DaniMartExtras, Too


REAL NEWS April 09

Posted by Xaniel777 on April 9, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : April 09, 2012


Netanyahu Ties to Romney


{ XANIEL’S NOTE : Allow me to point out if I may :

…that not only is this ‘ JACK-ASS ‘ know to all as ‘ NUT-AN-YOYO ‘…Uhuumm….as.. ‘ NETANYAHU ‘, not only ‘ NOT FROM ISRAEL ORIGINALLY ‘, but much like our own illegal President ( U.S.)….

‘ Barry Satoro  ‘ ;

AKA : (‘  Barrack [ First Black President, ‘ long overdue ‘ and yet still a traitor to the U.S.A. and the Entire World] Obama ‘, who is an illegal citizen of the U.S.,  born in Kenya according to his Grandmother and other family members and has ‘ NO ‘ legitimate paper trail that anyone has ever been able to find, thanks to his illegal Administration ), …

… but ‘ NETANYAHU ‘ isn’t really his true name !

( Equally pointed out, that Romney, Newt, and that other evil Idiot ( whose name should never be spoken around women, children or virgins ),  would be far worse than Bush and Obama put together. So keep that in mind as the ‘ Main Stream Media ‘,  keeps deliberately blocking Ron Paul from your view and knowledge.

But also bear in mind that the ‘ Main Street Media ‘ will answer for their crimes against the people when we begin the ‘ MASS ARRESTS ‘ !   Maybe more so than the Corp/Gov. themselves !! )

And yet this  ‘ Elite / Illuminati ‘  appointed  Zionist ( Zionist : which translates  ‘ Nazi  ‘  in Non-Evil, Free-Earth language ), ‘ NUT-AN-YOYO ‘ better known as a  ‘ VIRUS ‘ to Israel and The World,  is the primary and direct threat to a World-War III happening …(…with, of course,  the help of good ol’ Barry, another ‘ Elite / Illuminati ‘ poster-child, who claims to be Muslim so as no one would ever suspect he was really an ‘ Elite ‘  piece-of-crap ‘ Illuminati ‘ minion… )!

I feel it’s time to ‘ SANDBAG ‘ this ‘ Anti-Christ-Son of a Bitch ‘, ( whose prophet I believe to be Barry Satoro, or maybe I have these two backwards , so take your pick,  cause their both DANGEROUS ),  and place him in containment…( along with the rest of the ‘ Alexander-the Great, Napoleon, Hitler, I want to be Ruler of the World – Bastards )… and begin the healing and repair of our Planet, our Countries and ‘ ALL ‘ of our worldwide citizens !} ~~ Xaniel777


From The IntelHub

The Intel Hub
By Shepard Ambellas
April 8, 2012

The next presidential election is approaching as the candidates are beating each other to a pulp in the battlefield known as the political arena. So far it has been your typical down and dirty race as we are starting to see some pre positioning by certain power structures in control.

What we do know at this time is that Barrack Obama is heavily funded, signifying a clear choice by the powers that be that he will most likely be installed for a second term against the American peoples votes and wishes as voter fraud and electronic ballots have been known to sway results.

In fact Obama’s funding topped $172 million dollars back in January compared to Mitt Romney’s $72 million and some change, not counting what he had left over from the previous election.

However, it has now came out in a recent piece by the New York Times that presidential candidate Mitt Romney has ties to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dating back as far as 1976, and has recently received a personal phone call from Netanyahu.

The article details the fact that there is more to the relationship than a mere friendship and how it could raise a few eyebrows.

New York Times article excerpt reads;

The relationship between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Romney — nurtured over meals in Boston, New York and Jerusalem, strengthened by a network of mutual friends and heightened by their conservative ideologies — has resulted in an unusually frank exchange of advice and insights on topics like politics, economics and the Middle East.

When Mr. Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Netanyahu offered him firsthand pointers on how to shrink the size of government.

When Mr. Netanyahu wanted to encourage pension funds to divest from businesses tied to Iran, Mr. Romney counseled him on which American officials to meet with. And when Mr. Romney first ran for president, Mr. Netanyahu presciently asked him whether he thought Newt Gingrich would ever jump into the race.

The article also details how Israel would nearly have decision making capabilities if Romney was elected reading;

Mr. Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu.

This is a clear indicator that Netanyahu might use Romney as a puppet if he is elected president although Obama looks as if he is set to become president via overfunding by the globalists.





Courts struggle to decide whether civilians can be court-martialed


Stars and Stripes Logo



McClatchy Newspapers

Published: April 7, 2012

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces – CREATIVE COMMONS USER MATTHEW G. BISANZ

WASHINGTON — Iraqi-born translator Alaa “Alex” Ali never served in the U.S. military, but the Army still tried him and put him in jail.

Now the amendment that made Ali’s military prosecution possible, authored by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., could be one step closer to Supreme Court review. Whatever happens next will affect myriad U.S. contractors still working in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“It’s a significant case, in that it’s the first time a civilian has been tried in a regular court-martial since the Vietnam War,” lawyer Michael J. Navarre said Friday.

On Thursday, in a traveling session at the University of Washington School of Law, the military’s top appellate court wrestled with the Ali case and the tricky questions it raises about military authority over civilians. The sharp give-and-take left some observers thinking that this case might go beyond the military appeals court.

“It makes a great legal issue,” Navarre said, while cautioning that “practically speaking” the military prosecution of civilians may still be too infrequent to compel Supreme Court action.

The Defense Department employed 155,000 contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan as of last spring, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Navarre has represented civilian contractors potentially subject to military prosecution under Graham’s 2006 amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He also co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief that sides with Ali.

On the other side stands the U.S. military, which counters that Ali was effectively a soldier and therefore reasonably subject to court-martial.

“He was deeply embedded with the armed forces in an area of actual fighting,” Army Capt. John D. Riesenberg declared in a court brief. “He wore the same uniform, ate the same food, slept in the same tents and faced the same constant dangers from the enemy.”

In time, Ali became the first — and so far only — civilian tried by a military court since Graham’s amendment was adopted.

Born in Baghdad, Ali moved to Canada in 1992 and became a joint citizen of Iraq and Canada. In 2007, he joined L-3 Communications, a U.S. defense contractor, as an interpreter. By early 2008, he was placed with the U.S. 170th Military Police Company near the Iraqi town of Hit.

“Without Mr. Ali, or another interpreter, the squad could not perform its mission to train and advise Iraqi police,” Ali’s appellate attorney, Lt. Col. Peter Kageleiry Jr., wrote in a brief.

After a fight with another interpreter, Ali pleaded guilty in June 2008 to charges that included obstructing justice and lying to investigators. He was locked up for 115 days.

The legal question facing the four civilian judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces who met Thursday is whether the military had a right to try Ali. Lawyer Mike Hanzel, observing the “packed house” for the military law blog CAAFlog, reported that both sides received sharp questioning.

Civilians who accompany the armed forces closely during wartime have long been subject to military discipline, in part because the combat environment made civilian justice infeasible, but some key court decisions have limited the military’s reach.

In a 1955 case that involved a former Air Force enlisted man who was taken from his home in Pittsburgh back to South Korea, the Supreme Court ruled that civilians couldn’t face courts-martial for crimes allegedly committed while they were in the military.

Separately, a 1970 court decision that involved an American civilian accused of theft in South Vietnam limited the military’s jurisdiction over civilians to times of war formally declared by Congress.

The last time that Congress declared war was in 1941.

After reports of abuses by U.S. contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, Graham authored the 2006 amendment, which extended military court-martial jurisdiction to civilians who were working in a “contingency operation,” such as the undeclared Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Graham wasn’t available Friday, a spokesman said, but in a 2008 news article, his spokesman Kevin Bishop explained, “There were concerns that contractors were operating in a somewhat lawless environment.”

Skeptics note that military courts offer defendants fewer protections than those granted in civilian courts; military verdicts, for instance, need not be unanimous. They observe, as well, that it’s now relatively easy to remove individuals from the battlefield for civilian trial.

Army attorneys stick to their guns.

“Congress appropriately decided that those that live, work, face the enemy and, in some cases, die together should all face the same (military legal) code,” Riesenberg wrote for the government.





How the US uses sexual humiliation as a political tool to control the masses


From the guardian

Bagram airbase

Bagram airbase was used by the US to detain its ‘high-value’ targets during the ‘war on terror’ and is still Afghanistan’s main military prison. Photograph: Dar Yasin/AP

In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time.

This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the “trespass bill”, which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.

Is American strip-searching benign? The man who had brought the initial suit, Albert Florence, described having been told to “turn around. Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks.” He said he felt humiliated: “It made me feel like less of a man.”

In surreal reasoning, justice Anthony Kennedy explained that this ruling is necessary because the 9/11 bomber could have been stopped for speeding. How would strip searching him have prevented the attack?

Did justice Kennedy imagine that plans to blow up the twin towers had been concealed in a body cavity? In still more bizarre non-logic, his and the other justices’ decision rests on concerns about weapons and contraband in prison systems.

But people under arrest – that is, who are not yet convicted – haven’t been introduced into a prison population.

Our surveillance state shown considerable determination to intrude on citizens sexually. There’s the sexual abuse of prisoners at Bagram – der Spiegel reports that “former inmates report incidents of … various forms of sexual humiliation.

In some cases, an interrogator would place his penis along the face of the detainee while he was being questioned. Other inmates were raped with sticks or threatened with anal sex”. There was the stripping of Bradley Manning is solitary confinement.

And there’s the policy set up after the story of the “underwear bomber” to grope US travelers genitally or else force them to go through a machine – made by a company, Rapiscan, owned by terror profiteer and former DHA czar Michael Chertoff – with images so vivid that it has been called the “pornoscanner”.

Believe me: you don’t want the state having the power to strip your clothes off. History shows that the use of forced nudity by a state that is descending into fascism is powerfully effective in controlling and subduing populations.

The political use of forced nudity by anti-democratic regimes is long established. Forcing people to undress is the first step in breaking down their sense of individuality and dignity and reinforcing their powerlessness.

Enslaved women were sold naked on the blocks in the American south, and adolescent male slaves served young white ladies at table in the south, while they themselves were naked: their invisible humiliation was a trope for their emasculation. Jewish prisoners herded into concentration camps were stripped of clothing and photographed naked, as iconic images of that Holocaust reiterated.

One of the most terrifying moments for me when I visited Guantanamo prison in 2009 was seeing the way the architecture of the building positioned glass-fronted shower cubicles facing intentionally right into the central atrium – where young female guards stood watch over the forced nakedness of Muslim prisoners, who had no way to conceal themselves.

Laws and rulings such as this are clearly designed to bring the conditions of Guantanamo, and abusive detention, home.

I have watched male police and TSA members standing by side by side salaciously observing women as they have been “patted down” in airports.

I have experienced the weirdly phrased, sexually perverse intrusiveness of the state during an airport “pat-down”, which is always phrased in the words of a steamy paperback (“do you have any sensitive areas? … I will use the back of my hands under your breasts …”).

One of my Facebook commentators suggested, I think plausibly, that more women are about to be found liable for arrest for petty reasons (scarily enough, the TSA is advertising for more female officers).

I interviewed the equivalent of TSA workers in Britain and found that the genital groping that is obligatory in the US is illegal in Britain. I believe that the genital groping policy in America, too, is designed to psychologically habituate US citizens to a condition in which they are demeaned and sexually intruded upon by the state – at any moment.

The most terrifying phrase of all in the decision is justice Kennedy’s striking use of the term “detainees” for United States citizens under arrest”. Some members of Occupy who were arrested in Los Angeles also reported having been referred to by police as such.

Justice Kennedy’s new use of what looks like a deliberate activation of that phrase is illuminating.

Ten years of association have given “detainee” the synonymous meaning in America as those to whom no rights apply – especially in prison.

It has been long in use in America, habituating us to link it with a condition in which random Muslims far away may be stripped by the American state of any rights.

Now the term – with its associations of “those to whom anything may be done” – is being deployed systematically in the direction of … any old American citizen.

Where are we headed? Why? These recent laws criminalizing protest, and giving local police – who, recall, are now infused with DHS money, military hardware and personnel – powers to terrify and traumatise people who have not gone through due process or trial, are being set up to work in concert with a see-all-all-the-time surveillance state.

A facility is being set up in Utah by the NSA to monitor everything all the time: James Bamford wrote in Wired magazine that the new facility in Bluffdale, Utah, is being built, where the NSA will look at billions of emails, texts and phone calls. Similar legislation is being pushed forward in the UK.

With that Big Brother eye in place, working alongside these strip-search laws, – between the all-seeing data-mining technology and the terrifying police powers to sexually abuse and humiliate you at will – no one will need a formal coup to have a cowed and compliant citizenry.

If you say anything controversial online or on the phone, will you face arrest and sexual humiliation?

Remember, you don’t need to have done anything wrong to be arrested in America any longer. You can be arrested for walking your dog without a leash.

The man who was forced to spread his buttocks was stopped for a driving infraction.

I was told by an NYPD sergeant that “safety” issues allow the NYPD to make arrests at will. So nothing prevents thousands of Occupy protesters – if there will be any left after these laws start to bite – from being rounded up and stripped naked under intimidating conditions.

Why is this happening? I used to think the push was just led by those who profited from endless war and surveillance – but now I see the struggle as larger.

As one internet advocate said to me: “There is a race against time: they realise the internet is a tool of empowerment that will work against their interests, and they need to race to turn it into a tool of control.”

As Chris Hedges wrote in his riveting account of the NDAA: “There are now 1,271 government agencies and 1,931 private companies that work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States, the Washington Post reported in a 2010 series by Dana Priest and William M Arken.

There are 854,000 people with top-secret security clearances, the reporters wrote, and in Washington, DC, and the surrounding area 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2011.”

This enormous new sector of the economy has a multi-billion-dollar vested interest in setting up a system to surveil, physically intimidate and prey upon the rest of American society.

Now they can do so by threatening to demean you sexually – a potent tool in the hands of any bully.




 Racial B.S. ALERT  – Blacks Beat and strip white man HATE CRIME


{ XANIEL’S NOTE : I have to agree with Mike Rivero, whose comment is below mine. I have noticed an overwhelming amount of racial crimes from all sides.

Someone (as if we had to guess who ) is very much going out of their way to start racial tensions amongst U.S. citizens.

This is being done either for political gain, massive distraction or as an excuse to enforce martial law !




{ COMMENT BY : Mike Rivero of WRH.com – 

This looks like another staged provocation. After all, when you beat someone up and rob them, do you make and post a video about it … unless you are trying to provoke a reaction?

Remember, Obama NEEDS racial tensions so he can run on racism this year. He can’t run on the economy. He can’t run on the wars. He can’t run on his devotion to Israel and Wall Street.

What does Obama have left with which to reinvigorate his support among black Americans? WAG THE WHITE GUYS!~~ Mike R.


Uploaded by  on Apr 7, 2012





Why the International Criminal Court should prosecute Israel for war crimes in Gaza


From Stop the War Coalition

By Tom Rollins
Enlightenment Blues
5 April 2012

Israel’s barbaric attack on Gaza 2008/9

I never went to law school. I never thought about doing a conversion course either. A lawyer told me law was boring. Law is boring.

But sometimes it can be simple too.

This week’s decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) not to investigate Israeli “war crimes” in Gaza between 2008-2009 has been accused of “political bias” by Amnesty International.

The international court based its decision on the ruling that the Palestinian Authority (PA) is not recognised as a state by the United Nations. The Prosecutor, Jose Luis Moreno Ocampo said the court “cannot” open an investigation on these grounds.

The case for “war crimes”

Originally marketed as a “rescue operation” to return abducted IDF soldier, Ghilad Shalit, Operation Cast Lead escalated into a full-scale war between Israeli and Palestinian paramilitary groups led by Hamas.

According to Israeli human rights charity B’Tselem, between December 27, 2008-January 18, 2009, 1,389 Palestinians were killed (773 did not take part in hostilities, and more than a third of that number were children) and 5,300 were wounded (350 of them seriously). Nine Israelis were killed by Palestinian paramilitary attacks (four more by friendly fire), and over a hundred more injured.

Using the ICC’s own criteria – the 2002 Rome Statute, essentially its founding document – along with independent accounts, Israel (and Hamas) committed war crimes in Gaza between 2008-2009.

Under Article 8 of the statute (the one given over to “war crimes”), Clause 2(a) defines them as “grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.” They include:

  1. Wilful killing;

  2. Torture or inhuman treatment;

  3. Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

  4. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

  5. Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

  6. Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

  7. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

  8. Taking of hostages.

In its third clause, the ICC defines other war crimes possibly committed in international conflict. They include:

  • Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population;

  • Against objects “which are not military objectives”

  • Or “buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected.”

As far as I’m aware, excluding sub-clause (v), it is alleged Israel committed all of the above war crimes during Cast Lead, and in the iron-grip it has held over the Gaza Strip since.

Rather than detailing each and every allegation here, see the 2009 Goldstone Report instead. But, needless to say, the list includes the “deliberate targeting” of civilian centres, a shockingly high infant casualty/fatality rate, use of human shields, the destruction of civilian infrastructure (roads, hospitals, power stations, mosques, etc.) and even a school used by the UN for holding injured Palestinians.

The report advised a full investigation on both sides for what happened in Gaza. According to B’Tselem: “Not only is an independent investigation required by law, it is necessary to meet the public’s right to know what the state did in its name in the Gaza Strip.”

No such investigation has happened yet – other than the odd “principled probe” by the IDF – so presumably it is up to the international community to administer justice for the 1,389 Palestinians and 13 Israelis who died. The ICC would have been a great opportunity to belatedly address the issue of war crimes on the Gaza Strip.

Off on a technicality

But there’s a problem: statehood.

Palestine is not a state as recognised by the UN – or rather by the richest countries on the planet (including the US, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Australia and, of course, Israel). Roughly 80% of the world’s nations recognised Palestine when Mahmoud Abbas walked up the steps to the UN building in September last year.

The ICC says in its Preamble that signatories must affirm:

that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation.

Does the 2008-2009 Gaza War not constitute one of “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”?

Judging by Palestine’s ghost history in the United Nations it does. As Bill Blum notes in Rogue State, between the (arbitrarily chosen) period 1978-1987, the United States has blocked any vote after vote condemning Israeli actions in the Middle East, or aiming to improve Palestinian conditions.

Between those years there are 37 “No” votes, on proposals ranging from the “demand that Israel desist from certain human rights violations” (on December 12, 1979: with 111 votes blocked by the United States and Israel) to the slightly more simple/desperate: “rights of the Palestinian people” (on December 10, 1984: with 127 votes blocked by the United States and Israel again). What about in 2008, 2009, or even last year? It’s no different.

“The crime in question”

Finally, the Palestinian tribunal bid fulfills the ICC’s criteria because it abides by Article 12 (3) of the Rome Statute:

If the acceptance of a State which is not a Party to this Statute is required under paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question.

The PA sent a letter to the ICC unilaterally accepting the jurisdiction of the Court in the war crimes tribunal. What else could they have done?

So if we agree there is a case for war crimes from the 2008-2009 Gaza War, the ICC provides an avenue for their investigation by both the “State which is not a Party to this Statute” (i.e. Palestine) or by a “Party State” who regards the investigation of importance to the international community (i.e. Great Britain). Can we expect a Party State to act in favour of Palestine for once?

Within the present circumstances, it was up to bodies like the ICC to use these avenues to bring war criminals to justice.

So, as has happened so many times before, Israel gets off on a technicality and Palestine loses out. The Palestinians cannot prosecute because they do not have statehood, but they cannot have statehood because the international community will not allow them.

Without an independent investigation, these are not war crimes. They never happened, nothing ever happened, as Harold Pinter would say. They were just business as usual; highly illegal, immoral and completely invisible.





( Fair Use Notice ):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~ Xaniel777



Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: