On February 13, Johnnie Kamahi Warren died after a police officer used a Taser on him at least twice outside an Alabama bar. The police had been called when Warren became disorderly and combative at the bar.

Warren’s death raises the Taser-related death toll in the U.S. to at least 500.

Warren was unarmed. And that is not uncommon. In fact, a 2008 report by Amnesty International (AI) examined data on hundreds of deaths related to police Taser use and found that an alarming number of those who died were unarmed.

According to the report, “Tasers are frequently deployed in situations where firearms or other weapons would not be an option. For example, police have used Tasers on unarmed people who fail to comply immediately with instructions, who struggle while they are being handcuffed or who try to run or walk away from minor incidents. People who are intoxicated or verbally disruptive, but not committing, or threatening to commit, a serious crime have also had Tasers used against them.”

More recently, AI cited the case of Roger Anthony, who last November “fell off his bicycle and died after a police officer in North Carolina shot him with a stun gun. The officer reportedly shocked Anthony – who had a disability and hearing problems – because he did not respond to an order to pull over.” Anthony, too, was unarmed.

In the wake of the grim new milestone of 500 Taser-related deaths, AI is repeating its call for tighter limits on police use of lethal weapons. “Of the hundreds who have died following police use of Tasers in the United States, dozens and possibly scores of deaths can be traced to unnecessary force being used,” said Susan Lee, Americas program director for AI. “This is unacceptable, and stricter guidelines for their use are now imperative.”

AI is calling for strict national protocols for police use of Tasers and similar stun weapons that would effectively replace local police policies that permit a wider use of the weapons, often in situations that do not warrant such a high level of force.

While law enforcement agencies defend the use of Tasers, saying that they save lives and can be used to subdue dangerous or uncooperative suspects, AI contends that the weapons “should only be used as an alternative in situations where police would otherwise consider using firearms.” Indeed, as we’ve seen at least 500 times now, Tasers can be just as lethal as firearms. And too often misused.

And so I contend that the unnecessary overuse of Tasers against unarmed and unthreatening individuals can only be called lazy and cowardly at best.

As I write this on the holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I reflect on King’s vision of a world in which our children “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

And it saddens me to see how – despite having our first African-American president living in the White House – racism still abounds.

Racism against African Americans is not as blatantly obvious as it was during the Jim Crow era. The GOP even had a black RNC chairman from 2009 to 2011, and a recent but brief campaign by an African-American presidential hopeful. But that’s like denying racism by saying “some of my best friends are…”

The real truth was exposed for all to see on racist signs at tea party rallies in recent years.

And the real truth is exposed in GOP efforts to pass voter ID laws that would disproportionally disenfranchise thousands and thousands of minority voters – who tend to vote Democrat.

Consider also that brown is the new black. Old-fashioned racism against blacks has morphed into shameless bigotry against brown-skinned people. See the war on Latino immigrants. And see the anti-Muslim bigotry that seems to hold all Muslims in the world responsible for the actions of a handful of radical extremists on 9/11. If we were to similarly hold all white Christians responsible for the actions of domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, the bigots would call it anti-American.

The fact is that Manifest Destiny was an easy excuse to steal this nation from its original native inhabitants. And the white man’s arrogance continues as he desperately tries to defend this stolen land from “the other”. Even if “the other” is here because his ancestors were kidnapped from Africa and enslaved 300 years ago. And even if “the other” immigrated here legally to enjoy our religious liberty and other great freedoms.

Bigotry has its roots in insecurity, and in fear of the unknown. Might does not make right. But I continue to shudder at the possibilities of what can happen as these frightened white men – the 1% – continue to control our country’s wealth and power.

Things will only get worse for the 99% unless Washington wakes up and supports us – We The People – not the corporate 1%. But – with all due respect to the Occupy movement and last year’s efforts in Wisconsin – the alarm clocks are apparently being ignored as the powerful keep snoozing.

I hope I am mistaken.

On December 31, when most U.S. citizens were distracted with New Year’s holiday plans, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. This law authorizes the President of the United States to order the U.S. military to arrest and imprison terrorism suspects indefinitely, including U.S. citizens, without charging them or putting them on trial. In other words, the President could now arbitrarily strip you of your right to due process.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the bill also contains provisions “making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations.”

Obama issued a signing statement expressing “serious reservations” regarding some of the provisions of the bill. But he signed it anyway. He did not veto it, as he could have done.

Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, summarized the danger that this new law presents: “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George [W.] Bush in the war on terror was extinguished [with the signing of this bill]. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

Romero promised that the ACLU “will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.” I hope they are successful.

In the meantime, however, the new law can only do further damage to our reputation in the world – a reputation that Obama initially seemed to be repairing quite successfully.

And the world will now see that even Obama – a former Constitutional law professor – cannot be trusted to uphold universal human rights standards and the rule of law.

On December 1, Martina Davis Correia lost her long battle with breast cancer. Correia was the sister of Troy Davis, who was executed by the state of Georgia on September 21 amidst worldwide protest.

Georgia went ahead with the Davis execution despite compelling evidence suggesting that he was innocent of the murder for which he was convicted. Davis’s original trial was flawed. Most of the witnesses have since recanted or contradicted their stories, with many claiming that they had been pressured or coerced by police. And there was no physical evidence linking Davis to the crime. His conviction was based solely on that questionable testimony by witnesses.

Despite her own medical concerns, Correia fought tirelessly for justice in her brother’s case, and against the death penalty in general. Correia was chair of the Steering Committee for the Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) Program to Abolish the Death Penalty, and served for 11 years as AIUSA’s death penalty abolition coordinator for Georgia. In 2010, Amnesty’s Irish section presented Correia with the Sean McBride Award for Outstanding Contributions to Human Rights. She was an inspiration to those of us in the human rights community who knew her, or knew of her.

Curt Goering, chief executive officer for AIUSA, issued the following statement upon the news of Correia’s death:

“Our hearts are breaking over the loss of this extraordinary woman. She fought to save her brother’s life with courage, strength, and determination, every step of the way. She was a powerful example of how one person can make a difference as she led the fight for justice for Troy Davis, even as she endured her own decade-long battle with cancer. And despite the terrible blow of his execution, she remained brave and defiant to the core of her being, stating her conviction that one day his death would be the catalyst for ending the death penalty. Even as Martina’s health failed, she was making plans to continue her work against the death penalty in her brother’s memory, as he urged his supporters to do just before he was put to death. She was a tenacious fighter, a graceful inspiration to activists everywhere, and a true hero of the movement for human rights. At this sorrowful time, we at Amnesty International offer our profound sympathy to her family.”

RIP, Martina Davis Correia.

May her legacy live on and touch many more lives.

In a September 7 debate among the GOP presidential hopefuls, Texas Governor Rick Perry seemed quite proud of leading the country in death row executions. He indicated that he loses no sleep over the possibility of executing an innocent person. This is despite the fact that we now know that at least one innocent man – Cameron Todd Willingham – had died by lethal injection on Perry’s watch.

In sharp contrast, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber wants to take no such chance. On November 22, Kitzhaber announced that he would allow no more executions through the end of his time in office.

During a previous term as Oregon’s governor in the 1990s, Kitzhaber presided over two executions, despite personal doubts about the morality of the death penalty. Kitzhaber had this to say about those executions: “They were the most agonizing and difficult decisions I have made as Governor and I have revisited and questioned them over and over again during the past 14 years. I do not believe that those executions made us safer; and certainly they did not make us nobler as a society. And I simply cannot participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong.”

Kitzhaber pointed to flaws in Oregon’s criminal justice system, which he described as “broken”: “Oregonians have a fundamental belief in fairness and justice – in swift and certain justice. The death penalty as practiced in Oregon is neither fair nor just; and it is not swift or certain. It is not applied equally to all.”

Indeed, studies in several states have shown that the death penalty is applied in a discriminatory, arbitrary, and uneven manner, and is used disproportionately against racial minorities and the poor. For example, a 1998 study of death sentences in Philadelphia found that African-American defendants were almost four times more likely to receive the death penalty than were people of other ethnic origins who committed similar crimes. That’s not justice, it’s discrimination.

Human rights group Amnesty International, which describes the death penalty as “the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights”, hailed Kitzhaber’s decision. Furthermore, said Rob Freer, Amnesty International’s USA researcher, “Oregon’s state legislature should seize the opportunity provided by Governor Kitzhaber and turn this temporary moratorium into permanent abolition.”

Doing so would follow a growing trend in death penalty abolition in the U.S. Illinois abolished the death penalty in that state earlier this year, joining 15 other states and the District of Columbia which had previously halted the practice.

The trend extends also through much of the rest of the world. The U.S. is one of very, very few western nations that still engage in state-sponsored killing. In maintaining the death penalty here in the U.S., we align ourselves with the other executing nations of the world such as Afghanistan, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and a handful of other countries known for their systematic violations of human rights.

This is apparently the kind of company that Rick Perry is proud to keep. Kudos to Governor Kitzhaber for instead moving his own state forward towards a more civilized approach to criminal justice.

Texas governor and Republican presidential contender Rick Perry has faced criticism from the left (and applause from the right) for his heavy-handed use of the death penalty. And Perry has said that he loses no sleep over the possibility that he may have executed an innocent man.

This is despite the fact that it appears that Perry has done just that – and could very likely do it again very soon.

In 2004, Texas death row prisoner Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for an alleged arson that claimed the lives of his three daughters in 1991. However, a later forensic review of the case led to the conclusion that “a finding of arson could not be sustained.” In other words, the fire for which Willingham was executed was probably just an accident.

Instead of acknowledging that an innocent man may have been executed, and working to correct the system that allowed such a grievous error, Governor Perry appears to have taken steps to impede the investigation into the Willingham fiasco.

And now we have another Texas death row prisoner, Henry Watkins “Hank” Skinner, facing a November 9 execution date for a triple murder, despite the existence of untested DNA evidence that Skinner says could prove his innocence.

Skinner had been convicted and sentenced to death for the New Year’s Eve murder in 1993 of his girlfriend Twila Busby and her two adult sons. The DNA in question went untested during the original trial because Skinner’s attorney was afraid that it could incriminate his client – a decision that Skinner contends he never agreed with.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Skinner may pursue a civil rights claim to obtain the DNA testing. In the meantime, however, Texas has jumped the gun. Instead of waiting for the civil rights suit to unfold, and for the DNA to be tested to ensure they’ve got the right guy, the state went ahead and scheduled the November execution.

What are they afraid of – the possibility that Skinner’s conviction, like Willingham’s, might be proven wrong?

Governor Perry, as noted above, has bragged that he really does not care. Neither, apparently, does anyone else in charge of the busiest death chamber in the country.

Killing a prisoner, apparently, is more important to them than killing the right prisoner.

Killing a prisoner, apparently, is more important to them than true justice.

The drama continues in the case of America’s most famous living death row prisoner.

On October 11, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request from the Philadelphia District Attorney to overturn a federal appeals court decision declaring Mumia Abu-Jamal’s death sentence unconstitutional. Abu-Jamal had been convicted and sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.

Now, according to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), “Mr. Abu-Jamal will be automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole unless the District Attorney elects to seek another death sentence from a new jury.”

This development is good, but it’s not enough.

For years, rights groups have been speaking out against Abu-Jamal’s death sentence. A 2000 report by Amnesty International noted that “numerous aspects of this case clearly failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings.” Amnesty expressed concerns about judicial bias and hostility, police misconduct, and the apparent withholding of evidence from the jury. Amnesty called for a new trial “in a neutral venue, where the case has not polarized the public as it has in Philadelphia.”

Abu-Jamal’s supporters insist that he is innocent, that he was set up, and that racial bias and witness coercion had played a big part in an unfair trial. They also point out that Faulkner was killed with a .44 caliber gun, while the gun found on Abu-Jamal was a .38 caliber.

This most recent court decision, however, concerns only the penalty, not the question of guilt or innocence. At this stage, the death penalty was challenged because of flawed jury instructions in the sentencing phase of Abu-Jamal’s original trial. The issue involves how jurors were to weigh various mitigating factors that may have resulted in a sentence other than the death penalty.

Professor Judith Ritter of Widener Law School, who, along with the LDF, represented Abu-Jamal in this phase of his case, weighed in on the new decision: “Like all Americans, Mr. Abu-Jamal was entitled to a proper proceeding that takes into account the many substantial reasons why death was an inappropriate sentence. Our system should never condone an execution that stems from a trial in which the jury was improperly instructed on the law.”

Indeed.

Again, this latest development is good, but it’s not enough.

Unless Abu-Jamal is granted a new – and fair – trial to address his guilt or innocence, I will not believe that justice has truly been served.

I shall not hold my breath.

With President Obama running for a second term, I cannot help but wonder which Obama we will see as the reelection campaign heats up over the coming year.

In 2008, we saw Obama the Candidate, who promised us change we can believe in. He inspired and energized us.

Now many of us on the progressive end of the political spectrum are dealing with 2+ years of disappointments from Obama the President.

We’re still holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

We’re still wasting money on unnecessary military operations.

The unemployment rate is still much too high.

The bankers are still raking in obscene salaries and bonuses as home foreclosures continue.

The rich still enjoy their Bush-era tax cuts (which are now Obama-era tax cuts).

And our Social Security and Medicare are on the line as possible bargaining chips in the ongoing budget wars.

This is not change I can believe in.

Perhaps Obama feels trapped in a position where he has no choice but to “negotiate” with the right. But negotiation, by definition, is supposed to be at least two-sided, with some give-and-take on all sides.

So has Obama pushed back strongly enough? I haven’t heard enough words in his speeches to convince me that he has. I just keep hearing him use the word “compromise” while what he actually does is capitulate.

Still, next year, we the voting public will have to choose between Obama and his still-unknown Republican challenger.

More progressive Democrats have proven unelectable in the past, so we won’t see a Dennis Kucinich or a Russ Feingold reaping any kind of surprise overthrow victory at next year’s Democratic National Convention. And a progressive running as a third-party candidate (remember Ralph Nader?) would only potentially steal enough votes from Obama to reward us with a President Bachmann, a President Perry, or (at best) a President Romney.

So will Obama step up to the plate and try to win back the progressive base that worked so hard to get him elected in 2008?

If so, will enough of us support him?

That last question is not a rhetorical one. Sometimes we just have to face reality and vote for the proverbial lesser of two evils. We cannot afford any more Republican Supreme Court appointments.

But we can – and we must – make noise in the meantime. For democracy. And for true change that we really can believe in.

On August 19, three men walked out of prison in Arkansas after spending nearly 20 years behind bars for a triple murder that they maintain they did not commit. The crime involved the brutal killing of three eight-year-old boys.

Damien Echols had been on death row for the murders. Jessie Misskelley, Jr. and Jason Baldwin were both serving life sentences. They had been nicknamed the “West Memphis Three”.

Their first big break came in 2007, when new forensic evidence showed that the DNA from the crime scene did not match any of the defendants. After four years of appeals, a plea agreement was reached by which the three would enter Alford pleas in exchange for having their sentences reduced to time served. Under an Alford plea, a defendant can assert his innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to obtain a conviction.

So what led to the convictions if the DNA says otherwise? Campbell Robertson, writing for The New York Times, describes the web of hearsay, speculation, and coercion that led to the guilty verdicts:

“The grotesque nature of the murders, coming in the midst of a nationwide concern about satanic cult activity, especially among teenagers, led investigators from the West Memphis Police Department to focus on Mr. Echols, a troubled yet gifted 18-year-old who wore all black, listened to heavy metal music and considered himself a Wiccan. Efforts to learn more about him through a woman cooperating with the police led to Mr. Misskelley, a 17-year-old acquaintance of Mr. Echols’s.

“After a nearly 12-hour police interrogation, Mr. Misskelley confessed to the murders and implicated Mr. Echols and Mr. Baldwin, who was 16 at the time, though his confession diverged in significant details, like the time of the murders, with the facts known by the police. Mr. Misskelley later recanted, but on the strength of that confession he was convicted in February 1994.

“Mr. Echols and Mr. Baldwin soon after were convicted of three counts of capital murder in a separate trial in Jonesboro, where the proceedings had been moved because of extensive publicity in West Memphis. The convictions were largely based on the testimony of witnesses who said they heard the teenagers talk of the murders, and on the prosecution’s argument that the defendants had been motivated as members of a satanic cult. Mr. Misskelley’s confession was not admitted at their trial, though recently a former lawyer for that jury’s foreman filed an affidavit saying that the foreman, determined to convict, had brought the confession up in deliberations to sway undecided jurors.”

Now the DNA evidence exists that casts reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Why then were they forced to acknowledge otherwise as a condition for their release? It was either that or remain in prison (and, in Echols’ case, remain on death row).

Lawyers for the three defendants say that they will pursue full exoneration. That would be one big step towards true justice in this case.

Another big step would be to reopen the case and find the real killer(s).

We owe it to the victims and their families.

It seems that lawsuits are never simple, and there are always at least two sides.

The latest example to catch my attention is the case of Baker and Linsley v. Wildflower Inn. In this case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is working with a lesbian couple, Kate Baker and Ming Linsley, to sue a Vermont inn for refusing to host their wedding reception.

According to some case background on the ACLU website, the Wildflower Inn seemed very eager to host the reception until the innkeepers learned that the happy couple are two lesbians. Never mind the fact that same-sex marriage has been legal in Vermont since 2009; it appeared that the innkeepers wanted no part of it on their property.

The ACLU quotes an email from an employee of the inn who had been working with the mother of one of the brides on preliminary arrangements: “After our conversation, I checked in with my Innkeepers and unfortunately due to their personal feelings, they do not host gay receptions at our facility.”

And this wasn’t the first time, allegedly. According to the ACLU’s official complaint, filed July 19, “during the same 12-month period in which the Meeting and Events Director refused to allow Ming and Kate to hold their reception at the resort, the Meeting and Events Director also turned away at least two other same-sex couples pursuant to the Wildflower Inn’s no-gay-reception policy.”

Imagine the public outrage if interracial couples were treated this way in 2011!

According to the ACLU, “The Vermont Human Rights Law has prohibited public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation for nearly 20 years.”

And, notes the ACLU, “This case is about discrimination, plain and simple. When a business that is open to the public refuses to serve two people and their guests solely because the two people are a same sex couple, it is no different than restaurants not serving individuals because they were black, or other businesses keeping out women or Jews. It is discrimination and it is illegal.”

But, as I noted above, there are always at least two sides to every lawsuit. So I called the Wildflower Inn. I expected to hear, “No comment.” Instead, I ended up speaking with a woman who wanted to talk, albeit reluctantly.

When she answered the phone at the inn, I introduced myself and explained that I am a writer in Philadelphia hoping to hear their side of the story. The woman (who did not give her name) said it was all a misunderstanding.

She went on to say that the Wildflower Inn employs a number of gay people, and that numerous gay guests have stayed there in the past and have returned for repeat visits.

Whey then, I asked, were Ming and Kate turned away?

I did not get a straight answer to that question (pun unintended). But the woman on the phone seemed to imply it was the decision of the Meeting and Events Director, who had allegedly not consulted the owners at all.

I’ll leave it to the lawyers on both sides to drag out the real facts. And I’ll leave it to the courts to ultimately decide who at the inn broke the law, if indeed a law was broken. But, at the very least, the email quoted above certainly does make it seem like someone at the inn has a homophobia problem.

In the meantime, ABC News reports that Ming and Kate have found a different place to hold the festivities. I wish them all the best.