Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Has Been Mutilated and Almost Killed While a Suspect, Not a Criminal.

Dzokhar Tsarnaev as he will never look again

We have medical reports of Dzokhar's injuries. His extremities were aimed at and he took 16 to 17 wounds from gunfire in his arms, legs, hands and feet. He will never be able to use his left (dominant) arm again. His legs are all shot up. A gun was placed in his mouth on the left side and fired out his left cheek, ripping open his face, leaving skull injuries/brain injuries and mutilation of his face. 

We'll show the mothafugga! Shoot him up like those people were all wounded, losing arms, legs, etc. We'll do to him what he did to them. 

Can't you just hear them as they pumped him full of bullets.

Their victim now is mutilated, disfigured for life and can never use one arm again. 

Serves him right eh.

The US needs draconian laws because it has a population of savages who yell for the kill whenever the media arouses them, which lately is 

far too often

We have a government that forces down planes of elected heads of state because they think someone they want is on that plane.

We torture prisoners violating the Geneva Convention Laws. We hold people in Guantanamo without trial. We hold people awaiting trial in solitary for months and years. We are no longer a nation of Law. 

WE ARE A NATION RUN BY THUGS

Paul Virilio

We are following in the footsteps of Athens and we will destroy our civilization just as Athens did their own.

Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty: Cracking the Thucydides Code

LINK

Dzokhar Tsarnaev has been in solitary for over 170 days now. Ai WeiWei in China was in for 81 days and even he tells us what a terrible thing it was for him. Only twitter got him out and world opinion. China does not like to LOSE FACE.

LOSE FACE
Now that I have mentioned that term as a metaphor let's look at LOSING FACE as a literal term. Dzokhar has LOST HIS FACE. Your face is your identity. Anyone who has been facially mutilated HAS LOST THEIR IDENTITY. They must forge a new one. People will respond differently to you now that your face is mutilated. And Dzokhar was a pretty boy. But no longer. He will present a different FACE to people and he will receive different responses to his SELF that he has never received before. Who he was is no longer. And when you look in the mirror the first time after mutilation the shock and terror and depression you experience is a frightful thing. There is no recovery from it. You are now a DIFFERENT person. You must make a New LIFE. How can you do that in solitary confinement? (And how about all the ones in Guantanamo?)

Here's Lucy Grealy in her Autobiography of a Face

Lucy Grealy at age 9 was diagnosed with incurable cancer. She had a huge part of her jaw removed - Dzokhar also from having been shot inside his mouth and out his cheek - and her life was consumed by multiple operations and plastic surgeries. She eventually committed suicide. This is her story. And this is Dzokhar's story now.

Seems there are complaints about Dzokhar's face being shot up. The medical report from the hospital says: that he was shot in the left side of his mouth and it exited his left cheek, destroying part of his jaw, his skull - how much brain damage there? - and we have heard reports of his tongue terribly injured also. I read the medical report so if someone wants to look it up and post it in the comments that would be great. I can paste it in the body of this blog post and link it.

I do know most people cannot believe things unless they are given an official report so that's why most official reports we get from the government are lies because people believe lies.
___________________________________________________
From Julian Assange's interview here:

 But I think if we look at the bigger picture, OK, yes, 

there’s some development in the US and the UK, which 

is extremely serious. It's obvious to everyone. The rule 

of law is gradually starting to collapse. The mechanisms 

of government are lifting off from the population, from 

the judicial system. The judicial processes are becoming 

more and more secret. 

PARRHESIA - Fearless Speech:Reading Snowden Through Foucault

Edward Snowden - A Parrhesiastes

Socratic-Platonic answers to the questions:

1. How can we recognize someone as a parrhesiastes?
2. What is the importance of having a parrhesiastes for the city?
3. What is the training of a good parrhesiastes?

FOUCAULT

And I would say that the problematization of truth which characterizes both the end of Presocratic philosophy and the beginning of the kind of philosophy which is still ours today, this problematization of truth has two sides, two major aspects. One side is concerned with ensuring that the process of reasoning is correct in determining whether a statement is true (or concerns itself  with our ability to gain access to the truth). And the other side is concerned with the question:

What is the importance for the individual and for the society of telling the truth, of knowing the truth, of having people who tell the truth, as well as knowing how to recognize them?

With that side which is concerned with determining how to ensure that a statement is true we have the roots of the great tradition in Western philosophy which I would like to call the "analytics of truth." And on the other side, concerned with the question of the importance of telling the truth, knowing who is able to tell the truth, and knowing why we should tell the truth, we have the roots of what we could call the "critical" tradition in the West. And here you will recognize one of my targets in this seminar, namely, to construct a genealogy of the critical attitude in Western philosophy. That constituted the general objective of this seminar. (FS pp. 170-71)

My intention was not to deal with the problem of truth, but with the problem of the truth-teller, or of truth-telling as an activity....At issue for me was rather the attempt to consider truth-telling as a specific activity or as a role. ...I could have compared the role and status of truth-tellers in Greek society, Christian societies, non-Christian societies _the role of the prophet as a truth-teller, the role of the oracle as a truth-teller, the role of the poet, of the expert,of the preacher, and so on.  But, in fact, my intention was not to conduct a sociological description of the different possible roles for truth-tellers in different societies. 

What I wanted to analyze was how the truth-teller's role was variously problematized in Greek philosophy. ....this same Greek philosophy has also raised the question of truth from the point of view of truth-telling as an activity. It has raised questions like: 

1. Who is able to tell the truth?
2. What are the moral, the ethical, and the spiritual conditions which entitle someone to present himself as, and to be considered as, a truth-teller?
3. About what topics is it important to tell the truth?(About the world? About nature? About the city? About behavior? About man?)
4. What are its  anticipated positive effects for the city, for the city's rulers, for the individual?,etc.

And finally: What is the relation between the activity of truth-telling and the exercise of power? 

Should truth-telling be brought into coincidence with the exercise of power, or should these activities be completely independent and kept separate?
Are they separable, or do they require one another?

These four questions about truth-telling as an activity:

1. Who is able to tell the truth?
2. About what?
3. With what consequences?
4. With what relation to power?    

These four questions seem to have emerged as philosophical problems towards the end of the Fifth Century around Socrates, especially through his confrontations with the Sophists about politics, rhetorics, and ethics. (FS pp. 169-173)

And we all know what finally happened to Socrates. 

 And what is disturbing to me is that my tweets on Foucault's Panopticon have been picked up concerning Snowden's truth-telling of NSA surveillance (see a google search on Foucault + Snowden) but no one - NO ONE - is discussing Foucault's last works at the end of his life on parrhesia, or as Foucault calls it truth-telling, outlined in a series of talks at Berkeley in the early 1980's collected after his death from transcripts into the Semiotext(e) edition Fearless Speech.

Is this subject too frightening to touch? Are academics too scared? There are careerist academics who have made their career off Foucault's coattails. They have written dissertations on his work, books on his life, gotten tenure, prestigious chairs at universities all over the world and not one goddamn one of them has connected Edward Snowden to Foucault's work on truth-telling or the ancient Greek term parrhesia and the parrhesiastes!  This is 2500 years of critical tradition in the West, and only in the West, and no one is connecting these dots?

SHAME