| Author |
Message |
     justice
Member
Username: justice
Post Number: 1005
Registered: 01-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Friday, March 27, 2009 - 10:25 pm: |  
|
Fifty years ago our greatest threat might have been violence or mugging. Now the greatest threat to our economic well being, our way of life, our freedom and the very existence of our nation, is our own government.
Warning: Not for the feint of heart..
http://eutruth.org.uk/
"First We'll Take Manhattan (Then We'll Take Berlin)" - Leonard Cohen
|
justice
Member
Username: justice
Post Number: 1011
Registered: 01-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Monday, March 30, 2009 - 06:23 pm: |
|
Alex Jones’ emergency broadcast on the arrest of Luke Rudowski
WeAreChange founder and activist Luke Rudowski was arrested at the Hilton Hotel on Manhattan today for attempting to question New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg about his refusal to pay for the health care of 9/11 first responders. Rudowski had Infowars press credentials and a video camera when he was singled out by Bloomberg’s security in the lobby of the hotel located at West 53rd Street and Avenue of the Americas (Sixth Avenue).
According to a post on the WeAreChange blog Rudowski and other members of WeAreChange were confronted and asked questions by hotel security and Bloomberg’s security detail. Rudowski was apparently singled out and forcibly detained at the hotel and subsequently handed over to the New York Police, who arrested him on a charge of trespassing. Rudowski was also charged with impersonating a member of the press.
Infowars is a bona fide press organization. Alex Jones operates numerous news websites in addition to hosting a nationally syndicated talk radio show that is currently rated as the most listened to talk show over the internet. Jones’ Infowars and Prison Planet have broken numerous stories, including one covering the MIAC controversy that was picked up by the Associated Press and mentioned by Fox News host Glenn Beck and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
Luke Rudowski has worked as an Infowars journalist for several years and his journalism is featured in Alex Jones film Truth Rising: 9/11 Chronicles, released in 2008.
As of this writing, Rudowski is being held at the 18th Precinct at 306 West 54th Street on Manhattan. An officer Fagan answered calls in regard to Rudowski’s arrest. Infowars staff report Fagan abruptly hung up the telephone when inquiries about Rudowski were made.
The 18th precinct phone number is: 212-760-8300. A NYC information page on the internet lists the following number for the precinct: 212-767-8400.
Alex Jones and Infowars are requesting calls be made to the police asking about Luke Rudowski’s whereabouts and the trumped up charges against him. The New York Police and Mayor Bloomberg need to be made aware of the fact there is a First Amendment in this country and it is an egregious violation of that amendment when members of the press are unduly arrested and charged.
Please remember to be polite when contacting the police and other New York City officials.
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4200
|
justice
Member
Username: justice
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 01-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Sunday, April 05, 2009 - 09:36 pm: |
|
Breakthrough research by international team confirms presence of unignited explosives in WTC dust
Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of High-Tech Metal Incendiaries In Debris From the Twin Towers
“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4243
|
justice
Member
Username: justice
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 01-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Monday, April 06, 2009 - 09:35 pm: |
|
1 April 2009
In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes a worldwide movement that is 'challenging the once-sacrosanct notion that imperial politicians can destroy countless lives and retain an immunity from justice'. In Tony Blair's case, justice inches closer.
These are extraordinary times. With the United States and Britain on the verge of bankruptcy and committing to an endless colonial war, pressure is building for their crimes to be prosecuted at a tribunal similar to that which tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. This defined rapacious invasion as “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”. International law would be mere farce, said the chief US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, “if, in future, we do not apply its principles to ourselves”.
That is now happening. Spain, Germany, Belgium, France and Britain have long had “universal jurisdiction” statutes, which allow their national courts to pursue and prosecute prima facie war criminals. What has changed is an unspoken rule never to use international law against “ourselves”, or “our” allies or clients. In 1998, Spain, supported by France, Switzerland and Belgium, indicted the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, client and executioner of the West, and sought his extradition from Britain, where he happened to be at the time. Had he been sent for trial he almost certainly would have implicated at least one British prime minister and two US presidents in crimes against humanity. Home Secretary Jack Straw let him escape back to Chile.
The Pinochet case was the ignition. On 19 January last, the George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley compared the status of George W. Bush with that of Pinochet. “Outside [the United States] there is not the ambiguity about what to do about a war crime,” he said. “So if you try to travel, most people abroad are going to view you not as ‘former President George Bush’ [but] as a current war criminal.” For this reason, Bush’s former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who demanded an invasion of Iraq in 2001 and personally approved torture techniques in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, no longer travels. Rumsfeld has twice been indicted for war crimes in Germany. On 26 January, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, said, “We have clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but nevertheless he ordered torture.”
The Spanish high court is currently investigating a former Israeli defence minister and six other top Israeli officials for their role in the killing of civilians, mostly children, in Gaza. Henry Kissinger, who was largely responsible for bombing to death 600,000 peasants in Cambodia in 1969-73, is wanted for questioning in France, Chile and Argentina. Yet, on 8 February, as if demonstrating the continuity of American power, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, said, “I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger.”
Like them, Tony Blair may soon be a fugitive. The International Criminal Court, to which Britain is a signatory, has received a record number of petitions related to Blair’s wars. Spain’s celebrated Judge Baltasar Garzon, who indicted Pinochet and the leaders of the Argentinian military junta, has called for George W. Bush, Blair and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar to be prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq - “one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history: a devastating attack on the rule of law” that had left the UN “in tatters”. He said, “There is enough of an argument in 650,000 deaths for this investigation to start without delay.”
This is not to say Blair is about to be collared and marched to The Hague, where Serbs and Sudanese dictators are far more likely to face a political court set up by the West. However, an international agenda is forming and a process has begun which is as much about legitimacy as the letter of the law, and a reminder from history that the powerful lose wars and empires when legitimacy evaporates. This can happen quickly, as in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of apartheid South Africa – the latter a spectre for apartheid Israel.
Today, the unreported “good news” is that a worldwide movement is challenging the once sacrosanct notion that imperial politicians can destroy countless lives in the cause of an ancient piracy, often at remove in distance and culture, and retain their respectability and immunity from justice. In his masterly Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde R.L. Stevenson writes in the character of Jekyll: “Men have before hired bravos to transact their crimes, while their own person and reputation sat under shelter ... I could thus plod in the public eye with a load of genial respectability, and, in a moment, like a schoolboy, strip off these lendings and spring headlong into the sea of liberty. But for me, in my impenetrable mantle, the safety was complete.”
Blair, too, is safe – but for how long? He and his collaborators face a new determination on the part of tenacious non-government bodies that are amassing “an impressive documentary record as to criminal charges”, according to international law authority Richard Falk, who cites the World Tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul in 2005, which heard evidence from 54 witnesses and published rigorous indictments against Blair, Bush and others. Currently, the Brussels War Crimes Tribunal and the newly established Blair War Crimes Foundation are building a case for Blair’s prosecution under the Nuremberg Principle and the 1949 Geneva Convention. In a separate indictment, former Judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court E.W. Thomas wrote: “My pre-disposition was to believe that Mr. Blair was deluded, but sincere in his belief. After considerable reading and much reflection, however, my final conclusion is that Mr. Blair deliberately ands repeatedly misled Cabinet, the British Labour Party and the people in a number of respects. It is not possible to hold that he was simply deluded but sincere: a victim of his own self-deception. His deception was deliberate.”
Protected by the fake sinecure of Middle East Envoy for the Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia), Blair operates largely from a small fortress in the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, where he is an apologist for the US in the Middle East and Israel, a difficult task following the bloodbath in Gaza. To assist his mortgages, he recently received an Israeli “peace prize” worth a million dollars. He, too, is careful where he travels; and it is instructive to watch how he now uses the media. Having concentrated his post-Downing Street apologetics on a BBC series of obsequious interviews with David Aaronovitch, Blair has all but slipped from view in Britain, where polls have long revealed a remarkable loathing for a former prime minister – a sentiment now shared by those in the liberal media elite whose previous promotion of his “project” and crimes is an embarrassment and preferably forgotten.
On 8 February, Andrew Rawnsley, the Observer’s former leading Blair fan, declared that “this shameful period will not be so smoothly and simply buried”. He demanded, “Did Blair never ask what was going on?”. This is an excellent question made relevant with a slight word change: “Did the Andrew Rawnsleys never ask what was going on?”. In 2001, Rawnsley alerted his readers to Iraq’s “contribution to international terrorism” and Saddam Hussein’s “frightening appetite to possess weapons of mass destruction”. Both assertions were false and echoed official Anglo-American propaganda. In 2003, when the destruction of Iraq was launched, Rawnsley described it as a “point of principle” for Blair who, he later wrote, was “fated to be right”. He lamented, “Yes, too many people died in the war. Too many people always die in war. War is nasty and brutish, but at least this conflict was mercifully short.” In the subsequent six years at least a million people have been killed. According to the Red Cross, Iraq is now a country of widows and orphans. Yes, war is nasty and brutish, but never for the Blairs and the Rawnsleys.
Far from the carping turncoats at home, Blair has lately found a safe media harbour – in Australia, the original murdochracy. His interviewers exude an unction reminiscent of the promoters of the “mystical” Blair in the Guardian of than a decade ago, though they also bring to mind Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times during the 1930s, who wrote of his infamous groveling to the Nazis: “I spend my nights taking out anything which will hurt their susceptibilities and dropping in little things which are intended to sooth them.”
With his words as a citation, the finalists for the Geoffrey Dawson Prize for Journalism (Antipodes) are announced. On 8 February, in an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Geraldine Doogue described Blair as “a man who brought religion into power and is now bringing power to religion”. She asked him: “What would the perception be that faith would bring towards a greater stability... [sic]?”. A bemused and clearly delighted Blair was allowed to waffle about “values”. Doogue said to him that “it was the bifurcation about right and wrong that what I thought the British found really hard” [sic], to which Blair replied that “in relation to Iraq I tried every other option [to invasion] there was”. It was his classic lie, which passed unchallenged.
However, the clear winner of the Geoffrey Dawson Prize is Ginny Dougary of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times. Dougary recently accompanied Blair on what she described as his “James Bondish-ish Gulfstream” where she was privy to his “bionic energy levels”. She wrote, “I ask him the childlike question: does he want to save the world?”. Blair replied, well, more or less, aw shucks, yes. The murderous assault on Gaza, which was under way during the interview, was mentioned in passing. “That is war, I’m afraid,” said Blair, “and war is horrible”. No counter came that Gaza was not a war but a massacre by any measure. As for the Palestinians, noted Dougary, it was Blair’s task to “prepare them for statehood”. The Palestinians will be surprised to hear that. But enough gravitas; her man “has the glow of the newly-in-love: in love with the world and, for the most part, the feeling is reciprocated”. The evidence she offered for this absurdity was that “women from both sides of politics have confessed to me to having the hots for him”.
These are extraordinary times. Blair, a perpetrator of the epic crime of the 21st century, shares a “prayer breakfast” with President Obama, the yes-we-can-man now launching more war. “We pray,” said Blair, “that in acting we do God’s work and follow God’s will.” To decent people, such pronouncements about Blair’s “faith” represent a contortion of morality and intellect that is a profanation on the basic teachings of Christianity. Those who aided and abetted his great crime and now wish the rest of us to forget their part - or, like Alistair Campbell, his “communications director”, offer their bloody notoriety for the vicarious pleasure of some – might read the first indictment proposed by the Blair War Crimes Foundation: “Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, 4 million refugees, countless maiming and traumas.”
These are indeed extraordinary times.
http://www.petitiononline.com/BWCF/petition-sign.html
|
justice
Member
Username: justice
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 01-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Friday, May 01, 2009 - 02:15 pm: |
|
Date: April 29, 2009
Contacts: Rebecca Alvania, Media Relations Officer
Alison Burnette, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>
for immediate release
Greater Transparency Needed in Development of U.S. Policy on Cyberattack
WASHINGTON -- The current policy and legal framework regulating use of cyberattack by the United States is ill-formed, undeveloped, and highly uncertain, says a new report from the National Research Council. The United States should establish clear national policy on the use of cyberattack, while also continuing to develop its technological capabilities in this area. The U.S. policy should be informed by open national debate on the technological, policy, legal, and ethical issues of cyberwarfare, said the committee that wrote the report.
"Cyberattack is too important a subject for the nation to be discussed only behind closed doors," said Adm. William Owens, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former vice chairman and CEO of Nortel Corp., and Kenneth Dam, Max Pam Professor Emeritus of American and Foreign Law at the University of Chicago School of Law, who co-chaired the committee.
Cyberattacks -- actions taken against computer systems or networks -- are often complex to plan and execute but relatively inexpensive, and the technology needed is widely available. Defenses against such attacks are discussed, but questions on the potential for, and the ramifications of, the United States' use of cyberattack as a component of its military and intelligence arsenal have not been the subject of much public debate. Although the policy and organizational issues raised by the use of cyberattack are significant, the report says, "neither government nor society at large is organized or prepared to handle issues related to cyberattack, let alone to make broadly informed decisions."
The U.S. could use cyberattack either defensively, in response to a cyberattack from another nation, or offensively to support military missions or covert actions, the report says. Deterring such attacks against the U.S. with the threat of an in-kind response has limited applicability, however; cyberattacks can be conducted anonymously or falsely attributed to another party relatively easily, making it difficult to reliably identify the originator of the attack.
Employing a cyberattack carries with it some implications that are unlike those associated with traditional physical warfare, the report says. The outcome is likely to be more uncertain, and there may be substantial impact on the private sector, which owns and operates much of the infrastructure through which the U.S. would conduct a cyberattack. The scale of such an attack can be enormous and difficult to localize. "Blowback" to the U.S. -- effects on our own network systems -- is possible.
Clear national policy regarding the use of cyberattack should be developed through open debate within the U.S. government and diplomatic discussion with other nations, the report says. The U.S. policy should make it clear why, when, and how a cyberattack would be authorized, and require a periodic accounting of any attacks that are conducted, to be made available to the executive branch and to Congress.
From a legal perspective, cyberattack should be judged by its effects rather than the method of attack; cyberwarfare should not be judged less harshly than physical warfare simply by virtue of the weapons employed. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), an international law regulating conduct during war, should apply to cyberattack. However, there are aspects of cyberwarfare that will not fit neatly within this structure. LOAC was designed to regulate conflict between nations, but cyberweapons can easily be used by non-state groups, making issues such as determining appropriate targets for military retaliation difficult to address. Additional legal constructs will be needed to govern cyberattacks, and the framework of LOAC and the U.N. Charter on the use of armed force would be an appropriate starting point, the report says.
This study was sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, Microsoft Corp., and the National Research Council. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. A committee roster follows.
Copies of Technology, Policy, Law, and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyberattack Capabilities are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above). In addition, a podcast of the public briefing held to release this report is available at http://national-academies.org/podcast.
# # #
http://www.nas.edu/morenews/20090429.html
GCN Network - Jason Burmis
http://67.212.67.19:3016
|
justice
Member
Username: justice
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 01-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 04:01 am: |
|
Baxter: Product contained live bird flu virus
The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses.
And an official of the World Health Organization’s European operation said the body is closely monitoring the investigation into the events that took place at Baxter International’s research facility in Orth-Donau, Austria.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/02/27/8560781.html
+++
"There's a popular medical thriller novel in which a global pandemic is intentionally set off by an evil plot designed to reduce the human population. In the book, a nefarious drug company inserts live avian flu viruses into vaccine materials that are distributed to countries around the world to be injected into patients as "flu shots." Those patients then become carriers for these highly-virulent strains of avian flu which go on to infect the world population and cause widespread death."
There's only one problem with this story: It's not fiction. Or, at least, the part about live avian flu viruses being inserted into vaccine materials isn't fiction. It's happening right now.
Was the viral contamination intentional?
The shocking answer is that this couldn't have been an accident. Why? Because Baxter International adheres to something called BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) - a set of laboratory safety protocols that prevent the cross-contamination of materials.
http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html
|
justice
Member
Username: justice
Post Number: 1093
Registered: 01-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 05:56 pm: |
|
Lord Christopher Monckton, who served as science adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was invited to appear with Al Gore at a House panel hearing Friday. But House Democrats, led by Rep. Henry Waxman, canceled the appearance. Shortly after the hearing, Monckton gave his account to "The Savage Nation" and explained why Al Gore and other "alarmists" are wrong about "global warming.
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5614
|
justice
Member
Username: justice
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 01-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 06:47 pm: |
|
John Harris (FREE) Man of the land.
http://www.tpuc.org/node/590
|
justice
Member
Username: justice
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 01-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 10:38 pm: |
|
The Ministry of Defence, a company, is also traded as the B I S. Could this be the Bank for International Settlements?
http://www.tpuc.org/content/ministry-defence-company-also-traded-b-i-s-could-be-bank-international-settlements
With two cats in the yard... life used to be so hard...
Parliament House Canberra
https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductSelection?dunsNumber=15&busName=PARLIMENT%20HOUSE&storeId=10001&catalogId=70001&productId=0&address=PARLIAMENT%20HOUSE&city=CANBERRA&state=ACT&zip=&country=AU
Does anyone think it's worth throwing 514.99 away to see if the Government is worth anything still.
(Message edited by justice on May 12, 2009)
|
|
