they are tried and convicted of a crime. After a POW is convicted of a crime, he must be punished in the same way as members of the armed force that is detaining him. “A POW may be confined awaiting trial for no longer than three months and no trial can begin until three weeks after the detaining power has notified the prisoner's representative and the protecting power of the charges on which the prisoner is to be tried, where the prisoner is to be held, and where the trial will take place” (Schneider, 2004).
The question remains, then, as to whether or not those detained at Guantanamo Bay qualify as POW's and if they are entitled to the same treatment as a POW. Article 4 of the Geneva Convention stipulates who qualifies for POW status, stating that it can either be a member of an armed force, a party in the conflict or member of a militia force formed along with the military forces, and inhabitants who take up arms openly to resist invading forces.
Schneider insists that Taliban soldiers qualify as POWs due to the fact that they were the “de facto government in Afghanistan during the US military intervention” (2004). President Bush stated that the Taliban is covered by the Convention, although US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld believes that they do not because they “did not wear distinct signs, insignias, symbols, or uniforms” signaling that they were Taliban soldiers. This a very flimsy reason for denying the POW status of detainees, for the Taliban and the Northern Alliance have never worn uniforms with any distinct sign (Schneider, 2004). If the Western definition of a soldier stipulates that an individual must be wearing a uniform and/or insignias, then it is disregarding the validity of many military units and their soldiers. This relegates the question to a matter of dress and fashion, rather than the individual's involvement in defending his country or organized militia. Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Convention states that a fighter must have a distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (Dahlstrom, 2003), but Schneider argues that they do qualify because they are distinctive from the other population.
The US government also argues that the Taliban are “not under a responsible command and it does not conduct its operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, therefore it does not meet the legal criteria under Article 4 of the Convention” (Schneider, 2004). Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Convention refers to military members who qualify for POW status, while article 2 refers to unofficial forces and states that an individual must be “commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates” (Dahlstrom, 2003). However, if the Taliban was the government in control of Afghanistan at the time of the invasion, then it can be assumed that those fighting did answer to someone at some point.
The US government further argues that Al-Qaeda fighters do not qualify for POW status due to the fact that they are not a state party to the Geneva Convention and are a foreign terrorist group, rather than a military or militia unit. Schneider argues that for this definition to be accepted, then all resistance movements during World War II should have been considered illegal. Arguments could be made that Al-Qaeda could be a legitimate fighting force, enabling its fighters to qualify as POWs, for “its members are subject to internal discipline, carry arms openly, and are distinguishable from the general population” (Schneider, 2004).
However, paragraph 3 of Article 4 claims protection for “members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining power.” Dahlstrom refers to this as a “catch all” provision that covers all those who fight for some power, stating that those who fight under an “authority” rather than a “government” should be covered under the rules of the convention. “If so, this could mean that Al-Qaeda fighters would be included as 'members of regular armed forces who profess an allegiance to...an authority non recognized by the Detaining Power,'” (Dahlstrom, 2003). Furthermore, the Red Cross disagrees with the Bush administration's assertion that detainees are not POWs, insisting that it regards all prisoners as POWs with the full rights of the Geneva Convention.
The US has used the term “unlawful combatants” in describing many of those detained during the course of Bush's wars. “Unlawful combatants” are defined as civilians who take a direct part in hostilities, are largely unprotected by the laws of armed conflict, and can be tried and punished for their “belligerent” acts. “Judge Richard Goldstone, first chief prosecutor at the UN war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, 1994-1996, asserted that the term 'unlawful combatants' is not a term recognized by international law” (Schneider, 2004). The term was generated by the US Supreme Court in 1942 to execute six German spies who landed on the coast of the US.
In addition to this manufactured definition, “unlawful combatant,” the US has made a new category: “enemy combatants.” Enemy combatants are those people who are suspected terrorists or suspected of terrorist activities. Enemy combatants are to be held and interrogated by US forces until they are no longer considered a threat, although they are never charged with a crime. The only exception is Jose Padilla, who was detained at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago in 2002 and was held without ever being charged for a crime. It is only within the past couple months that Padilla has been formally charged with a crime. Once again, defining someone as an “unlawful combatant” or an “enemy combatant” just seems like the US government using the extended powers it granted itself to further lord over people in the name of this manufactured War on Terror and the pursuit of “freedom.”
The Geneva Conventions
The Conventions consist of four separate conventions, with each one governing a specific aspect of human rights law. “The Conventions govern the amelioration of the sick and wounded of the armed forces in the field; the amelioration of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea; the treatment of prisoners of war; and the treatment of civilian persons in a time of war” (Dahlstrom, 2003). In regards to those detained at Guantanamo Ba, the third Convention is the most relevant. Article 2 of the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that the Convention applies in all cases of declared war, in any armed conflict and in cases of total or partial occupation. The Convention uses the term “armed conflict” to ensure that states that do no specifically declare war are not exempt from the articles of the Convention. Also, if a country that is under the rules of the Convention is involved in an armed conflict with a power that is not under the Convention, that nation still has to abide by the rules “and underscores the assumption that the provision are not based upon reciprocity, but rather an unconditional commitment to the principles contained in the Convention” (Dahlstrom, 2003).
It has already been stated that Afghanistan falls under the rules of the Convention and that, in turn, means that Taliban fighters must be treated according the the Convention. Although the US has determined Al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization out of reach of the Geneva Conventions, it does not excuse the US from operating outside of the Convention or denying POW status to members of Al-Qaeda. The US is involved in an armed conflict, a declare war, and therefore is obligated to obey the Geneva Conventions. Also, regardless of POW standing for detainees, the US is again required to operated within Geneva Convention guidelines.
The Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilians detained by the enemy, although the Convention makes a distinction between a variety of civilians. “Enemy civilians” are those that have the nationality of the opposing state and are protected under the Convention, provided that state is a party to the Convention. “Civilians who participate in combat, unlike combatants, are not acting on behalf of a higher authority with whom peace can be negotiated; therefore, they are not immune from punishment for belligerent acts. Their conduct is dealt with in accordance with the law of the criminal jurisdiction where the offense occurred, thus by means of a criminal trial or a hearing before a military tribunal” (Schneider, 2004). Granted, these civilians are engaged in combat, but they do not lose their protection under the Convention, as Article 5 stipulates that “unlawful combatants” must be treated humanely and must not be deprived of their rights. Al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan are therefore entitled to a minimum standard of treatment as set out in Articles 71-76 of the Fourth Convention.
The Fourth Convention rights for civilians are similar to those for POWs. First of all, those detained are entitled to human treatment. They may be denied certain rights that may jeopardize the security of the facility they are being held in, but those limitations must only be absolutely necessary and applied on a case-by-case basis. During interrogations, POWs are granted the right of only having to state their name, rank, and serial number, thereby not risking the lives of their fellow soldier. Regardless of POW status, detainees are to be protected from torture and other cruel, inhumane treatment. “The prohibition of torture is considered an absolute right which is respected in international human rights law and customary international law” (Schneider, 2004). “Unlawful combatants” can be charged with criminal offenses in regards to participation in the armed conflict and are entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a non-political court. They are to be informed of the charges against them, to present their defense and call witnesses, to be assisted by qualified counsel of their own choice, to have an interpreter, and to mount and appeal against their conviction and sentence. In regards to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the US is in violation of these rights, as most of the combatants there have not been informed of all the charges before them and have no access to legal counsel. In the event that they are brought to trial, they are often not aware of all the charges and may not have access to all of the evidence against them.
Military Tribunals
Article 118 of the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that if a prisoner has not been charged with a crime upon the cessation of the active hostilities, then they are to be released and repatriated without delay. The US authorities have stated that if the detainees are to be released, then it shall be to countries that will prosecute them for crimes. “Amnesty International have announced that if the US authorities engage in this activity thy are bound to respect the principle of non-refouement now considered a norm of international customary law. This principle denotes that persons shall not be returned to a country where they are at risk of being subjected to serious violations of their human rights” (Moore, 2003). The Bush administration has proposed trying combatants and suspects by military tribunal.
The Military Order issued by President Bush in November, 2001 allows for detainees to be tried by military tribunal. It was not until February of 2004 that the first charges against two foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay were brought fourth. The two men are Yemeni and Sudanese nationals accused of conspiring to attack civilians and destroy property, and committing acts of terrorism. The question remains as to whether or not these tribunals are legitimate or fair and impartial. Moore feels that the tribunals are discriminatory in nature, as they only apply to foreign nationals. She states Donald Rumsfeld, responding to a question about who would be selected for tribunal: “We know the first cut is that no one who's an American would come to a commission. That's part of the way the Military Order's written. So that's an easy cut. If there's an American involved, he's not going to go to the commission.” Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that all people are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection and to be free from discrimination. If what Secretary Rumsfeld is true, than the Military Order is in violation of the International Covenant. Making Americans free from tribunal prosecution for terrorist activities is discriminatory, and possibly racist, as we are in an armed conflict with Arab nations and are very willing to try those brown combatants by tribunal.
Moore further argues that there are reports that the Military Order does not guarantee the rights for a detainee to choose his/her own legal counsel. Article 105 of the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that a prisoner is entitled to a defense counsel of his own choice, but under the procedures of military tribunal, “the Chief Defense Counsel, appointed by the Secretary of Defense, appoints a military officer, who is a judge advocate of the US armed forces, to act as defense lawyer. A defendant may at their own expense retain a civilian lawyer, yet the civilian lawyer would not have access to certain classified information used at the trial, which would be granted only to the military co-counsel” (Moore, 2003). This is in violation of the Third Geneva Convention and ensures the trial is always under full military control. It also ensures that the defendant will not get an adequate defense, for even if he does manage to get a civilian lawyer, that lawyer will be ill-prepared and unable to give an adequate defense as he is not given access to all the evidence presented.
Furthermore, the Military Order stipulates that a defendant must be represented at all times by military counsel, which means that even if a detainee has a civilian lawyer, they are not privy to have confidential discussions as there will always be a military official present. Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that a detainee be allowed private consultation with his attorney, ensuring that the Military Order is once again in violation and showing the the tribunals are not going to be “fair and impartial.” “The Military Order gives unfettered and unchallengeable discretionary power to the executive to decide who will be prosecuted and under what rules, as well as to review convictions and sentences” (Moore, 2003). This is another violation, as Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention states that a prisoner of war must be tried in a court that guarantees independence and impartiality. In addition to that violation, the tribunals do not allow the right to an appeal by an impartial and independent court. The lack of an appeal is also a violation of Article 106 of the Third Geneva Convention, as the Military Commission only allows a defendant to have his conviction reviewed by a three-member panel of military officers appointed by the Secretary of Defense, who then reviews the trial record, and leaving the final decision to the President (Moore, 2003). Given the impartial and hostile nature of the Bush administration, it is highly unlikely that any conviction would be overturned or even examined seriously.
The Military Order is in violation of other aspects of international humanitarian law. Various provisions prohibit the use of juries as tiers of fact and allowed for secret hearings at any location in or outside the United States. Verdicts and sentencing, including the death penalty, do not require a unanimous decision, instead only requiring a 2/3 vote. It is also silent on issues such as, the extent of the right to counsel, the standard of proof, and the obligation of the government to disclose evidence (Dahlstrom, 2003).
Abuses of Detainees
Guantanamo Bay is the oldest overseas US base and is the only one located in a communist country. The lease was negotiated in 1903, costing only $4,085 a year and can only be terminated by mutual agreement (Dahlstrom, 2003). It was previously used in 1994 when hundreds of Haitian and Cuban refugees were interdicted off of the Florida coast and the refugees were detained at Guantanamo Bay. The legality of the detaining was challenged on the technicality that the individuals were being held on Cuban territory, but that was overturned as it was shown that the action had not taken place on US soil. Fidel Castro regards the US occupation of Guantanamo Bay as an illegal occupation. The lease reads, “While on the one hand the US recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba...on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that...the US shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said area” (Schneider, 2004). The controversy of whether or not it is US or Cuban soil has led to accusations that detainees are being held illegally and military tribunals are also illegal.
As stated earlier, the memos by Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals Patrick Philbin and John Yoo and Special Counsel Robert Delahunty “set out a veritable blueprint for the creation of a prison beyond the law” (Marguiles, 2004). The memos made it clear that the administration wanted to place prisoners detained in the war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror, as well as the lawfulness of the executive contract, in a facility beyond the control of a civil court.
One of the most controversial detention centers is Camp X-Ray, which has been officially reported to be in accordance with humane, nutritional, and religious requirements. The detainees are given three meals a day in accordance to religious dietary stipulations and are given the opportunity to pray five times a day in accordance with Islamic teachings. They also have access to a US navy Chaplain who is a Muslim cleric (Moore, 2003). Despite these “comforts,” controversy abides because of other conditions at Camp X-Ray. For one thing, cells measure 1.8 by 2.4 meters, are constructed of chain-link fence, have metal roofs and concrete floors, and are partially exposed to the elements (Dahlstrom, 2003). Although they are allowed to pray, they are forced to shave their beards, which were grown in accordance to Muslim tradition. Amnesty International has stated that the cages are substandard and the ICRC has stated that showing photos of detainees in shackles was exposing the detainees to public curiosity, which is in violation of the Geneva Convention (Dahlstrom, 2003). This is in contrast to the Haitian refugees, who were staying in hard-walled buildings. Vice President Dick Cheney, humanitarian that he is, insists that they are “probably being treated better than they deserve,” a statement coming from an administration that refuses to sign an anti-torture bill proposed by Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
According to the American Correctional Association, prisoners are not to be segregated in 80 square feet per inmate for longer than ten hours a day, and the Third Geneva Convention states that prisoners should not be kept in such confinement unless it is necessary to the safeguard of the their health. Detainees “are allowed out of confinement to exercise twice a week for fifteen minutes during which time leg shackles are removed by arm shackles remain. Article 38 specifies that prisoners shall have opportunities for physical exercise, including sports and games, and that the detaining power shall take the measures necessary to ensure that they are provided...equipment for this exercise” (Moore, 2003). So far the detainees have not been given access to recreation facilities or sports equipment. Amnesty International has stated that having detainees confined virtually 24-hours a day with no exercise amounts to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Miles states that, “confirmed or reliably reported abuses of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan include beatings, burns, shocks, bodily suspensions, asphyxia, threats against detainees and their relatives, sexual humiliation, isolation, prolonged hooding and shackling, and exposure to heat, cold, and loud noise” (2004). Abuses have also included sleep deprivation, the depriving of food, clothing and material for personal hygiene. Detainees have also been told to renounce Islam, have been psychologically tortured by the use of dogs, and abused in a way that fakes drowning. Although publicly stating that military forces are to abide by the Geneva Conventions, and having signs posted in interrogation rooms at Abu Ghraib, “in March 2003, a team of administration lawyers concluded that the president could authorize the military to torture detainees with impunity and that the domestic and international laws prohibiting torture were subject to a type of crude cost-benefit analysis and could be discarded if it was discovered they interfered with what the administration believed was an effective interrogation technique” (Marguiles, 2004). In aligning with the hypocrisy of this administration, the US has essentially issued itself a license to torture, so long as we get the information we desire. However, given the fact that many have been detained for over two years, the question remains as to what information the detainees could have that would be beneficial to the current situation.
Miles states that, “Government documents show that the US military medical system failed to protect detainees' human rights, sometimes collaborated with interrogators or abusive guards, and failed to properly report injuries or deaths caused by beatings” (2004). A memo sent in August 2002 by the Justice Department to the President, as well as March 2003 Defense Department memo distinguished cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment that could be permitted at detention centers, such as Guantanamo Bay, from torture that was prohibited, except when the President exercises his war powers, as mentioned above. The definitions do not take severity or prevalence into consideration, only defining the language in legal terms (Miles, 2004). It also does not distinguish interrogation involving soldiers from that involving medical personnel. As an example, each document allow the use of drugs during interrogation.
Medical officials have been found to participate in torture, physically and psychologically, as well as falsifying records in regards to detainee injuries and deaths. Abu Ghraib medical authorities frequently did not notify families of transfers, sickness, or even death. One medic inserted an intravenous catheter into the corpse of a detainee who died being tortured in order to create the illusion that he was still alive at the hospital (Miles, 2004). “The US military itself has identified the deaths of at least 28 detainees as confirmed or suspected homicides” (Hefferman, 2005). The US Health Professionals Call to Prevent Torture and Abuse of Detainees in US Custody was set up to express concern over torture allegations and physician involvement. Those involved in the “Call” are disturbed at the prospect of fellow physicians violating ethics codes, practicing torture, or failing to report abuses by guards. The Call is urging the US government to take all steps necessary to prevent the torture of detainees, and to set up a bipartisan commission to investigate allegations of torture.
Rasul v. Bush
An affidavit dated February 13, 2002 by the lawyer of Shariq Rasul, a UK national being held in Guantanamo Bay, stated that Rasul's lawyer was denied access to her client by the US government. As of April 5, 2002, access to legal counsel had not been granted to Rasul or any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay (Moore, 2003). Joseph Margulies was one of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit, Rasul v. Bush, in which he an lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights filed an application seeking a writ of habeas corpus, which would force the government to justify the detention of the individuals involved. Like the other detainees, they were held as “enemy combatants” without legal process and never charged with a crime (Margulies, 2004). The lawsuit did not argue that the government did not have the right to detain prisoners in the War on Terror, or that the process of finding if the detention is legal require all the aspects of a federal criminal court. What was argued in the lawsuit was that the government cannot detain people without charging them with a crime and that there must be process to find that the detention is lawful.
“According to the administration, effective interrogations require that the prisoner be separated from all outside influence. Terrorists, they argue have been trained to resist the conventional blandishments to cooperate and will withhold all useful information so long as they believe help is on the way” (Margulies, 2004). In a sense, for an interrogation to be successful, it requires that an individual believe that their wellbeing depends on the interrogation proceedings. However, no outside source, not even legal counsel, will be made award of the circumstances surrounding their detention.
Margulies believes that this belief proves too much and not enough at the same time. He says that the argument assumes that the individuals detained belong in prison and that the administration is assuming the individual belongs there in the first place, despite “operating in an unconventional conflict, where forces are not arrayed in traditional battlefields, where the enemy may be indistinguishable in appearance from any disengaged civilian, where the United States claims it may find its foe anywhere in the world, and where (by hypothesis) the military suffers from a lack of reliable intelligence on the ground” (Margulies, 2004). However, the military itself has estimated that 80 percent of people imprisoned during Iraq's insurgency are innocent.
Margulies also references the justification for the Japanese internment during World War II: “the fact that there has been no fifth column activity or acts of sabotage prior to the internments merely confirmed that such activity had been planned for a later date. In all events, the supporters of internment never took the absence of any untoward activity as evidence that they were mistaken about the risk in the first place” (Margulies, 2004). Former Chief Justice Earl Warren was initially strong supporter of the Japanese internment, using the same argument just mentioned. However, he grew to regret his stance and wrote in his memoirs, “It was wrong to react so impulsively without positive evidence of disloyalty, even though we felt we had a good motive in the security of our state. It demonstrates the cruelty of war when fear, get-tough military psychology, propaganda, and racial antagonism combine with one's responsibility for public security to produce such acts.”
The Supreme Court found by a 6-3 margin, that Margulies' clients were able to invoke the protection of the federal courts to determine whether their detention was lawful. The lawsuit argued that the Court examine the actual events that take place at Guantanamo Bay, rather than argue the notion of Cuban sovereignty (Margulies, 2004). The Court rejected the notion that the President could detain individuals indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay without legal counsel or being charged with wrongdoing, stating that such detention was “illegal.”
Conclusions
In researching this topic, the article regarding Rasul v. Bush was an extremely insightful piece, not only because of the ruling of the suit itself, but also through an analogy by Margulies himself. He references the dangers of flying, especially in situations where one's life may be put in danger. In those situations, “every instinct in their body will tell them that their life depends on taking a certain action. But tragically, their instincts during these periods cannot be trusted, and what they believe to be the only safe option may be precisely what kills them” (Margulies, 2004). This is a phenomenon called spatial disorientation, SD, and it accounts for 10 percent of all aviation accidents, with 90 percent of those accidents being fatal.
He uses this phenomenon as a metaphor for the hysteria that has gone on in this country for the past four years. America was attacked and we have become fearful, paranoid, angry, and hateful. We have demanded blood with no regard to whether or not we are in fact getting the right individuals. We have used faulty intelligence, outright lied about intelligence and weapons, creating a scapegoat and giving birth to a volatile political climate, and have the nerve to inquire why some nations do not back us and why others hate us. Is it really any wonder why some people feel that we are making “another Vietnam” and why others are ashamed of their own country? We are supposedly fighting a War on Terror, a war that would seem to have no end. For terrorism is bred from ideology, and it is almost impossible to defeat an ideology.
As stated before, we have issued ourselves a license to torture and are allowing our government to operate in secrecy and detain people for years with charges never being filed. People are either unaware or are in support because they are angry and want revenge. However, revenge is not a valid motive, rather it is a primal instinct. Like that SD situation, this is a time when we cannot always rely on our instincts. We know in our hearts that torturing people and keeping them detained with no legal access is wrong, and yet we are allowing it to happen because our instincts tell us that this will prevent future attacks.
We have allowed fear, paranoia, and hate guide our decisions, ensuring that the government can grow bigger and assert more control. We justify these actions with phrases like, “Freedom isn't free,” never bothering to think that if we are willing to sacrifice freedoms for the illusion of safety, maybe we do not deserve to have these freedoms.
Many have seen the pictures of Guantanamo Bay detainees or have heard about allegations of abuse. However, no one seems really outraged that it is happening. Excuses are made, with September 11th being the ultimate excuse for our barbaric behavior. These people deserve this torture because they are “the enemy,” a phrase concocted and perpetuated by a president who has seen too many John Wayne movies. If this torture was happening to American prisoners of war, there would be outrage and demonstrations in the street. But since it happens “to them” it can be excused. We are always “them” and “the enemy” to someone else.
Bibliography
Dahlstrom, K Elizabeth. “The Executive Policy Towards Detention and Trial of Foreign
Citizens at Guantanamo Bay.” Berkeley Journal of International Law. 2003. Vol. 21,
Issue 3. p. 662-83.
Hefferman, John. “US Health Professionals' Call to Prevent Torture and Abuse of Detainees
in US Custody.” Journal of Ambulatory Care Management. Oct-Dec. 2005. Vol. 28
Issue 4. p. 366-67.
Marguiles, Joseph. “A Prison Beyond the Law.” Virginia Quarterly Review. Fall 2004.
Vol. 80. Issue 4. p. 37-55.
Miles, Steven H. “Abu Ghraib: Its legacy for military medicine.” Lancet. 21 August 2004.
Vol. 364. Issue 9435. p. 725-729.
Moore, Catherine. “The United States, International Humanitarian Law and the Prisoners at
Guantanamo Bay.” International Journal of Human Rights. Summer 2003. Vol. 7
Issue 2. p. 1-27.
Schneider, Daniella. “Human Rights Issues at Guantanamo Bay.” Journal of Criminal Law.
October 2004. Vol. 68. Issue 5. p. 423-439.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Monday, December 12th, 2005
| |
7:18 pm - Fuck.
|
Richard Pryor: 1940-2005
BY ROGER EBERT / December 11, 2005
a memory of richard(Note from Roger Ebert: Cynthia, who now lives and works in Tucson, was a features writer at the Sun-Times in the 1970s, where our desks faced each other and we shared everything from coffee to the mysteries of the new computers. She sent me this after the death of Richard Pryor.)
By Cynthia Dagnal Myron
I wanted to share a truly moving story with you, in honor of
Richard's passing. When I was still at the Sun-Times, Richard told
me something that became my "philosophy" for the rest of my life. It was so unlike him to sit quietly and just spill his guts. But he liked me, and during that interview, he was a totally different man than the one most people knew (and he'd just been arrested for domestic violence or something, too, not long before, so I was really surprised!).
He was talking about his early career, when he worked Vegas as a comedian, telling, as I recalled myself, pretty innocuous little stories of his hard life as a kid. They were funny, and innovative even then, but nothing like the wild, angry, insightful things he'd do later. And he felt, he said, as if he were choking to death every time he walked through the kitchen, "Like a good little boy," to get to and from the stage. Black [erformers still had to do that, back then.
So one day, as he was doing that march through the kitchen, he
decided to let the gangster guys who ran the place know that this was going to be his last performance. He was done with Vegas. And he said, pushing on his nose to make it look flat, that he was told, "You do that, and you'll never work anywhere, ever again. You got that, sonny boy?!" And he said he got it, he understood perfectly... and went onstage and did a show they'd never forget. A show more like the ones we would come to know, but one that they absolutely could not have approved of at the time.
And he said they closed the curtains on him, and rushed up to him, and he squared his shoulders, lifted his chin and told them, again, that he just could not be a man and work for them anymore. And he said that God must've intervened, because the guys looked into his eyes... and backed off. And he went through the kitchen and out into the world where it seemed to him that -- and THIS is the line I loved: "The trees were bowing to me..." He says he became very calm, but very sure that because he had stood up to them, because he had demanded his dignity...God would provide.
I never forgot that. And I left that interview with that image in my head (long before "Phenomenon," huh?). The trees bowing to Richard, as they might bow to me, whenever I made a really life changing and life affirming decision.
Printer-friendly »
E-mail this to a friend »
Richard Pryor, one of the best and most influential comedians of his time, is dead at 65. He died at 9:58 a.m. Saturday of heart failure, in a suburban Los Angeles hospital, according to his wife, Jennifer, who told Reuters: "He was my treasure."
He was a national treasure. Born in a brothel, accused of obscenity in his early stand-up days, nearly burned to death in an accident while free-basing cocaine, he went on to star in movies both good and bad, but as a live performer, he was brilliant and fearless and found truths his audiences instinctively identified with.
Although the obituaries will make much of his nearly fatal accident and his long battle with multiple sclerosis, the most significant entry may be this one: In 1998, he won the first Mark Twain Prize for humor from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. He said in his acceptance speech he had been able to use humor as Mark Twain did, "to lessen people's hatred."
When you look again at his three great performance films, you realize that was exactly what he did: It was when he was live in front of an audience that the full range of his gifts was seen most clearly. Drugs muddled some of the early stages of his career, and his disease finally silenced him, but in the early 1980s, after he was clean and sober and before he fell ill, there was a flowering of genius. In 2004, Comedy Central placed him first on its list of the greatest stand-up comedians of all time.
Mr. Pryor was born Dec. 1, 1940, in Peoria, in a brothel his grandmother owned. He recalled his early years in "Jo Jo Dancer, Your Life is Calling" (1986), an autobiographical film he wrote, directed and starred in. He said it was not entirely factual, but the broad outlines of his life are there, including the day in 1980 when he ran screaming into a Los Angeles street, his body in flames.
25 starring roles
He began as a stand-up comic and made a handful of films before his breakthrough in "Lady Sings the Blues" (1972), as Piano Man, the confidant of Billie Holiday (Diana Ross). Other important roles were in films including "Uptown Saturday Night" (1974), "The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars and Motor Kings" (1976), “Blue Collar
(1978), "Stir Crazy" (1980), and "Brewster's Millions" (1985).
Although Whoopi Goldberg was the first black host of the Academy Awards (1994), Mr. Pryor was the Oscar co-host in 1976, after earlier black co-hosts Sammy Davis Jr. and Diana Ross. By then he was a major Hollywood star, teamed by the Oscars with Warren Beatty, Ellen Burstyn and Jane Fonda. Oscar invited him back in 1982.
He had about 25 starring roles, often opposite Gene Wilder, who would play the straight man when they did interviews together. This is from their visit to Chicago to promote their biggest hit, "Silver Streak" (1976):
Wilder: "What are you doing next?"
Mr. Pryor: "It's a movie called 'Which Way Is Up?' This Italian director, Lina Wertmuller ..."
Wilder: "No! Oh, my God! I'll kill myself!"
Mr. Pryor: "What you moaning about, man?"
Wilder: "You're going to work with Lina Wertmuller? She passed right by me and saw you and said 'I must have that young man'?"
Mr. Pryor: "You didn't let me finish. She made this movie called 'The Seduction of Mimi,' and this will be a remake, set among the grape pickers of California."
Wilder: "I would have killed myself out of envy."
Mr. Pryor: "And then I'm in a remake of 'Arsenic and Old Lace.'"
Wilder: "Oh, my God! My favorite play next to 'Hamlet.' All black cast, I suppose, nothing for me."
Mr. Pryor: "And then I'm doing 'Hamlet.'"
In "Silver Streak," they did their own stunts, including one where they hung out of a train at 50 mph, Mr. Pryor holding Wilder by the belt.
"I'm thinking, one slip of my foot, and goodbye, Gene!" Mr. Pryor said.
"What gave me a lot of confidence," Wilder said, "was that Richie promised me that if I went, he went, too. If I fell off the train and was killed, he would throw himself after me."
"Of course," said Mr. Pryor, "they had me wired to the train."
Some of his films after that were not as good, including the dreadful "Harlem Nights" (1989) with Eddie Murphy, and in the late 1980s, there was a visible slowing down, the result of multiple sclerosis. There was no slowing down, however, in the three concert films that will preserve his work at its peak. In "Richard Pryor: Live in Concert" (1979), "Richard Pryor Live on Sunset Strip" (1982) and "Richard Pryor Here and Now" (1983), he earned full comparison with Bill Cosby, the grandmaster of the autobiographical stand-up genre.
Wise social observer
In the 1982 film, he dealt frankly with his cocaine addiction and his accident. The movie was filmed live over two nights. We sense at the beginning that he is shaky, but he gains confidence and builds into "the most talented one-man stage show in existence right now," I wrote in my review, effortlessly bringing to life a series of impressions ranging from Mafioso to water buffalos.
The racial content of his humor wasobservational, not confrontational. In the 1982 concert, he mimes an impression of two whites passing each other on the street in Africa. In "Silver Streak," Mr. Pryor told me, there was concern about a scene where Wilder appears in blackface and fools a white man. Mr. Pryor suggested a simple change that turned a possibly embarrassing scene into one of the biggest laughs in the film:
"Instead of a white dude being fooled by the disguise, a black dude comes in and isn't fooled. Here's Gene snapping his fingers and holding his portable radio to his ear, and the black dude takes one look and says, 'I don't know what you think you're doing, man, but you got to get the beat.'"
In "Live on Sunset Strip," Mr. Pryor does a brilliant extended sequence involving his addiction to cocaine. He depicts himself alone in his room with his cocaine pipe, which speaks to him in reassuring, seductive tones. Only gradually do we realize that the pipe is speaking in the voice of Richard Nixon.
It is unclear whether all of Mr. Pryor's drug use was behind him when he made "Sunset Strip." But in "Richard Pryor Here and Now," (1983) he firmly states he is clean and sober, seems more relaxed than we've ever seen him before, and is growing from a comedian into a wise social observer. He does impressions of characters of many races, the humor based on empathy, and has fun with himself as an African American feeling like a foreigner in Africa. In Zimbabwe, he tells an African how surprised he is to be able to speak English everywhere.
"Everybody speaks English," the African tells him, "but what language do you speak at home?"
There is an extended sequence at the end of that film where he shows a street addict shooting heroin. It begins in comedy, ends in pain, moves from self-deception to honesty, and goes far beyond stand-up into what can only be described as inspired acting. That was the direction he was moving in, and we can only wonder what heights he would have achieved if MS had not taken its cruel toll.
Mr. Pryor had seven marriages to five wives, including two to Jennifer Lee (in 1981 and 2001) and two to Flynn Belaine (in 1986 and 1990). He had seven children: Renee, Richard Pryor Jr., Elizabeth Stordeur, Rain Kindlin (herself an actress), Kelsey Pryor, Steven Pryor and Franklin Mason, and three grandchildren. Funeral services will be private, by invitation.
Contributing: AP, Reuters
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, December 8th, 2005
| |
2:49 pm
|
|
Well, I'm working at Blockbuster about 5 days a week. I'm working (sometimes) on getting my schoolwork done. And Allyson just moved into an apartment that I'm slowly moving my stuff into. That's about it. I'll make a real update some day. Until then, I offer this advice that has been passed on through the years: white water in the morning.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, November 30th, 2005
| |
3:09 pm - I'm waiting for this headline
|
|
THIS JUST IN: PRESIDENT BUSH DECLARES FREEDOM UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
|
|
(comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
an_evil_monkey's journal