Yesterday #StanSwamy died, after eight months in prison conditions that exacerbated his Parkinson's. He was one of the jailed human-rights advocates aka #BhimaKoregaon 16.
The story of the evidence against them is... amazing and bizarre, and is worth going over. A thread.
They openly detailed requirements for arms and planned attacks, without using code-words.
Sudha Bharadwaj, who had to pass her lawyer a handwritten note, called the evidence against her "a totally concocted letter fabricated to criminalise me and other human rights lawyers, activists, organisations."
Stan Swamy, aged 84, was reduced to agony by Parkinson's. Then he tested positive for Covid. He pled for bail, but the NIA relentlessly opposed it, saying there was no "conclusive proof" of his ailments.
Still, he died of them
Which is strange, given the flagrant plot: to assassinate! the Prime Minister!! And all the evidence, already splashed across national TV.
Yet instead of a swift conviction, the trial has not even begun.
They then spent over 300 hours on Wilson's data alone
A nearly two-year timespan during which an attacker had access to the activists' laptops and used it "for surveillance and incriminating document delivery".
Arsenal decrypted NetWire logs on Wilson’s computer, and found activity from 2016 until hours before Wilson’s computer was seized by police.
In February, after Arsenal's first report debunked the 'evidence' on Wilson's computer, defense lawyers rushed to move the High Court – to no avail.
His next bail hearing was scheduled for July 6. //
More from Legal
More severe police injuries and deaths on that one day of rampaging Trumpers than in five years of Anti-Police protests.
You can tell a lot about the stance of a angry crowd by whether they come with shields or pitchforks.
If people protesting police brutality for years had wanted to use their large numbers to attack, maim and kill police, they damn well could have.
But they came to resist police.
Which is completely different.
Why did the police suffer more at the hands of those who claimed to support them and waved their flags than at the hands of those who think they should be defunded or abolished?
Because one group is literally arguing for human dignity and the other glorifies violence.
The people who uncritically support police brutality are those who believe that instrumental violence should be a standard tool in response to those standing opposed to you.
Once you accept that... WHO is standing opposed to you doesn't matter much.
Nearly 140 officers were injured during pro-Trump extremists' Capitol siege \u2014 including officers who sustained brain injuries, smashed spinal discs, one who'll likely lose an eye, and another stabbed with a metal fence stake, the Capitol Police union said.https://t.co/D9jFSkKtJm
— NPR (@NPR) January 28, 2021
You can tell a lot about the stance of a angry crowd by whether they come with shields or pitchforks.
If people protesting police brutality for years had wanted to use their large numbers to attack, maim and kill police, they damn well could have.
But they came to resist police.
Which is completely different.
Why did the police suffer more at the hands of those who claimed to support them and waved their flags than at the hands of those who think they should be defunded or abolished?
Because one group is literally arguing for human dignity and the other glorifies violence.
The people who uncritically support police brutality are those who believe that instrumental violence should be a standard tool in response to those standing opposed to you.
Once you accept that... WHO is standing opposed to you doesn't matter much.
You May Also Like
I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
One of the oddest features of the Labour tax row is how raising allowances, which the media allowed the LDs to describe as progressive (in spite of evidence to contrary) through the coalition years, is now seen by everyone as very right wing
— Tom Clark (@prospect_clark) November 2, 2018
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party