Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/19/2013 4:24:16 PM

Spain: Protesters Demand PM Resign

spain protest

FOX News – July 18, 2013

http://tinyurl.com/p782tho

MADRID – Thousands of protesters have jammed downtown streets outside the Madrid headquarters of the ruling Popular Party to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy amid allegations he received payoffs from a slush fund before his party won elections in 2011.

The demonstration Thursday came after opposition leaders called for Rajoy to explain himself before Parliament or face a censure vote.

On Monday, Rajoy brushed off demands he should resign after text messages emerged showing him comforting a former political party treasurer under investigation over the slush fund and secret Swiss bank accounts.

The treasurer has claimed Rajoy took under the counter payments, accusations denied by Rajoy.

The spectacle of alleged greed and corruption has enraged Spaniards hurting from austerity and sky high unemployment.


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/19/2013 9:40:07 PM

US Courts Approve Indefinite Detention and Torture – by Stephen Lendman

Posted on

Source: SteveLendmanBlog

America’s a police state. It’s ruthless. Iron fist authority rules. International law’s quaint and out-of-date. US statute protections aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

Constitutional rights don’t matter. They never did for most people. It’s truer now than ever. They’re null and void. Executive diktat power rules. Congress and federal courts go along. They’re complicit.

They support sweeping lawlessness. It’s unprecedented. It affects domestic and geopolitical issues. No one’s safe anywhere.

Obama has life and death powers. He can order anyone murdered. He can do so on his say alone. US citizens are as vulnerable as foreign nationals.

He can order anyone indefinitely detained. He can throw them in military dungeons. He can deny them due process and judicial fairness.

They can remain there uncharged and untried. They can stay there forever. They can be brutally tortured. It’s OK. Federal courts said so. More on that below.

Section 1031 of the FY 2010 Defense Authorization Act contained the 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA).

The phrase “unprivileged enemy belligerent” replaced “unlawful enemy combatant.”

Language changed but not intent or lawlessness. Obama did what supporters thought impossible. He exceeds the worst of George Bush.

He promised to close Guantanamo. He lied. He’s a serial liar. He broke every major promise made.

He prioritizes keeping it open. He wants it expanded. He’s got lots more victims in mind. He’ll send there and/or to other US global torture prisons. Dozens operate worldwide. Guantanamo’s the tip of the iceberg.

Obama supports torture and other forms of cruel and degrading treatment. He does so unapologetically. He treats US citizens as lawlessly as foreign nationals.

MCA grants sweeping police state powers. They include precluding civil courts from having “jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever….relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission (including) challenges to the lawfulness of (its) procedures….”

Habeas rights don’t apply. Over 800 years of protection are gone. They’re null and void. According to MCA:

Guilty by accusation suffices. With or without evidence, anyone “is punishable…who…aids, abets, counsels, commands, procures (or provides) material support” for alleged enemies.

Torture’s permitted. International laws prohibiting it under all circumstances, at all times, with no allowed exceptions are abolished.

Diktat power replaced them. Presidents can do anything they want. They can do so on their say alone. They’re virtual dictators.

Checks and balances don’t apply. They never did effectively. They’re more fiction than fact.

Presidents have emergency powers. They can declare martial law. They can suspend the Constitution. They can do so on national security grounds.

They can do it for any reason or none at all. They can use federal troops on US streets. They can deploy them against peaceful protesters. Insurrection Act (1807) and 1878 Posse Comitatus Act prohibitions no longer apply.

Fundamental freedoms are illusory. They’re vanishing. They lie in history’s dustbin. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provisions let federal troops arrest and imprison US citizens and foreign nationals. They can do it at home or abroad. They can do it anywhere.

They can be held indefinitely uncharged and untried. They can be tortured. They can be forced to admit crimes they didn’t commit. They can be murdered on Obama’s say.

Police state lawlessness rules. It’s the law of the land. Obama’s a tinpot despot. He’s judge, jury and executioner. Fundamental rights are gone. They don’t apply.

Anyone can be arrested, imprisoned, held indefinitely and tortured for doing the right thing.

Protesting imperial lawlessness, social injustice, corporate crime, government corruption, or political Washington run of, by and for rich elites can be criminalized.

So can free speech, assembly, religion, or anything challenging America’s right to kill, destroy and pillage with impunity.

It’s official. Tyranny rules. America’s unsafe to live in. There’s no place to hide. Challenging diktat power’s criminalized. Police state ruthlessness targets anyone trying.

Military dungeons or secret FEMA concentration camps await victims. America’s no democracy. It’s not beautiful. It’s a battleground. It’s nightmarish for countless numbers affected.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley called NDAA authority ruthlessness “that would have horrified the Framers.”

“Indefinitely detaining citizens is something (they) were intimately familiar with and expressly sought to bar in the Bill of Rights.”

Other legal experts agree. Habeas, due process, and other fundamental rights are too precious to lose. They’re now quaint artifacts. They’re gone. They lie in history’s dustbin.

Tyranny replaced them. America’s no different from other totalitarian states. It’s ruthless. It’s militarized for control.

It’s concentrated money power running things. It’s fascism writ large. It’s wrapped in the American flag. It’s scapegoating challengers.

It’s out-of-control militarism. It’s national security justification to brutalize and oppress. It’s controlling the message. It’s convincing people fundamental rights are abolished for their own good.

It’s getting most people to believe it. It’s stripping off America’s mask. It’s showing its true face. It’s menacing, cruel and unjust. Federal court decisions explain.

In 2012, Hedges et al v. Obama challenged NDAA provisions. Last September, Southern District of New York federal Judge Katherine B. Forrest blocked Obama’s indefinite detention law. She’s the exception, not the rule.

She called it “facially unconstitutional: it impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protections to meet the requirements of due process.”

She added that:

“If, following issuance of this permanent injunctive relief, the government detains individuals under theories of ‘substantially or directly supporting’ associated forces, as set forth in” the National Defense Authorization Act, “and a contempt action is brought before this court, the government will bear a heavy burden indeed.”

At issue is section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It states in part:

“Congress affirms that the authority of the president to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.”

“Covered persons” are defined as:

Anyone “who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

Plaintiffs argued that broad, ambiguous language like “substantially supported,” “associated forces” and “directly supported” leaves them and others vulnerable to lawless indefinite detention.

Legally meeting someone rightly or wrongly called a terrorist, staying in their homes, inviting them to speak at conferences or in panel discussions, interviewing them, or socializing with them can be called dealing with the enemy.

So can writing anti-imperial articles, exposing and/or discussing US crimes of war and against humanity, and participating in anti-war protests.

Hedges et al won. Obama officials appealed. On Wednesday, the New York Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Forrest’s ruling.

Three judges did so unanimously. They did it shamelessly. They called indefinite detention uncharged and untried OK.

They said Hedges et al lacked standing. It’s because federal law “says nothing at all about the president’s authority to detain American citizens.”

False! NDAA covers everyone. US citizens are as vulnerable as foreign nationals. Appeals Court Judge Lewis Kaplan said non-citizens “failed to establish standing because they have not shown a sufficient threat that the government will detain them.”

Plaintiffs’ lawyer Carl Mayer said “(w)e’re reviewing what our options are, but I strongly suspect that we will appeal to the Supreme Court.”

The ruling came on the same day the District of Columbia Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling. At issue are oppressive Guantanamo prisoner genital area searches. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered them stopped.

Appeals Court judges overruled him. They authorized what’s

conducted to degrade, harass and humiliate. They’re unrelated to security.

Separately on July 16, Washington, DC District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled against three Guantanamo hunger strikers.

They sued to stop force-feeding. It’s lawless. It’s medically unethical. It’s excruciatingly painful. It’s torture as international law defines it.

Collyer supports it. Her ruling ignored inviolable laws. She’s contemptuously dismissive. She said:

“There is nothing so shocking or inhumane in the treatment of petitioners – which they can avoid at will – to raise a constitutional concern that might otherwise necessitate review.”

“Although framed as a motion to stop feeding via nasograstric tube, Petitioners’ real complaint is that the United States is not allowing them to commit suicide by starvation.”

According to the World Federation of Right to Die Societies:

“All competent adults – regardless of their nationalities, professions, religious beliefs, and ethical and political views – who are suffering unbearably from incurable illnesses should have the possibility of various choices at the end of their life.”

“Death is unavoidable. We strongly believe that the manner and time of dying should be left to the decision of the individual, assuming such demands do not result in harm to society other than the sadness associated with death.”

Brutalizing indefinite Guantanamo detention constitutes an “incurable disease.” It includes hopelessness and unbearable suffering.

It prevents any chance for freedom. It denies all rights. Death’s unavoidable. It’ll come sooner, not later. Dying with dignity’s excluded. Permitting it is fundamentally right. Not according to kangaroo federal court justice.

Collyer’s ruling replicated Judge Glady Kessler’s July 10 decision. On the one hand, she called force-feeding “painful, humiliating and degrading.”

On the other, she abstained from ruling responsibly. She wrongfully claimed federal courts have no authority over Guantanamo. Obama alone has “authority to address the issue,” she said.

False! Kessler doesn’t know the law. Maybe she does but spurned it. She ignored High Court rulings.

In Rasul v. Bush (June 2004), the Supreme Court held that Guantanamo detainees may challenge their detention in civil court. In response, Congress enacted the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. It subverted the ruling.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (June 2006), the High Court held that federal courts retain jurisdiction over habeas cases. It ruled against military commissions.

It said they lack “the power to proceed because (their) structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions.”

In response, Congress passed the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA). In updated form, it’s the law of the land. Supreme Court justices can challenge it.

They can strike it down. They haven’t done so. Perhaps a future court will. In Boumediene v. Bush (June 2008), it affirmed habeas rights for Guantanamo detainees. It let them petition for release from lawlessly imposed custody.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. He said America maintains complete jurisdiction over Guantanamo regardless of its offshore location. He opposed political branches “govern(ing) without legal restraint.”

He expressed concerns about usurping “power to switch the Constitution on or off at will.” Doing so “lead(s) to a regime in which they, not this Court, say ‘what the law is.’ “

“Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not ‘absolute and unlimited’ but are subject ‘to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.’ “

He called habeas “an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers.”

“The test for determining (its) scope must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.”

This bedrock right has no adequate substitute. It doesn’t matter. Justice in America no longer exists. Diktat power replaced it.

Perhaps NDAA enactment was when freedom in America died. Post-9/11, it’s been on the chopping block for elimination altogether.

Tyranny’s the law of the land. It’s institutionalized. Fundamental rights don’t matter. Democracy’s a four-letter word. Out-of-control power runs things. It’s unaccountable.

Nonbelievers aren’t tolerated. The worst is yet to come.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/us-courts-approve-indefinite-detention-and-torture/

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/19/2013 9:49:37 PM

Pope Criminalizes the Reporting of Sex Crimes

Posted on

Written by
July 17th 2013
Source: The NewsLo
Thanks to A.

(Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

VATICAN CITY — Few eyebrows were raised last week when Pope Francis brought the Vatican’s legal system up to date by criminalizing leaks of official information and formalizing laws against sex crimes. But now that the laws have been made public, a closer look revealed that the pope has made it illegal to report sex crimes against children.

According to the new laws, revealing or receiving confidential Vatican information is now punishable by up to two years in prison, while newly defined sex crimes against children carry a sentence of up to twelve years. Because all sex crimes are kept confidential, there is no longer a legal way for Vatican officials to report sex crimes.

“We didn’t mean for this to happen, obviously,” lamented Vatican foreign minister Monsignor Dominique Mamberti. “It’s quite the papal pickle that His Holiness has placed upon our heads. Sex crimes are more illegal than ever, but technically it’s illegal to report them.” Mamberti said that the simultaneous passing of each law is merely a coincidence and insisted that the Church is not trying to protect itself against further embarrassment, but critics outside the Vatican are skeptical.

“They know exactly what they’re doing,” claims Fabrizio Perona of Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper. “They just thought nobody would notice. The Church wants to impress the world by getting tough on sex crimes, but they criminalized leaks, which is the only way anybody would ever discover their crimes. It’s genius, if you stop and think about it.”

Mamberti says plans are already being made to eliminate the loophole, but change often comes slowly to antiquated Vatican law, which is based on the 1889 Italian code. “We’re not going to let a dangerous law like this stand, but people need to understand that this is the Vatican, and there is a process here. Voting, incense, prayer. We ask the minors at risk to please be patient with us.”

Fortunately, only clergy and lay people who live and work in Vatican City are subject to the new legislation, which differs from the canon law governing the universal Catholic Church.

As the Holy See moves to clarify the law, Mamberti has warned would-be offenders within Vatican walls that they “are still subject to the most watchful eye of all: the eye of God. His judgment is greater than—oh, who am I kidding? For now, there is nothing we can do.”

Related articles

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/19/2013 9:59:54 PM

RT: Snowden sparks NSA overhaul: Sensitive data to be treated like nuclear weapons

Posted on
Published time: July 19, 2013 11:35

The US is overhauling intelligence access, introducing new measures meant to prevent another mega-leak similar to the one carried out by Edward Snowden from happening again, according to Pentagon’s top officials.

A “two-man rule” is being introduced at the NSA as means of tightening access to top-secret data, according to the agency’s chief Keith Alexander, who was speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado on Thursday.

We’ll close and lock server rooms so that it takes two people to get in there,” Alexander said.

NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander (AFP Photo / Win Mcnamee)
NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander (AFP Photo / Win Mcnamee)

The practice is taken from the way nuclear weapons are handled, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter explained, adding it is a wise thing to do to protect the system from “some aberrant individual”.

So when it comes to nuclear weapon… we don’t let people all by themselves do anything. Nobody ever touches a nuclear weapon by him or herself. There are always two people rated in the same specialty. So everybody can see and understand exactly what is being done to that weapon,” Carter said.

Another thing which, according to Deputy Defense Secretary, allowed for a large-scale leak was the fact that the NSA kept all of its information stored on one server. The plan is to have sensitive data segmented, so a new potential leaker won’t be able to do as much damage as Snowden did.

Loading onto a server creates a security risk…. It’s something we can’t do, because it creates too much information in one place… You do have to compartmentalize [data] more rigidly,” Carter said.

Among other anti-leak measures announced are encrypting data in a more sophisticated way, as well as decreasing the number of system administrators with access to it.

This kind of massive overhaul of the security measures throughout the whole of the US intelligence network would be extremely expensive and will definitely take time, former and current US officials told Reuters, who did not wish to have their names disclosed.

Potential leaks from insiders are also going to be tackled with the help of 40 new cyber teams (27 of them on defense missions, and the remaining 13 entitled to carry out offensive operations).

Job one” for the cyber force “is protecting integrity of our networks”, Carter said. “Obviously, therein enters Snowden,” he added.

Deputy U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (AFP Photo / Alex Wong)
Deputy U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (AFP Photo / Alex Wong)

As for the NSA’s chief, he defended at length the now much criticized spying methods used by the agency, saying “you need a haystack to find a needle.”

General Alexander reiterated that thanks to the mass surveillance programs, dozens of terrorist conspiracies were disrupted and Snowden’s leak led to terrorist groups changing their communications and thus falling out of sight of security agents.

Alexander’s assertions have, however, long been challenged by independent researchers. For example,a US nonprofit think-tank, The New America Foundation, argues that out of the 42 terrorist plots mounted by US homegrown jihadists since 2001, nine resulted in actual terrorist acts and 33 were prevented using conventional intelligence methods such as the use of informants and community reports on suspicious activity.

Related articles

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/19/2013 10:16:11 PM

Obama: Trayvon Martin ‘could have been me 35 years ago’


Watch video

President Barack Obama, making his first public remarks on the George Zimmerman acquittal, said on Friday that many African-Americans believe that “both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different” if Trayvon Martin had been white.

“You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son,” Obama said somberly during a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room. “Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”

In searingly personal terms, Obama described his experience with race-based prejudice. “There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store—that includes me,” he said.

“There are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me—at least before I was a senator,” he said. “There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.”

So “the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history,” judging “what happened one night in Florida” through that lens, he said.

Obama seemed to pour cold water on prospects that a Justice Department review of the case would lead to federal charges against Zimmerman.

"It's important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code, and law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels—not at the federal level," the president said.

"The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The jurors were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict," Obama said. "And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works."

He also tamped down suggestions he call a national conversation on race, but encouraged churches and families and communities to discuss issues surrounding the case and urged all Americans to engage in some "soul-searching."

And he called for a review of laws such as Florida's "stand your ground" statute, suggesting that they rewrite traditional self-defense rules in a way that fuels violence rather than smother it.

"And for those who resist that idea—that we should think about something like these 'stand your ground' laws—I just ask people to consider: If Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?" the president said.

"And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws," Obama said.

Over the longer term, the president said, "we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys" and to "give them a sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them."

Still, the president underlined, "I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better.

"It doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society. It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated," Obama said. "But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their friends and I see them interact, they’re better than we are—they’re better than we were—on these issues. And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country."

So why speak out now?

Obama, who had released a relatively brief written statement on Sunday after the verdict came down Saturday night, watched the national reaction unfold over the course of the week.

He discussed it with friends and family, a White House aide explained. He called together some top advisers late Thursday afternoon and told them he wanted to speak out publicly, the aide said on condition of anonymity to detail the behind-the-scenes work leading up to the remarks.

The aides weighed what the best venue would be—Arrange an interview? Make a statement in the Rose Garden?—and ultimately decided the best approach would be for him to make an unannounced visit to the briefing room.

Obama was eager to “speak extemporaneously and speak from the heart,” the aide said. “There was no speechwriter involved.”


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1