POLITICAL ABUSE OF PSYCHIATRY

POLITICAL ABUSE OF PSYCHIATRY is the misuse of psychiatric diagnosis, detention and treatment for the purposes of obstructing the fundamental human rights of certain groups and individuals in a society. In other words, abuse of psychiatry including one for political purposes is deliberate action of getting citizens certified, who, because of their mental condition, need neither psychiatric restraint nor psychiatric treatment. Psychiatrists have been involved in human rights abuses in states across the world when the definitions of mental disease were expanded to include political disobedience. As scholars have long argued, governmental and medical institutions code menaces to authority as mental diseases during political disturbances. Nowadays, in many countries, political prisoners are sometimes confined and abused in mental institutions. Psychiatric confinement of sane people is a particularly pernicious form of repression. > go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry

The use of psychiatry for political purposes has been a major subject of debate within the world psychiatric community during the second half of the 20th century. The issue became prominent in the 1970s and 1980s due to the systematic political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, where approximately one-third of the political prisoners were locked up in psychiatric hospitals. The issue caused a major rift within the World Psychiatric Association, from which the Soviets were forced to withdraw in 1983. They returned conditionally in 1989. Political abuse of psychiatry took also place in other socialist countries and on a systematic scale in Romania, and during the first decade of the 21st century, it became clear that systematic political abuse of psychiatry is also happening in the People's Republic of China. The article discusses the historical background to these abuses and concludes that the issue had a major impact on the development of concepts regarding medical ethics and the professional responsibility of physicians. > go to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800147/ 

And due to the inside job of September 11th, 2001 (go to: 9-11 Conspiracy Solved Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hhBZJEqoe0A) legal novices in local government thought (and still likely think) they actually had good reason and/or some kind of official legal approval to violate individual human rights and/or destabilize activists by putting them on the same level as terrorists; much like how the federal government destabilizes rebel leaders in other countries > go to: REBEL LEADER LIK ROPER @ http://neighborhood-copwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/rebel-leader-lik-roper.html.

But! as it turns out; the USA Patriot Act was actually drafted a few weeks before the 9-11 attacks; and not only did a female FBI agent raise red flags about a CIA flight training school which could have averted the attacks (and instead essentially assisted in them); but Senator Diane Feinstein even went as far as warning Vice President Dick Cheney that something big was about to happen a few days before the 9-11 attacks. Mister Cheney responded with "come back in a month". (?!?) Therefore; Mister Cheney (who was Dick Nixon's right hand man. In other words; the most crooked individual in U.S. history) is either GROSSLY NEGLIGENT; OR WAS COMPLICIT IN THE ATTACKS. 

 (Adding to this; ACLU records show that shortly after the 9-11 attacks the FBI admitted to actively destabilizing activists for 25 years prior (and especially black activists); and the USA Patriot Act did nothing more than turn this dirty little secret into law)

Furthermore; it is against the law to discriminate against those with disabilities (and especially if those disabilities are clearly imagined for political purposes; as they are with John). Therefore; discriminatory actions taken against John were not only illegal; but also EXTREMELY unethical and quite clearly based in utter stupidity and/or the violation of John's human rights.