DaniMartExtras, Too


REAL NEWS June 07, 2012

Posted by Xaniel777 on June 6, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : June 07, 2012


UPDATE : ‘hot times’…unexpected military actions (U.S.A.)

From Half Past Human.com

By Clif High

Updated June 06, 2012

There are indications that the [unexpected military actions] that will [soooo upset/anger/infuriate] the [populace/usofa] are now being moved up by (7/seven to 9/nine days) from the end of June time frame discussed in the ticks in time… article.

If so, then we can expect [officialdom] to be [pimping] their [lying ‘experts’] starting on or about June 20th.

The forecasts for the [unexpected military events] have a few sub sets that pointed to [corruption (being forced)] onto the [populace/usa] by [lying experts/authorities].

The issue arising within these data sets has always been the [unending river of lies (from officialdom)] that will run smack into a [gathering wall of disbelief] from the [populace/usofa].

From our (populace’s) view point it will seem as though the [officialdom] is [trotting out magicians and sorcerers in great numbers]

The data has maintained that the [officialdom (at all levels including congress, and paid shills, and civil authorities)] will be [lying their faces off] over this period as they [deliberately], and perhaps more importantly, [desperately] try to [conceal/hide information] that is [vital] to [health and life] of the [populace].

While much of the [initial anger] from the [populace] has to do with [closed doors] and [not welcome here] forms of [hidden officialdom meetings], the data sets have suggested it will be the [actual destruction of documents] that will [ignite the fury].

This area refers back to the [damaged documents] section in the last Shape report of 2011.

As they (officialdom) are providing certain hints to those semioticians with adequate vision that schedules for their NWO are in a state of flux, it now does appear that they (tptb) have [decided] to [employ treachery/(unleashing deceit)] in [bringing to ruin] the [person provided with preferential status]. Hmmmm…yo, sheeit’s on fire.

The ‘good news’ in all of this is that the same data sets are pointing to the [rapid rise] in [precious metals prices], especially [silver] as being temporally ahead of, and to a certain extent, [putting pressures on officialdom].

So, one way to consider this information is that a rapid and steady rise in the price of silver will be leading the way (pressuring?) to officialdom [breaking down] as it [over-reacts] and [demonstrates desperation].

Here at HPH ( Half Past Human) we are watching the flow of currencies into precious metals over these next 14/fourteen days as an indicator that the [unexpected military events] will be [accelerated] in their [timing].

Look to the language coming out of the CFR for other hints as we go forward into June and the Summer of (actual) Change.


copyright by clif high, all rights reserved. no use allowed without attribution. if you plan to give me sh#t for this later, at least read for content so we can debate what i have actually written here.

pi, the only edible irrational number.

posted June 6, 2012






5 More Reasons Why Reality Is A Collective Dream

Added to and Based originally from : 10 Reasons Why Reality Is A Collective Dream

From The Excavator


June 04, 2012

A painting by Russian artist Victor Bregeda.

1. Under empires of thought, reality is not based on facts, but on unscientific beliefs that are systematically driven into the heads of the people from sunrise to sundown.

Examples: The Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, and the American Empire of the early 21st century.

Facts have no place in the ideologies of large and powerful empires.

The Church rammed its ideology down people’s throats from the Pulpit, and Washington does it through television.

Only the technology has changed, not human psychology. 

Terence McKenna said in one of his talks, I forgot which one, something to the effect that, “Reality is what we all agree to call reality.”

In the middle ages, reality was what the Church said it was.

End of discussion.

If you dissented against the Church’s “sacred” opinions, you were burned at the stake and tortured in horrible ways until you confessed to seeing the “light” and consented to being a slave.

The same is true in 2012, under the American Empire and the Empire of Zionism.

If you dissent against Washington’s “sacred” opinions or cast doubt on Tel Aviv’s myths, you are smeared with the “conspiracy theorist” label and bullied into submission with torture, terror, and secret assassinations via drone strikes.

For more on the religious dimension of political power in Washington and Tel Aviv, check out, “The Anti-Truther Bible: The Ten Commandments,” and, “The Anti-Truther Bible: The King Bibi Version.”


2. Knowledge and myth are blurred in a society that is dominated by a hierarchical, totalitarian, and ultra-secretive state that prides itself on being in an endless state of war.

It is hard to separate knowledge from myth, and reality from fantasy, because Washington’s corporate empire has dedicated its incredible military, political, and media resources to blurring the line between the real world and the dream world.

Barack Obama is practically on his knees, begging the masters of propaganda and magicians in Hollywood to make jaw-dropping epic movies about his mythic escapades and leadership credentials that everyone with a brain knows are bullshit.

Obama wants America and the world to continue to live in the dream world, and think of him as the magnificent slayer of the Dragon-Devil Osama Bin Laden who was falsely charged with attacking New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001.

But who the hell wants to watch a movie where President Obama is the hero?

JFK was the last presidential hero in America.

The coward Obama does not have the guts, independent-mindedness, and vision to even walk in the shadows of JFK’s footsteps, let alone continue his heroic legacy and mark out his own territory in history. 


3. The “normal” and “mainstream” consciousness in any given age is sterile and lagging behind the pace of history.

Those who advance beyond the boundaries of this constraining and limiting consciousness begin to see the weird, fanciful, and dreamy side of life and the world.

In our insane times, everything that was once held true and sacred is breaking down and evaporating into dust.

James Wyckoff, the author of the biography on Franz Mesmer, the founder of hypnotism, called,“Franz Anton Mesmer: Between God and Devil,” wrote: 

“Today, not only is our interpretation of history being challenged, but our view of reality is open to question. The evidence of this questioning appears in the proliferation of esoteric teachings, body techniques, occult sciences, and “ways” and methods of enlightenment with or without drugs that are saturating some of the less congealed areas of our society.” – James Wyckoff. “Franz Anton Mesmer: Between God and Devil.”1975. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Preface: viii.

Wyckoff’s remark that, “our view of reality is open to question,” applies to spiritual, scientific, and political realities.

We are inside an abyss.

Our collective understanding of the world is going through a transformation.

As many others have said, we have been put in a trance.

The 9/11 events had the psychological effect of throwing us into an alternate universe, where the planet is full of terror and the world is filled with anti-American monsters because they have nothing better to do besides hate America. 

But inside this cosmic abyss, life’s mysterious nature is bubbling up to the surface.

People have a lot of questions, and want answers.

The new world order “gurus” and gurus of every stripe and persuasion are seeking to exploit this mentally fragile environment in mankind’s spiritual existence to advance their own private interests, views, and agenda.

Remaining skeptical of all gurus, scriptures, gods, creeds, states, religions, media, leaders, political parties, prophets, and angels is the most important thing in the world.

To unquestioningly and uncritically follow any one leader in this darkness amounts to individual suicide.


4. Reality is science fiction. Mankind’s creation is science fiction. Human history is science fiction. It is all science fiction. 

Journalist Jeremy Scahill alluded to the science fiction nature of the war on terror on MSNBC on June 2nd when he was talking about Obama’s drone murders and said, “We have jumped into Minority Report pre-crime territory with these so-called signature strikes.”

Others have made a similar observation. The whole war on terror has its origins in fiction.

The official 9/11 story is science fiction.

Reality has been crushed to pieces.

There is a global crisis of overpropagandization.

Government propaganda is killing civil society and human freedom worldwide.

Official lies are polluting our minds, suppressing our individual will, and eating away at our souls. 


5. In a dream state, everything is turned upside down.

The most immediate and astonishing fact that hits our consciousness upon waking up from the collective sleep called consensus reality is this: the world is a weird, creepy, and spooky place.

But the world didn’t get that way overnight.

And it didn’t get weird on 9/11.

The world has been weird since the beginning of time.

Weird is what us humans are best at.

It is in our DNA.

We should have the word weird tattooed on our souls. We are a weird species. 

The majority of people do weird stuff like follow mass murderers obediently, worship cult leaders blindly, and take reality at face value.

The world is full of weak minded people who put all their faith in government cult leaders or religious cult leaders, and follow their masters to the grave.

Cult members (the majority of humanity) don’t know that their reality is a dream.

Or maybe they do on some level but they don’t want to leave the dream because its so sweet so they discount the dark facts as “conspiracy theories” or use some other socially popular term and stick to the myths that reaffirm their delusions about the world they live in.

Living in the dream state can be very satisfying and fruitful.

It has its benefits.

Some people wish they never woke up and discovered that 9/11 was an inside job, and that JFK was assassinated by the CIA.

I envy the sleeping children a little bit because it’s fun to live in a world of green pastures and gold bunnies.

The devil offers a pretty sweet deal for his conscious companions and unconscious slaves.

But all is rotten under the surface of his sweet deal.

And in the end, the devil delivers death, not the deal he promised.

But sleeping in Satan’s arms is very comforting and pleasurable.

It only gets nasty when you finally wake up and realize to your amazement that you’re being choked to death. 

Leaving the collective dream state is hard at first, but it gets better because you gradually regain your independence and consciousness.

Waking up comes down to a simple choice: remain a child and believe all the propaganda out of Washington, or grow up and start asking basic questions about what we’ve been led to believe about “reality.”






Police Using Military Drones To Spy On Americans Without A Warrant


From Alexander Higgins Blog

Alexander Higgins

Posted by  – June 4, 2012

Nano Handheld Bird Drone

US Air Force documents obtained by CBS reveal law enforcement agencies are bypassing warrant requirements by using military drones to spy on Americans.

New documents obtained from the US military by CBS news in Los Angeles reveals that the United States military is using drones to conduct aerial surveillance operations over US soil, which by itself is illegal with a few exceptions.

Once the military collects this data it is then being shared with law enforcement agencies that normally would be required to obtain a warrant to collect such information.

Normally these agencies would be required to obtain a court warrant to be able conduct such surveillance operations on their own behalf.

But since the information is being provided by a 3rd  party who gained access to the information that was not required to obtain a warrant law enforcement agencies are able to use surveillance with military drones as legal loophole to circumvent the Constitutional protections that prevent such practices.

The document contains vague language that permits use of military drones in to assist local, state and federal law enforcement for the purposes of “preventing, detecting, or investigating other violations of law.”

The document also outlines in vague terms conditions which allows the Air Force to share intelligence information collected by military drones during routine operations with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.

In any of these cases the 4th Amendment Protections Against illegal search and seizure and 5th amendment Due Process violations  are being committed illegally by law enforcement and the military.

Air Force spokesperson Capt. Rose Richeson tells CBS news that the Obama administration has already distributed detailed guidelines instructing the military when and where to use military drones to gather intelligence or conduct surveillance for law enforcement purposes.

Capt. Richeson went on to explain that  “a court order or warrant is not required in all circumstances.”

Additionally there are 13 different categories a person can fall under which allows the Military to conduct person specific surveillance operations. on a person without a warrant.

Aggravating the situation is the data being collected by the Military is amassed into a massive database and isn’t considered to be “collected” into it is has been “processed into intelligible form” and “received for use by an employee”

Once the data has been “collected” – actually accessed by a real person – it is then  stored in a temporary database for up to 90 days  during  which a decision is made to purge the information from the system or keep it as permanently record.

During that time the military may share the data with several non-military law enforcement agencies including the FBI and various agencies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security as well as state and local law enforcement officials.

The operating procedures  requires any Air Force Intelligence collected by military drones that reveals information about any threat or crime must be forwarded the federal, state or local law enforcement agency responsible for handling the information..

Furthermore, the documents also reveals that military made be assigned “missions” to conduct operations on behalf of law enforcement.

Gizmodo reports:

Our Own Military Is Using Drones to Collect Info on Us Without a Warrant

The government is in the process of rewriting regulations so that private citizens and law enforcement agencies can fly drones willy-nilly through the skies.

The proposition has a lot of people very nervous that the government will be increasingly monitoring us from above.

Turns out they’ve probably been doing it already.

New documents obtained by CBS Los Angeles reveal that under current regulations, it is possible for Air Force drones to gather information on American soil without a warrant.

Technically, Air Force drones aren’t allowed to perform surveillance in US airspace under most circumstances. (They can only be used to fight back against foreign intelligence operations, the war on drugs, and for counter-terrorism.)

However, if in the process of conducting other missions an Air Force drone happens to capture information, it’s not immediately tossed out.

What has critics alarmed is that data collected by drones accidentally, under the guidelines, can be kept by the military up to three months before being purged and can also be turned over to “another Department of Defense or government agency to whose function it pertains.”

In other words, what the Air Force accidentally captures might just end up in the hands of local law enforcement or anyone else that might find what you’re up to interesting.

But what exactly constitutes accidentally?

Drones could be misused under the guise of a mishap and there’s very little we could do about it. Yikes. [CBS Los Angeles

CBS reports: (Video and audio clips of the investigative report live at the link)

The Age Of Drones: Military May Be Using Drones In US To Help Police

Critics fear invasion of privacy

LOS ANGELES (KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO) — As the Federal Aviation Administration helps usher in an age of drones for U.S. law enforcement agencies, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) domestically by the U.S. military — and the sharing of collected data with police agencies — is raising its own concerns about possible violations of privacy and Constitutional law, according to drone critics.

A non-classified U.S. Air Force intelligence report obtained by KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO dated April 23, 2012, is helping fuel concern that video and other data inadvertently captured by Air Force drones already flying through some U.S. airspace, might end up in the hands of federal or local law enforcement, doing an end-run around normal procedures requiring police to obtain court issued warrants.


“We’ve seen in some records that were released by the Air Force just recently, that under their rules, they are allowed to fly drones in public areas and record information on domestic situations,” says Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with the San Francisco based Electronic Frontier Association, who is looking into various government surveillance techniques.

“This report noted that they are able to collect that information and then determine whether or not they can keep it.”


Drone manufacturers are gearing up to pitch an estimated 18,000 police departments in the U.S. on the benefits of flying drones.



Under U.S. Air Force rules, drones are not allowed to conduct “non-consensual surveillance” on U.S. citizens or property, though there are some apparent exceptions.

What has critics alarmed is that data collected by drones accidentally, under the guidelines, can be kept by the military up to three months before being purged and can also be turned over to “another Department of Defense or government agency to whose function it pertains.”


More vague is language that also allows military cooperation with local law enforcement for the purposes of “preventing, detecting, or investigating other violations of law.”


Air Force spokesperson Capt. Rose Richeson said, “The Executive Branch has promulgated detailed Departmental and Intelligence Community-wide instructions and directives about when it is appropriate to share information with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies consistent with the protection of privacy and civil liberties.”

But Capt. Richeson goes on to say that “a court order or warrant is not required in all circumstances.”

The military’s use of drones domestically will pale by comparison should sales to police departments take off.

From the Air Force Intelligence document obtained by CBS news.

9.6. Navigational/Target Training activities.

9.6.1. Air Force units with weapon system video and tactical ISR capabilities may collect imagery during formal and continuation training missions as long as the collected imagery is not for the purpose of obtaining information about specific US persons or private property.

Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent.

Imagery may not be collected for the purpose of gathering any specific information about a US person or private entity, without consent, nor may stored imagery be retrievable by reference to US person identifiers.

9.6.2. Air Force Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations, exercise and training missions will not conduct nonconsensual surveillance on specifically identified US persons, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations.

Civil law enforcement agencies, such as the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the US Coast Guard, will control any such data collected.

10. Force Protection.

10.1. AFI 14-119, Intelligence Support to Force Protection (FP), stipulates that intelligence personnel at all levels will work in coordination with their cross-functional counterparts (e.g., AFOSI, SF, ATOS, etc.) to ensure threat FP/intelligence requirements are satisfied.

If during the course of routine, non-force protection related, intelligence activities and authorized missions, Air Force intelligence components receive information identifying US persons as an alleged threat to DoD or civilian individuals, entities or structures, such threats should be reported IAW paragraph 12 of this instruction.

10.2. Air Force intelligence assets assigned a mission to support force protection activities by a governmental entity that has responsibility for countering the threat may assist in fusing law enforcement and counterintelligence, with intelligence information in support of force protection (e.g., antiterrorism and for law enforcement activities), consistent with 10 procedures. AF1 14-119 provides guidance to support force protection mission execution.


11.2. Collection. Information about US persons may be collected if it falls within one or more of the thirteen categories of information specified in DoD 5240.1-R, Procedure 2.

11.2.1. Information is considered “collected” only when it has been received for use by an employee of an intelligence component in the course of official duties.

Data acquired by electronic means is “collected” only when it has been processed into intelligible form.

11.2.2. Temporary Retention.

Information inadvertently received about US persons may be kept temporarily, for a period not to exceed 90 days, solely for the purpose of determining whether that information may be collected under the provisions of Procedure 2, DoD 5240.1-R and permanently retained under the provisions of Procedure 3, DoD 5240.1-R. collected and permanently retained, the receiving unit should seek advice through the chain of command, Judge Advocate General (JAG), or IO monitor.

The unitfM./UCOM 10 Monitor must provide assistance in rendering collectability determinations.

When appropriate, assistance may be requested from AFLA2.

A determination on whether information is collectible must be made within 90 days.

If there is any doubt as to whether the US person information may be If a determination is made that information is not properly collectible-ii before the expiration of the 90 day period, it must be purged or transferred ll immediately. –

1 Even though information may not be collectible, it may be retained for the length of time necessary to transfer it to another DoD entity or government agency to whose function it pertains.

11.2.3. Means of Collection.

When Air Force intelligence components are authorized to collect information about US persons, they may do so by any lawful means, subject to the following limitations.

1 Least Intrusive Means.

Collection of information about US persons shall be accomplished by the least intrusive means.

To the extent feasible, such information shall be collected from publicly available information or with the consent of the person concerned.

If collection from these sources is not feasible or suflicient, such information may be collected from cooperating sources.

If collection from cooperating sources is not feasible or sufficient, such information may be collected, as appropriate, using other lawful investigative techniques that do not require a judicial warrant or the approval of the Attorney General.

If collection through use of these techniques is not feasible or sufficient, approval for use of investigative techniques that do require a judicial warrant or the approval of the Attorney General may be sought.


11.12. Assistance to Law Enforcement.

11.12.1. Cooperation with law enforcement authorities.

Subject to the limitations outlined in paragraph 11.12.2. of this Instruction, Air Force intelligence components may cooperate with law enforcement authorities (IAW DoDD 5525.5, D0D Cooperation with civilian law enforcement agencies) for the purposes of: Investigating or preventing clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers, international narcotics activities, or international terrorist activities; Protecting DoD employees, information, property and facilities; Preventing, detecting, or investigating other violations of laws.

11.12.2. Types of permissible assistance.

Air Force intelligence components may only provide the types of assistance to law enforcement authorities delineated below.

Assistance may not be provided for, or participation in, activities that permitted under this instruction. Violations of US federal law. Incidentally acquired information reasonably believed to indicate a violation of federal law shall be provided to appropriate federal law enforcement officials through AFOSI channels. Other violations of law.

Information incidentally acquired during the course of Air Force counterintelligence activities reasonably believed to indicate a violation of state, local, or foreign law will be provided to appropriate officials IAW procedures established by the Commander, AFOSI.

Information incidentally acquired during the course of Air Force foreign intelligence activities reasonably believed to indicate a violation of state, local, or foreign law will, unless otherwise decided by for national security reasons, be provided to AFOSI IAW procedures established by the AFIA2, or higher designee, for investigation or referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Information covered by this paragraph includes US person information (See paragraph 12.). Provision of specialized equipment and facilities. Specialized intelligence equipment and facilities may be provided to federal law enforcement authorities, and, when lives are endangered, to state and local law enforcement authorities, only with the approval of the SecAF delegated authority and the concurrence of SAF/GC. Assistance of Air Force intelligence personnel.

Air Force intelligence personnel may be assigned to assist federal law enforcement authorities with the approval of the SecAF delegated authority and the concurrence of SAF/GC.

Under certain exigent circumstances (e.g., when lives are in danger), Air Force intelligence.

Related Posts :






DOD looks to foreign allies for help passing Law of the Sea treaty


From the Trenches

Posted on June 5, 2012 by Admin

The Hill – by Carla Munoz  The Defense Department is looking for a little help from its friends overseas as the Pentagon and WhiteHouse try to break Senate opposition to an international treaty on maritime law.

Meeting with the defense chiefs of several Asian powers during the Shangri-La defense talks over the weekend, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta took the opportunity to continue his push for Senate ratification of the controversial Law of the Sea treaty.

“The United States believes it is critical for regional institutions to develop mutually agreed rules of the road that protect the rights of all nations to free and open access to the seas,” Panetta told Asian defense leaders during the high-level security conference on Saturday.

Ratification of the international pact, which would create de facto rules for the Pacific waterways, would fall “in line with these rules and international order that is necessary” to maintain peace in the Pacific, according to Panetta.

Panetta’s remarks were specifically geared toward generating support for the treaty among regional allies in the Pacific, according to Patrick Cronin, an expert in Asian-Pacific security issues at the Center for a New American Security.

“The real audience is Asia,” Cronin said, adding that securing support for the pact is an integral part of the White House’s national-security strategy for the Pacific.

“Capitol Hill will [continue to] veer between those overselling the benefits of [the treaty] and those unduly vilifying it,” Cronin said.

But convincing American allies in the region to adopt the pact could give the Pentagon the leverage it needs to push ratification through the Senate.

Administration officials have long tied treaty ratification to maintaining stability in the Pacific, but if the White House can get the weight of America’s Pacific partners behind the administration’s push for ratification, that could be enough to get a deal done in the Senate.

Top lawmakers, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), among others, have come out in support of the treaty, claiming it could be a much-needed check on an increasingly aggressive Chinese military in areas like the South China Sea.

A bloc of Senate Republicans opposing the treaty, led by Sens. Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and James Inhofe (Okla.), are also digging in, preparing to block any effort by the administration to lock in a ratification deal.

Those lawmakers claim the pact does nothing to guarantee regional security along the waterways in the Pacific.

The White House would also effectively tie the hands of the U.S. Navy to conduct operations in the region, since those missions would have to be reviewed and approved by treaty members, opponents claim.

“The few areas that make the Defense Department feel better in regards to maritime disputes are far outweighed by the negative implications to U.S. sovereignty,” Inhofe spokesman Jared Young told The Hill on Monday. “The treaty does not keep [China] in check. U.S. naval might does.”

Kyl suggested on Monday that Congress could enact a statute that takes certain partsof the treaty and codifies them as U.S. law, allowing the Senate to abandon ratification altogether.

“A statute, in effect, can separate the wheat from the chaff,” he said during a speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “The United States [can then] contribute to the clarification of customary international law, by contributing its practices and legal opinions on the law of the sea.”

But Panetta argued the United States and its regional partners, China in particular, “have a critical role to play in advancing security and prosperity by respecting the rules-based order” established under the treaty.

“If both of us abide by international rules and international order, if both of us can work together to promote peace and prosperity and resolve disputes in this region, then both of us will benefit from that,” according to the Pentagon chief.

“And it isn’t just military … it’s the ability to share in a number of areas that will determine the future of our relationship,” Panetta said.






Reason for Hope and Despair in Palestine


From The Intel Hub

By Stephen Lendman, Contributor
June 5, 2012

First the good news.

On May 24, Haaretz headlined “Turkey issues arrest warrants for ex-IDF officers,” saying:

Four former senior IDF officers were named.

They include Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, military intelligence head Amos Yadlin, naval commander Eliezer Marom, and air force intelligence head Avishai Levi.

They were accused of ordering the May 31, 2010 Mavi Marmara massacre.

Israeli commandos attacked the vessel with orders to assassinate targeted victims.

They killed nine Turkish nationals, wounded dozens more, and terrorized everyone on board.

It was a premeditated attack against unarmed, nonviolent activists delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza.

They were interdicted in international waters. That alone constitutes piracy.

Cold-blooded murder is another issue altogether. In September 2010, the UN Human Rights Council issued damning findings.

It cited serious international law violations. They accused Israeli forces of lawlessly “assault(ing) and intercepti(ng) the Mavi Marmara “in international waters.”

It said doing so “was unnecessary, disproportionate, excessive, inappropriate and resulted in the wholly avoidable killing and maiming of a large number of civilian passengers.”

It added that Israel made “a deliberate attempt….to suppress or destroy evidence.”

It also fabricated its own version of events. Fake videos and other falsified materials were produced.

Under Fourth Geneva’s Article 146, each High Contracting Party is “under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts.”

Under the principle of universal jurisdiction (UJ), another High Contracting Party may conduct prosecutions in their place.

More on that below.

Key also is Fourth Geneva’s Article 33. It prohibits collective punishment. Gaza’s blockade is illegal.

It violates Fourth Geneva and other international law. Isolating Gaza is a war crime. Prosecutions are warranted.

High Contracting parties are obligated to enforce binding laws.

Failure means complicity.

The Turkish newspaper Sabah said the accused Israelis will be arrested if they ever enter Turkish territory.

Ankara’s Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, expressed his “government’s determination to defend the rights of Turkish citizens.”

Whether an Istanbul court will, in fact, indict remains to be seen.

It has until about June 8 to decide. Reports suggest Washington is applying heavy pressure to protect Israel.

Haaretz said sources “speculated that Ankara might be planning to use the indictment (to) pressur(e) Congress to approve the sale of armed American drones to Turkey.”

Obama approved the sale. Congress balked. At issue is Turkey’s hostility to Israel.

Prosecutor Mehmet Akif Ekinci seeks 10 “consecutive life sentences.” It’s for nine deaths plus another victim still in coma.

Charges included voluntary manslaughter, attempted voluntary manslaughter, intentional injury, incitement to assault with a deadly weapon, robbery, abduction or confiscation of maritime vessels, property damage, false arrest, and mistreatment of prisoners.

The indictment covers 144 pages. Its based on 600 testimonies, including from 490 passengers.

Relatives of those killed were interviewed.

Eye witnesses are most credible.

It’s hard refuting what they said. In fact, they corroborated each others’ accounts.

Israel repeatedly commits atrocities like the Mavi Marmara massacre.

Cast Lead was the most egregious since the 1967 Six Day War.

Both constituted premeditated lawlessness. Crimes of war and against humanity were committed.

Nuremberg chief prosecutor Robert Jackson called them the “supreme international crime against peace.”

Convicted Nazis were hanged. No Israeli was ever held to account.

Senior officials especially are culpable and left free to kill again with impunity.

It’s long past time that ended. Whether Turkey follows through remains to be seen.

Prosecuting and imprisoning high Israeli officials is crucial.

Henceforth others will feel vulnerable. So will their US counterparts.

Ending their impunity is vital. Expect it eventually.

Israeli officials know it. So far their behavior hasn’t changed.

Universal jurisdiction (UJ) leaves them vulnerable.

UJ is a well established principle. It holds that certain crimes are too grave to ignore.

They include genocide, crimes of war and against humanity.

Like America and key NATO partners, Israel is guilty multiples times over.

UJ permits nations to investigate and prosecute foreign nationals when countries of residence don’t, won’t, or can’t for any reason.

Israel used it to convict and execute Adolph Eichmann.

A US court sentenced Chuckie Taylor to 97 years in prison for torture.

He’s former Liberian President Charles Taylor’s son.

The Hague convicted and sentenced his father to 50 years imprisonment for war crimes and other offenses.

Though never held accountable for murdering Chileans and other human rights abuses, Britain used a Spanish court provisional warrant to apprehend Augusto Pinochet.

He was held him under house arrest for 18 months.

It set a precedent. It let other heads of state and top officials know they’re vulnerable.

Pinochet’s bogus ill health claim sent him home. He arrived irreparably damaged and disgraced.

Other top officials who matter most haven’t been targeted. UJ permits doing it. Justice demands it be done.

Under Article 7 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg:

“The official position of defendants, whether as Head of State or responsible officials in Government departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.”

No one deserves immunity from high crimes demanding accountability.

It’s time culpable American and Israeli officials were brought to justice.

Delay is unconscionable.

Multiple reasons exist to prosecute.

Perhaps one day they’ll be exercised responsibly.

Those most culpable are considered hostis humani generis – enemies of mankind.

War crimes are against the jus gentium – the law of nations.

International law was established to address them.

The Nuremberg Charter, Tribunal and Principles determined that crimes of war and against humanity are “international crimes” to grave to ignore.

Tribunal Principles hold that (a)ny person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment….”

(C)rimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit (them) can the provisions of international law be enforced.”

The Rome Statute’s Article 25 of the International Criminal Court codified the principle.

It affirmed that persons culpable of crimes and war and against humanity be prosecuted.

Nuremberg established that immunity is null and void.

Top officials, including heads of state, should be held accountable.

Western and Israeli ones so far escaped judgment even though fundamental international law affirms no one is above the law.

Henry Kissinger, GW Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and other former US officials check with the State Department before traveling abroad to some countries.

They want assurances no arrest warrants await them.

According to the London Independent, Israeli government and military officials express similar concerns.

They avoid visiting Britain “for fear of arrest on war crimes charges, it was revealed.”

Major General (res.) Doron Almog cancelled a July London speaking engagement “on the advice of the Israeli government.”

In 2005, he was nearly arrested. A court-issued warrant awaited him. Staying on his plane saved him.

He was tipped off that police were waiting.

Currently he’s in charge of dispossessing Negev Israeli Arabs (Bedouins) from their own land and property.

Former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni also avoided arrest my means of a Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) legal assessment.

Major General Yohanan Locker and other senior Israeli officials avoid UK travel.

Although Britain softened its UJ legislation, it remains untested.

Culpable Israelis are loathe to try. Maybe they’ll slip up elsewhere.

Hopefully one day they’ll answer for their crimes.

The bad new is no surprise.

Israel violated terms it struck with Palestinian hunger strikers multiple ways.

Gazan prisoners were transferred far from family members to make visitations virtually impossible.

Remaining hunger strikers have been tortured, isolated, and denied medical treatment.

Administrative detentions were renewed after Israel promised release when current sentences end.

At least eight Palestinians are affected. Mohammed Maher Bader is among them.

He’s an elected Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) Change and Reform Bloc member.

So are 19 other PLC detainees. They include Speaker Aziz Dweik.

They’re lawlessly held on spurious charges or none at all.

Due process, judicial fairness, and appropriate defense rights are denied. Israel can hold them indefinitely.

Agreements its authorities make aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

Israel repudiates international law.

It scoffs at its legal, moral, and ethical obligations.

It brutalizes Palestinians for praying to the wrong God or belonging to the wrong political group or party.

Even Jews challenging injustice aren’t safe.

Like America, Israel is no fit place to live in.

For Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, it’s hell.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled  How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.







Whatever Happened to Justice? Supreme Court OKs Police Tasering Pregnant Women


From the Trenches

Posted on June 5, 2012 by Admin

Lew Rockwell – by John W. Whitehead – Once again, the United States Supreme Court has proven Clarence Darrow, a civil liberties attorney and long-time advocate for the Constitution, correct in his assertion that “there is no such thing as justice – in or out of court.”

In meting out this particular miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court recently refused to hear the case of a pregnant woman who was repeatedly tasered by Seattle police during a routine traffic stop simply because she refused to sign a speeding ticket.

Malaika Brooks, 33 years old and seven months pregnant, was driving her 11-year-old son to school on a November morning in 2004, when she was pulled over for driving 32 mph in a 20 mph school zone.

Instructing her son to walk the rest of the way to school, Malaika handed over her driver’s license to Officer Juan Ornelas for processing.

However, when instructed to sign the speeding ticket – which the state inexplicably requires, Malaika declared that she wished to contest the charge, insisting that she had not done anything wrong and fearing that signing the ticket would signify an admission of guilt.

What happened next is a cautionary tale for anyone who still thinks that they can defy a police officer, even if it’s simply to disagree about a speeding ticket.

Rather than issuing a verbal warning to the clearly pregnant (and understandably emotional) woman, Officer Ornelas called for backup. Officer Donald Jones subsequently arrived and told Brooks to sign the ticket. Again she refused.

The conversation became heated. The cops called in more backup.

The next to arrive was Sergeant Steven Daman, who directed Brooks to sign the ticket, pointing out that if she failed to do so, she would be arrested and taken to jail. Again, Malaika refused.

On orders from Sgt. Daman, Ornelas ordered a distraught Brooks to get out of the car, telling her she was “going to jail.”

Malaika refused, and the second cop, Jones, responded by pulling out his taser electro-shock weapon, asking her if she knew what it was and warning her it would be used on her if she continued to resist.

Brooks told him “No,” and then said, “I have to go to the bathroom, I am pregnant, I’m less than 60 days from having my baby.”

Jones and Ornelas then proceeded to discuss how best to taser the pregnant woman and forcibly remove her from the car.

One officer said, “Well, don’t do it in her stomach; do it in her thigh.”

Opening the car door, Ornelas twisted Malaika’s arm behind her back. Desperate, Brooks held on tightly to the steering wheel, while Jones cycled the taser as a demonstration of its capacity to cause pain.

With the taser in a “drive-stun” mode, Officer Jones then pressed the taser against Brooks’ thigh while Ornelas held her hand behind her back.

Brooks, in obvious pain, began to cry and honk her car horn – hoping someone would help.

Thirty-six seconds later, Ornelas pressed it into her left arm.

Six seconds later, he again stunned her, this time on the neck.

After being tasered numerous times, Brooks’ pregnant body eventually gave way.

As Malaika fell over and out of the car, the officers dragged her onto the street, placing the pregnant woman face down on the pavement, handcuffing her and transporting her to jail.

Unfortunately, this is where what happened to Malaika Brooks at the hands of the police – behavior that should be roundly condemned and prohibited – becomes yet another example of the cowardice of our justice system and the corrupt nature of life in a police state.

Even though the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals recognized that Malaika posed no threat to anyone, nor did she pose a physical threat to the officers,

that none of her offenses were serious, and that officers clearly used “excessive force” against her, the justices granted qualified immunity to the officers – a ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court ostensibly upheld when it refused to hear the case.

In doing so, the courts have essentially given police carte blanche authority when it comes to using tasers against American citizens.

Indeed, this case highlights a growing trend in which police officers use tasers to force individuals into compliance in relatively non-threatening situations.

Originally designed to restrain violent criminals, tasers are now used with impunity against individuals who pose no bodily harm to the police.

Rowdy schoolchildren, the elderly, and mentally ill individuals are increasingly finding themselves on the receiving end of these sometimes lethal electroshock devices.

Cops who have been shocked in the course of their training have described being tased as “the most profound pain,” and “like getting punched 100 times in a row.”

While law enforcement advocates may suggest otherwise, these incongruous and excessive uses of force by the police are quickly becoming the rule, not the exception.

A 2011 New York Civil Liberties Union report showed that of the eight police departments surveyed across the state, over 85 percent of taser uses occurred in cases where suspects were not armed.

Incredibly, 40 percent of taser uses were aimed at the elderly, children, the mentally ill, or the severely intoxicated.

As John Lennon once remarked, “The trouble with government as it is, is that it doesn’t represent the people. It controls them.”

Indeed, the varied expressions of the government’s growing power – the excessive use of tasers by police on non-threatening individuals, allowing drones to take to the skies domestically for purposes ofsurveillance, the government’s monitoring of our emails and phone calls, and on and on –

which get more troubling by the day, are merely the outward manifestations of an inner, philosophical shift underway in how the government views not only the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but “we the people,” as well.






( 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: