Google Search

Showing posts with label Without. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Without. Show all posts

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Killing Without Consequences: "Counter-Insurgency" Warfare in Greenfield, California

by William Norman Grigg

After eluding the police for more than a week, Alejandro Gonzalez surrendered in San Jose on January 10, 2011. The 22-year-old was the suspect in a non-fatal shooting that had taken place on New Year?s Day at a local bar called the Mucky Duck.

As should be expected, the police had done nothing useful to solve that crime. Their only contribution to the case was to stage a lethal SWAT raid against a man who had been nowhere near the bar when the shooting took place, and had nothing to do with it.

Four days after the Mucky Duck shooting ? in which three people suffered non-life-threatening injuries -- a multi-agency SWAT team invaded the home of 31-year-old Rogelio Serrato, Jr. Serrato, who was known as Roger to friends and family, was not a suspect in the shooting.

The search warrant issued for Serrato?s house should have been executed by a small group of deputies. Although police contended that Serrato was ?connected? in some way to Gonzalez, there was no reason to suspect that he was harboring the fugitive.

Serrato did have outstanding misdemeanor warrants, however, and apparently this was considered sufficient justification for sending in two dozen paramilitary drag queens who arrived in an armored convoy that included a Bearcat combat vehicle.

For about an hour, the invaders broadcast surrender demands via a ?thunder-hailer? megaphone. One young female left the house and was taken into custody. Serrato ? who, it is believed, was intoxicated and perhaps unconscious ? didn?t comply.

A three-member ?break and rake? team approached the house, shattered a window, and threw in a flash-bang grenade, which lodged itself between two highly flammable polyurethane sofas that were next to an artificial Christmas tree. One of the sofas immediately ignited. The fire quickly propagated itself through the house, generating a dense black cloud of highly toxic smoke.

Roused by either the sound of the grenade or the subsequent fire, Serrato began screaming and trying to leave the house. The sight of the unarmed man, clad only in his underwear, threw a scare into Sergeant Joseph Banuelos, who had supervised the ?break and rake? team.

?Suspect!? shrieked Banuelos. Rather than rushing into the home to arrest the suspect, the intrepid sergeant ? acting in the interests of that holiest of all considerations, ?officer safety? ? ordered his team to retreat to the Bearcat vehicle. The SWAT team then trained its weapons on the house, which effectively prevented the victim from escaping from the burning building.

Significantly, the use of a flash-bang grenade as a ?scare tactic? was part of the raid?s tactical plan, rather than an improvised measure. Deputy Mark Sievers and Detective Al Martinez, who were part of the ?break and rake? team, had previously ignited fires with flash-bang grenades, so they were aware of the potential fire risk involved in using that device. That the raid posed a potentially fatal fire danger is further demonstrated by the fact that the Greenfield Fire Department had been notified of the planned raid and was on standby.

The Fire Department responded quickly once fire enveloped Serrato?s home ? but the SWAT team held them at bay for nearly a half-hour while the screaming victim was trapped inside. By the time the firefighters could enter the home, Serrato was dead.

Just a few days ago, Monterey County agreed to a $2.6 million settlement with Serrato?s family, which was paid by the county?s insurance carrier and absolves the sheriff?s office of legal responsibility. Speaking the language of institutional self-exculpation with remarkable fluency, County Attorney Charles McKee insisted that Serrato was to blame for his own death and that the officers should be ?commended for trying to resolve a very tense situation.?

It?s often said that police are the country?s most dangerous street gang. One significant distinction between police and their private sector counterparts is that street gangs don?t expect to receive commendations when they kill innocent people.

It would be a wonderful thing if people could develop the intellectual equivalent of a computer utility that would remove uniforms, badges, and titles from news accounts of fatal police raids. Subtracting the indicia of ?authority? would enhance the ability of people to see the truth about acts of aggressive violence, and recognize them as crimes irrespective of the claimed identity of those who commit them.

The killing of Roger Serrato was an act of murder through depraved indifference. The assailants had no justification to attack his home; they knew that their plan of attack posed the risk of a catastrophic fire; once that fire began, the assailants took no action to rescue the victim, and impeded the efforts of others to do so.

The SWAT raid was a specimen of police overkill born of opportunism: What?s the use of having a SWAT team unless it can be deployed to arrest people with outstanding misdemeanor warrants?

It?s possible, perhaps even likely, that police officials chose to attack Serrato?s home simply because his location -- unlike that of the actual suspect, Alejandro Gonzalez -- was known. If the police had actually investigated the Mucky Duck shooting, rather than seizing on it as a chance to preen on camera in paramilitary attire, they would have learned that Gonzalez was not a threat to the public.

A lawsuit filed by Todd Graham, one of the shooting victims claims that before he went to his car to get his gun, Gonzalez had seen several of his friends abused by a group of bouncers who had ?escalated? a minor altercation into a life-threatening situation. At one point, a friend of Gonzalez named Mark Rosso, was thrown to the ground and pinned down by a bouncer and a bartender while another bouncer identified as ?T.K.? beat and kicked him.

In pre-trial testimony, Monterey police detective Michael Bruno admitted that witnesses had described that assault to him. Witnesses also claimed that Gonzalez went to his car and grabbed a gun while his friend was being beaten.

Graham, a bystander who was leaving the bar when the shooting began, insists that Gonzalez?s decision to get his gun was made ?in response to the actions of the bouncers.? Graham and two of the bouncers were the only ones who were shot.

As Judge Pamela Butler acknowledged in Gonzalez?s pre-trial hearing, the shooting was at least in part motivated by the desire to defend his friend, who was pleading for help and most likely in fear for his life. However, Judge Butler, a former gang prosecutor, insisted that Gonzalez?s alleged affiliation with the Norteno street gang meant that the shooting was ?gang-related.?

This gave prosecutor Cristina Johnson a rationale for charging Gonzalez with ten felonies. The charges included not three, but four counts of attempted murder: One for the shooting of Graham, the innocent bystander; two for the bouncers who were attacking Rosso; and one more for the bartender who was helping to hold the victim down. While the bartender wasn?t shot, Johnson insisted that he be treated as a victim because he was in the ?kill zone.?

The memory of man runneth not to an instance in which a police officer who used deadly force was charged for attempted murder because of the presence of an innocent victim in the ?kill zone.? Where ?qualified immunity? ends in such cases, ?professional courtesy? takes over.

Witness the case of Robert Shawn Richardson and Paul Bradley Rogers, who were convicted of second-degree manslaughter after shooting and killing a five-year-old boy in Noble, Oklahoma six years ago while trying to kill a poisonous snake. Because they received deferred sentences, the officers served no time in prison, and their records have been expunged. Where the ?law? is concerned, the incident never happened, and the victim, Austin Haley, never existed.

?If the roles were reversed and I had shot the gun, it would be much different,? observes Austin?s mother, Renee Haley. ?I would?ve been sent to jail and the sentence would have been done more harshly.?

This is incontestably true. Austin wasn?t a cop; he was one of the ?little people.? The same was true of Roger Serrato.

As Serrato?s grandmother tearfully told a Greenfield City Council meeting, he was not a saint ? but he was a human being who should not have been summarily executed.

In seeking to justify the murderous raid on Serrato?s home, police applied the counter-insurgency template used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and applied it to ?gang enforcement.?

In Gonzalez?s pre-trial hearing, Detective Bruno reported that a search of the suspect?s home found ?clothing and other items? indicating that he may have been associated with the Norteno street gang. While he admitted ? under cross-examination ? that the Mucky Duck shooting was at least in part motivated by self-defense, he insisted that it had the effect of enhancing the gang?s image ?by instilling fear in the community.?

That sort of thing never happens when masked Berserkers in military attire lay siege to a residence, of course.

Shortly after his associates murdered Roger Serrato, Greenfield Police Department spokesliar Phil Penko told a local television station that ?whether he was at the Mucky Duck is irrelevant? because ?someone connected to the house? was allegedly there at the time of the shooting.

This is a specimen of what counter-insurgency experts call ?pattern of life? analysis. All that is necessary to justify potentially lethal action against any individual is to create a ?link? or ?connection? between that person and a ?suspected militant? (or, in this case, a suspected ?gang associate?) or an incident involving someone who meets that description.

In Afghanistan, ?connections? of that kind have been used to justify midnight raids by kill teams. In Pakistan, the same analysis is used as the basis for drone strikes. We?re seeing plentiful examples of the former here domestically, and we can expect to see the latter approach rolled out in the ?Homeland? within the next few years.
_
William Norman Grigg publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.


View the original article here

Friday, September 6, 2013

Deputies Climb Through Window Into Couple's Home Without A Warrant, Hold Them At Gunpoint & Shoot Their Two Dogs


Chris | InformationLiberation

A Warrington, Florida couple was asleep in their bed when a group of Escambia County sheriff's deputies climbed into their home without a warrant, held them at gunpoint, cursed at them, threw a woman to the ground, cuffed them, then entered their bedroom and proceeded to shoot their two dogs, hurting one so badly he had to be euthanized and injuring the other with a bullet to his leg, the Pensacola News Journal reports.

Deputies justified the home invasion of Cristina Moses, 32, and her fiance, Travis Nicholas, 22, by saying they were looking for a suspect who they believed may have entered the home and they wanted "to assure the safety of the occupants.?

In fact, the occupants' safety was threatened only by the deputies, one of their dogs is now dead and their house covered in blood. Ironically, their dog is now dead because the officers were seeking to assure their own safety, not that of the occupants, because "officer safety" is always paramount.

After entering their home through their window, the couple says the deputies held them at gunpoint, Cristina was thrown to the ground while being cursed at, they were both placed in handcuffs, and the cops held them down by placing their boots on their back and arms. One deputy, who they identified as Deputy Mikel Anthony Lee, then allegedly went into their bedroom and shot two of their dogs.

The deputies' statement says, "One dog bit at one of the deputy?s leg. He pushed the dog away, but it came at him again so he shot the dog in self-defense, at which time the second dog began to run towards him. For his personal safety, he shot the second dog.?

As the Pensacola News Journal notes, their statement stops short of saying the dog actually bit the officer, meaning there is no actual evidence of the dogs' alleged aggression.

The couple contradicts their claims and says the deputy entered their bedroom and shot their dogs from the "opposite side" of the room. Video of the crime scene shows the edge of the couple's bed full of bullet holes, this is consistent with their story the officer tried to shoot the dogs from a distance and the dogs were trying to use the bed as "shelter" from the bullets.

After deputies placed Cristina in a patrol car for more than an hour because she "wouldn't shut up" and stop asking what happened to her dogs, she and Travis were eventually let go without charges.

"Gracie" the one year-old pit bull ultimately had to be euthanized due to being riddled with bullets. Cristina wells up in tears recounting the tragic incident and she says she feels "like my child has died."

The Escambia County sheriff's deputies meanwhile are stonewalling, they say they won't talk or release any further details until they're done with their "investigation" of themselves. The deputies involved were placed on paid leave.
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Cop Convicted Of Second-Degree Manslaughter For Shooting 5-Yr-Old Boy In Back Of Head Gets Record Expunged, Now Free Again To Become An Officer
- Boston Cop Shoves Videographer, Then Threatens to Arrest Him for "Battery On A Police Officer"
- Man Refuses To ID At Texas Border Patrol Checkpoint, Checkpoint Officer Says "Get The F*ck Out of Here" & Waves Him Through
- Attorneys For Ibragim Todashev's Father Say There's NO Evidence He Was Armed When FBI Executed Him
- Philly Cop Filmed Punching Small Woman In Face At Puerto Rican Day Parade Gets Job Back With Full Back Pay
- Oregon Deputies Caught on Dash Cam Acknowledging Illegal Traffic Stop
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- "They Kidnapped Our Child": Why CPS Needs Transparency Now

This is why we need to start killing them dead when they break the law. fucking monsters Question: What do terrorists, home invaders and Escambia County deputies have in common?
Answer: They use the same toothbrush in the morning.
when was the last time you heard of a cop comming in through a window instead of breaking down the door? there is something else going on here. there is always something else going on when cops are involved.problem is most of the time it is the cops imagination gone wacko and the citizens pay the price every way you can think of.205213 good point,one way or the other. I don't suppose it occurred to Sherlock Holmes or any of the rest of these deputies that the room with the pit bulls in it probably didn't contain an intruder! They were obviously up to something else. I suspect they were going to burglarize the place and didn't realize anyone was home. That's why they were angry and cursing the occupants, because the homeowner presence spoiled their action and reduced their take for the night. If the sheriff department brass don't take these idiots badges away, it means they're in on it... Whenever I hear a cop has been shot, situations like this is why I feel it was probably justified. The couple should sue the department for around 20 million in damages, and if allowed under Florida law, sue the dickhead deputies personally for their entire net worth. Scumbags who abuse their positions of authority are no better than Nazi Stormtroopers, and should be regarded as such. The answer is vigilante justice. Interpret from this your own definitions and actionable solutions, but it's all that is left when LE "professionals" shoot, beat, and murder people, kill their pets for sport, kidnap and then abuse their children, and destroy their property with impunity. The War on the US Citizen, waged by not only these local thug "police" / gangster organizations but also a parasitic and criminal federal government at large, leading by "shining" example--via extortion, their possession of a monopoly on violence, fear-mongering, and the terrorist tactics they employ--and fully funded by us (the victims), has been underway for some time. When will we respond in some constructive manner? The not-in-my-backyard zeitgeist / philosophy of today (and the abhorrent detachment and apathy it excuses in too many of our minds) simply won't do. Protests have failed. Lawsuits have likewise failed to affect wack LE policy and the seemingly acceptable criminal behavior by officeholders. Elections / a belief in the myth of the two party system (AKA: the illusion of choice) have failed, too. Our "representatives" in government mock and patronize us from on high, appealing only to our differences in an obvious effort to divide us as a People. What's left? What sort of a "society" do we wish to have here? Anybody see the worldwide trend toward fascism speeding up all over again? WTF? What will we leave behind for our children if we do nothing? Did we have children just to drop them in an experimental Hell we allowed to develop right under our noses? What is the statute of limitations on using ignorance as an excuse for failure? Still worse, denial? And now what: fear? No, it just won't do. america is now mexico.

you'd better stand up for your damn selves, i am increasingly convinced that TWO different types of sins keep occurring in america:

1 - violent aggressors violating God's laws

2 - victims sinning by taking it.
they do this understandably out of fear of their earthly lives - but as a Christian you will have to be willing to give up your life to do what is right. until you do, this will continue and will increase.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. 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. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Thursday, July 4, 2013

The Trick is to Suspend the Constitution Without Admitting It


by Will Grigg

Since late 2001, the federal government has behaved as if the U.S. Constitution doesn?t exist with respect to matters of national security.

Rather than acting under the limited and revocable grants of authority provided by the Constitution, the executive branch has routinely invoked two measures enacted by Congress in a panicked haste following the 9/11 attacks ? the so-called PATRIOT act, and the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Those measures supposedly permit the President and his subordinates to wage war anywhere on the face of the earth, carry out all-encompassing electronic surveillance of the entire population, and even carry out summary executions of anyone ? including U.S. citizens ? deemed to be enemies of the state.

Although the Constitution has not been formally suspended, we?ve entered a period in which presidential whim has supplanted the rule of law.

Pakistan endured a similar period of executive rule under the reign of military dictator Pervez Musharraf between 1999 and 2008. The Pakistani government is preparing to put Musharraf on trial for treason for suspending that country?s constitution. Perhaps that dictator?s mistake was to be candid about what he did, rather than swaddling his actions in the kind of civics-class bromides routinely uttered by Barack Obama as he behaves like a dictator.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- How Thieves and Terrorists "Apologize" to their Victims
- The True Cycle of Violence
- Will They Assassinate Snowden?
- The State Doesn't Define What is True or Right
- Snowden's Flight to Freedom
- Freedom versus The National-Security State
- The Land of the Blind: The Illusion of Freedom in America
- Why People Tolerate a Total State

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. 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. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Monday, April 8, 2013

Obama Can Kill Americans on U.S. Soil Without Due Process?

by Wendy McElroy

On March 5th, a headline in the left-leaning Mother Jones declared, ?Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil.? A letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Republican Senator Rand Paul was the cause. (A screenshot of the full letter is here.) Rand had written to John Brennan, the current nominee for Director of the CIA, to ask whether the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil without due process. Brennan requested Holder to address legal aspects of the question, which Obama and his administration have hitherto refused to answer. Holder's March 4 letter may have broken the silence because Rand threatened to filibuster Brennan's nomination if there was no response. (Indeed, Rand was filibustering as I wrote this article.)

Conservatives and libertarians are enraged by Holder's letter; liberals offer a mixed reaction. An admin at the left-leaning Daily Kos site, for example, blasts Mother Jones for inaccuracy. Others claim the Presidential power is nothing new and Holder's comments are unexceptional. Teasing out the truth means deconstructing the letter.

DECONSTRUCTING HOLDER

This letter was written and vetted with meticulous care. Holder did not misstate his position. The letter's vague and non-responsive nature is deliberate and its few specifics are revealing.

Holder opens with an assurance: ?[T]he US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.? [All words in bold are emphasis added]

Obama did not even disclose the existence of a drone program on American soil until his hand was forced; the memos upon which the program's legal authority is based remain secret. This non-transparency makes it impossible to assess Obama's intentions, and reduces Holder's position to ?trust us.? The words ?as a policy matter? are significant because the use of military force instead of law enforcement is dismissed strictly as policy, not on grounds of law or the Constitution. Policies change constantly and often without notice. Moreover, given the extreme militarization of US law enforcement, complete with police drones, it is strange to reassure Americans that they would be killed by law enforcement and not the military. The distinction does obviate some legal questions, however. For example, it bypasses any lingering shred of the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the power of a President to use the federal military to enforce law.

Holder continues. The administration has ?a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.? Again, this is a policy statement. Moreover, various federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, have identified broad categories of law-abiding Americans as potential terrorists. Gun advocates, military veterans and strict Constitutionalists place consistently high on that list. By broadening the focus to include America's ?interests abroad,? Holder also signals that the Americans targeted need not be violent but merely a threat to US interests. It would be difficult to be more vague.

Holder now approaches the meat of the letter. ?The question you [Rand Paul] have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront.? The statement is entirely incorrect. On February 20th, Paul asked whether Obama had ?the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial.? This is a specific, real world question; it asks an Attorney General to comment on a point of federal law, which he would be or has been instrumental in forging. Holder's dismissal of Rand's question as theoretical, however, allows him to rephrase it in a form he wishes to address.

Holder's non-answer? ?It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.? The rephrasing allows Holder to avoid the key issue of due process. Unfortunately, few people deny the authority of a President to kill violent Americans who threaten national security. But they balk at his signing secret orders to kill Americans without arrest or a trial. Due process is being reduced to Obama's signature on a piece of paper that will never be seen.

Nevertheless, Holder is at least and at last rendering a legal opinion. Yes, under ?extraordinary circumstances,? it is legal ?under the Constitution and applicable laws...for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force? on American soil.

It is impossible to know what constitutes ?extraordinary circumstances.? America has been in a state of war and militarization for almost 12 years since 9/11. It could refer to circumstances law enforcement cannot handle and, so, the military becomes necessary. In reality, ?extraordinary? will mean whatever the administration wishes. The national emergency could be nothing more than a grassroots refusal of Americans to voluntarily surrender guns. At that point, Obama could bypass both Congress and the Constitution by invoking the War Powers Act and declare martial law.

It is also not possible to decipher which ?applicable laws? are referenced. Perhaps Holder is appealing to ?War on Terror? laws such as the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The latter is a joint resolution passed by Congress in 2001 to authorize the President (then Bush) to use "necessary and appropriate force" against anyone who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" those responsible for 9/11. Indeed, the words used by Holder -- ?necessary and appropriate? ? echo the wording of the AUMF. It is equally unclear which part of the Constitution is referenced. Certainly, it is not the Bill of Rights. This means that neither Congress nor the public will know the circumstances and legal authority under which President believes it is appropriate to kill Americans on US soil.

The two specific examples of ?extraordinary circumstances? only confuse the issue further. He states, ?the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.?

The examples are the bombing or Pearl Harbor and 9/11. They are bizarre. For one thing, neither incident was perpetrated by Americans. Moreover, Holder endorses the Presidential execution of Americans after a crisis has occurred and not to prevent one. This differs sharply from the administration's justification for torture; namely, that information extracted in a ?timely manner? may prevent the loss of American lives.

The ?timely manner? aspect becomes all the more bizarre in light of Holder's concluding sentence: ?Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority.? Pearl Harbor occurred literally out of the blue in the early morning hours; 9/11 was equally unexpected and swift. Does anyone believe Holder thinks there would be time to ?examine the particular facts and circumstances? of a surprise attack that hits like a lightning bolt? Does anyone believe Holder does not know what the administration's response would be down to the color of Obama's underwear?

CONCLUSION

The Obama administration is profoundly secretive and dishonest. Holder's letter is an exercise in obfuscation which, nevertheless, does assert the President's authority to kill Americans on US soil under undefined circumstances.

Certain other circumstances have been defined, however. Obama has already asserted the unprecedented power to kill Americans without due process when they are on foreign soil. Anwar al-Aulaqi was an American by birth and upbringing. He was executed by a drone attack in Yemen on September 30th, 2011. The grounds: suspicion of joining al Qaeda. No evidence of guilt has been presented because Obama has not released it.

It is also clear that the Obama administration is unwilling to explain the details or scope of the President's authority to kill Americans on US soil. At some point, when people consistently and persistently refuse to answer a question with ?no,? a reasonable person realizes the answer is ?yes.?

On March 5th, civil libertarian Glenn Greenwald summed up the situation. ?There is a theoretical framework being built.? It ?posits that the US Government has unlimited power, when it comes to any kind of threats it perceives, to take whatever action against them that it wants without any constraints or limitations of any kind.
_
Wendy McElroy is a frequent Dollar Vigilante contributor and renowned individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder along with Carl Watner and George H. Smith of The Voluntaryist in 1982, and is the author/editor of twelve books, the latest of which is "The Art of Being Free". Follow her work at http://www.wendymcelroy.com.


View the original article here

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Americans Can Be Executed Without Charges -- But Criminal Banks Can't Be Prosecuted


Will Grigg

On the same day that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was filibustering the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA over the nominee?s involvement in lethal drone strikes, Attorney General Eric Holder defended arbitrary power before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As we noted earlier, Holder told the Committee that any Congressional action to restrict the targeted killing program would represent an unconstitutional limitation of presidential powers.

?In the same hearing, Holder said that some corrupt banks are simply too big to prosecute. According to Holder, ?some of these institutions become so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that ? if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. And I do think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.?

In brief: According to Holder, American citizens can be summarily executed without criminal charges, but criminal banks are immune to prosecution.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Only an Incipient 'Terrorist' Denounces State Murder
- Doug Casey: If I Were President
- Private Prisons: The More Americans They Put Behind Bars The More Money They Make
- Obama Can Kill Americans on U.S. Soil Without Due Process?
- The War Against Bradley Manning -- A War Against All Who Speak Out Against Injustice
- Patent "Trolls" are Bad. Patents are Worse.
- Fifteen Benefits of the War on Drugs
- The Will Of The People Doesn't Mean Jack To Drug Warriors

yes they have a creed.and it is all greed,this administration has done a remake of a very good film called paint your wagon.of course they screwed it up or not,but changed the name to paint your out-house. Sounds like the banks in the UK - The taxpayers have bailed these crimminal bakners out - now they are awarding themselves multi million ? in bonuses - Banking appears to be the only industry where failiure is rewarded - any other industry you would be out of a job and probably in prison.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. 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. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Indefinite Detention Without Trial: Completely Unconstitutional, Yet Routine


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs'); by Will Grigg

Seattle residents Matt Duran and Katherine Olejnik have been imprisoned in the SeaTac Federal Detention Center for weeks.

Neither of them has been indicted, arraigned, or even arrested for a crime. They have been imprisoned for civil contempt by a federal prosecutor for refusing to answer personal questions during a secretive grand jury investigation of other people in the Occupy movement.

During her examination by the prosecutor, Olejnik was asked about incidents of vandalism that took place in Seattle last May Day. She wasn?t even in the city on that date. When the prosecutor began showing her photographs of people and inquiring about her political beliefs, Olejnik exercised her constitutionally protected right to remain silent. That is why she was sent to prison on the orders of U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones. Duran?s case is nearly identical. They may remain in prison until the grand jury?s term expires in January 2014.

Duran and Olejnik are political prisoners in every sense of the expression. However, they are not the only Americans who are current being indefinitely detained without criminal charges.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- North Carolina: Driving While Nervous is Not a Crime
- Not So Merry Christmas Drug Busts
- Utah: Traffic Stop Valid Even When Cop Causes Violation
- Santa Claus Arrested by DPS Capitol Police for Chalking Sidewalk
- San Diego Cops Beat & Pepper Spray Innocent Man With Down Syndrome
- Arizona Police Officer Caught Hiding Evidence In His Garage, Lying About It -- Keeps Job
- Denver Police Officer Found Guilty Of Using Badge To Sexually Assaulting Woman
- Charlotte Cop Kills Dog, Nearly Shoots Pregnant Woman

If our "brave men and women in uniform" are "fighting for our freedom" then why is it the Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court are the ones TAKING IT AWAY???

Look like the REAL terrorists are in Washington DC and TelAviv

i don,t agree with occupy ,but i agree less and less with this U.S. government every minute.stick to it kids, and thank you for not submitting. it is true freedom is not free.now you are fighting the good fight.right here at home. as unbelievable as that may sound to many.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. 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. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Thursday, March 22, 2012

The DC Gang: Dictators Without Borders

by Thomas L. Knapp

As an anarchist, I have little use for "national sovereignty" as a political concept. Boiled down, "national sovereignty" is simply the assertion that mutual recognition of turf lines on the part of various overgrown street gangs ("states") is sacrosanct: The writ of the UK's parliament doesn't extend to Missouri, nor are the peasants of Azerbaijan subject to the orders of Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

The funny thing about "national sovereignty" is that its most vociferous defenders don't believe in it either.

Take, for example, US Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

On the one hand, there's Kyl speaking last month at Arizona State University:

"It is time to get reacquainted with our political principles and the reasons why American self-government is preferable to 'sharing' or 'pooling' sovereignty with political forces outside of our Constitution. ... sovereignty is not just an abstract concept. It is a condition for self-government."

While on the other hand, there's Kyl supporting a Senate resolution this month, calling on Iran's government to cease:

"[A]rbitrary detention, torture, and other forms of harassment against media professionals, human rights defenders and activists, and opposition figures, and releasing all individuals detained for exercising universally recognized human rights; lifting legislative restrictions on freedoms of assembly, association, and expression; and allowing the Internet to remain free and open and allowing domestic and international media to operate freely [as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kyl voted in favor of PIPA, the Senate sister of the SOPA Internet censorship bill]."

What happened to those turf lines you cared about so much, Senator? Last time I checked, Iran was not US territory. What business is it of yours how its government conducts itself internally? But for a real eye-opener, let's break that resolution down:

"[A]rbitrary detention, torture" -- like that practiced by the US at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere?

"and other forms of harassment against media professionals" -- like the US government's harassment of Julian Assange, or the US Department of Defense's public threat to murder journalists covering the 2003 invasion of Iraq without permission?

"human rights defenders and activists, and opposition figures, and releasing all individuals detained for exercising universally recognized human rights" -- last time I checked, the US government was still keeping Bradley Manning in a cage.

"lifting legislative restrictions on freedoms of assembly, association, and expression" -- restrictions like the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, which passed in the Senate with "unanimous consent," meaning that Kyl didn't object to it?

"and allowing the Internet to remain free and open and allowing domestic and international media to operate freely" -- as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kyl voted in favor of PIPA, the Senate sister of the SOPA Internet censorship bill.

That's right: Not only does Jon "national sovereignty" Kyl want to draft legislation for Tehran from his office in Washington, he demands that Tehran's governance be far less onerous than the stuff he supports here at home!

He also apparently supports military action by the US and/or Israel to stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons like the US and Israel have (but that Iran doesn't seem to be about to get, or even especially interested in getting).

The sorriest thing of all about this is that I picked Kyl at random. His hypocrisy -- "national sovereignty for DC but not for thee" -- isn't especially remarkable when compared to that of his fellow politicians, nor is Iran the only target.

"National sovereignty" and the turf lines ("borders") it holds sacred are bad ideas in general. They're even worse when politicians demand the benefits of their protection while repudiating the restrictions they impose. Let's just hope that as "national sovereignty" and "borders" disintegrate, the state itself disintegrates with them.
__
Thomas L. Knapp is Senior News Analyst and Media Coordinator at the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org).


View the original article here

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Dutch ISPs Refuse To Block The Pirate Bay Without A Direct Order

by Mike Masnick

While some Dutch ISPs have been ordered by a court to block access to The Pirate Bay (after fighting it in court for years), the order only applied directly to two ISPs: xs4all and Ziggo. BREIN, the local anti-piracy group, had then demanded that other ISPs also start blocking access. However, it appears that KPN and T-Mobile are refusing, saying that they will not do so without a direct court order:

?KPN sees the blocking of websites as a drastic measure for which a court order is required,? KPN said in a statement, adding that innovation is needed to curb piracy.

?KPN doesn?t believe a blockade is the right solution. What is needed are robust, attractive business models that are easy to use and offer a fair deal to both producers and consumers of content.?

T-Mobile also said that it will only respond to court orders, while it emphasized the value of an open Internet.

?T-Mobile strongly supports an open Internet and is fundamentally against shutting off access to websites. Dutch law is very clear when it comes to blocking access to the Internet. T-Mobile will only respond to a court ruling, not to demands from a private party such as BREIN.?

It's good to see that these ISPs are standing up for the right to an open internet. Of course, I do wonder how such block orders work under Netherlands' (first of its kind) net neutrality law.

In the meantime, the two ISPs who were subject to the court order have begun the blockade, with Ziggo pointing users to an information page... in which they tell users that it's easy to get around the blockade.


Latest Resistance
- The Pirate Bay Statement on Prison Sentences: "2012 is the Year of the Storm"
- Australia: Thousands of parents illegally home schooling
- Assange TV on RT: Exclusive interview show coming soon
- Ron Paul: "We Are The Next Generation!"
- Ron Paul Fights Off Bloodthirsty Neocons (And The Media Whores Who Support Them) At The SC FOX Debate
- Austinites Support Antonio Buehler At Austin Public Safety Meeting
- 'League of Legends' Game Makers Come Out Against SOPA
- Reddit Plans To Black Out Site For A Day To Protest SOPA/PIPA

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. 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. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill


View the original article here

Thursday, September 29, 2011

SF students without vaccinations barred from class

Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer

San Francisco -- Some 2,000 San Francisco students who still lacked proof of a whooping cough vaccination one month into the school year were barred from class Thursday and told not to return until they got the shot.

A new state law requires all children in grades seven through 12 to have the vaccine by the first day of school this year, but districts struggling to get families to comply asked for and received a 30-day extension. [...]

Many children receive whooping cough, or pertussis, vaccine as infants. Then after age 7, they typically get a Tdap booster shot, which also includes immunization for tetanus and diphtheria.

[InfoLib Note: Here is where, at the end of the article, the big lie is revealed: There are exemptions for these vaccines, you just need to know how to ask for them.]
For all required immunizations, state law includes an opt-out provision based on medical reasons or personal beliefs. Parents must fill out an exemption form at their children's schools.

Read More


Latest Brave New World
- Tylenol and the War on Drugs: Are you better off dead than high?
- North Carolina Urges Sterilization Victims to Come Forward
- NC school district to give away iPod, laptop to children who participate in vaccination contest
- Govt Paid Millions To Vaccine-Injured Kids
- Vaccine-Autism Researcher Indicted for Fraud
- Fluoride Spill Burns Holes In Cement
- 'As many as 160 prisoners were injected with live cancer cells...'
- The Fluoridation Question Revisited

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. 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. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill


View the original article here

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Activist Convicted of Resisting Arrest Without Violence

Activist Post

Orlando Cop Watch activist, John Kurtz, has been ordered jailed for 30 days with 1 year probation for resisting arrest without violence.

Kurtz's case came to public attention in January after he was arrested for filming a case of police brutality administered at the hands of officer Adam Gruler, well known for his questionable conduct and liberal use of tasers and verbal abuse. Kurtz was facing a possible 6-year prison sentence for his audacity to film a public servant attacking a member of the public even after the person was restrained with handcuffs.

Kurtz's video camera was confiscated after his arrest and mysteriously went missing, destroying a key piece of evidence for his own defense, as well as to document exactly what happened that day. The evidence, therefore, relied upon the words of police officers attached to the event.

Despite the conflicting testimony of these officers -- including the arresting officer Adam Gruler himself saying that John did not resist -- Kurtz was still convicted of resisting his illegal arrest.

The pattern of lawlessness is reaching a fever pitch, as there is now an overt war by police on photojournalists. The use of intimidation, overt brutality, and a permissive court system is now spiraling out of control. Kurtz's case is a clear violation of the 1st and 4th amendments, yet the conviction stands.

Similarly the charge of "resisting arrest" has become a mantra for officers, which is allowing for horrendous acts of police brutality, even of society's most vulnerable. YouTube is filled with examples of people lying face-down, cuffed, kneeled upon and pummeled as officers continue to shout "stop resisting!" This is done not only as a show of power, but it also reinforces the legal justification for their behavior and is intended to lead to convictions like those of John Kurtz. The result has a chilling effect on anti-police state activists, as well as photojournalists in general.

Please take action and call Judge Alan S. Apte, Orlando Police Department, and the Orange County Jail. Let them know that caging peaceful people will not be tolerated by the general public.

Circuit Judge Alan S. Apte

Address: 425 N Orange Ave, Courtroom 18A, Orlando, FL 32801

Office: 407-836-0535

Judicial Assistant: Hale

Hale?s Email Address: ctjajh2@ocnjcc.org

Chief Judge Belvin Perry

Address: 425 N Orange Ave, Courtroom 19D, Orlando, FL 32801

Office: 407-836-2008

Judicial Assistant: Gay

Orlando Police Department Headquarters

Address: 100 South Hughey Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801-2501

Non-Emergency Complaint Desk: 321-235-5300

Information Desk: 407-246-2470

Community Relations: 407-246-2461

Orange County Corrections Jail Facilities

Address: P.O. Box 4970, Orlando, FL 32802

Phone: 407-836-3400

Source for this article: Orlando Cop Watch


View the original article here

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

The Kind of "Public Service" We Can Do Without

by David S. D'Amato

In a column for the Huffington Post on Monday, June 13, 2011, Columbia University's Steven Cohen asserts that "every American should be frightened by the profound and intensifying attack on government and public service." Cohen submits a vision of the United States very close to an antithesis of the one that actually exists, his alternative universe being a place where the state has been trivialized in favor of "the free market."

Cohen's utopia would apparently be a place where the government and giant corporations work hand in glove, their alliance driven by a vaguely parental "passion for public service." His major assumptions, then, are twofold: That public services cannot be provided but through hierarchy and violent monopolization, and that violent monopolists have every interest in serving the public. Well, on both counts, Cohen couldn't be more wrong.

He writes that "[c]apitalists are starting to understand that mass poverty and unemployment is politically destabilizing," but they have always understood this. Because the economic system of Big Business and Big Government has been so deftly efficient at bleeding working people dry, the ruling class has found it expedient to assemble a welfare framework.

Their bureaucracy for "public assistance," though, whatever its appearance, is grounded not in the humanity or benevolence of the elite, but in their shrewd calculations. As in Tolstoy's famous parable, the farmers are eventually "afraid that the cows may cease to yield milk," and so "they invent various means of improving the condition of these cows."

For the total state's "helping professions," public service consists in condescendingly rounding up and corralling those that need to be "helped," so that their lives can be strictly regimented and overseen. The absolute best thing that the state could do for the poor -- the one thing that would truly change their posture on a fundamental level -- is the one that is never broached in "respectable," mainstream debate. Under no circumstances is it considered that we might, returning to Tolstoy's allegorical farm, "take down the fence and grant the cows their natural freedom."

As a practical matter, the "proper balance" between commercial interests on the one hand and the state on the other has been no balance at all. Whereas "balance" implies a trade-off between two poles or sides of a scale, the interests of state and corporate power are one and the same. Indeed, to suggest even that they can be differentiated in the prevailing economic system is absurd, ignoring the pervasive coercion that runs through it at every level.

Cohen's version of "public service" is no more than a mantra invoked to glorify the sweeping, anti-competitive affronts against a true free market that the state institutes to profit the rich. The state-corporate projects Cohen fawningly praises are the sorts of things that require eminent domain land-grabs for new Pfizer complexes; his darling infrastructure investments are the ruin of the spontaneous order of a market freed from state intervention -- the kind of market that could open doors for America's least fortunate.

Quite contrary to the fretful contentions of the Earth Institute's Executive Director, neither an "attack on public service" nor even a faint disapproval of its underlying values is prevailing in Washington. The public-private collusion Cohen is so enamored of, rather than retrenching, has left room for "the free market" of his nightmares only at the narrowest margins of economic life. Market anarchism would restore peaceful trade and association to its proper place within society, turning social services over to the forces inherent in genuine community.

Having confused American state capitalism with the free market, Cohen accepts (completely uncritically) the asinine folk tale that, in our current economy, there is some kind of bright line dividing "the private and the public sectors." He doesn't seem to notice that, far from advocating anything remotely close to a true free market, the "capitalists" he refers to have persistently been at the forefront of calls for "the mix of public and private roles."

Cohen's program of faux "public service" has won the day -- has allowed huge, bureaucratic corporations and government agencies to crowd out or completely preclude competitors and to dominate our lives. Instead of cheerleading for more of the same, genuine public service would mean unshackling voluntary cooperation and exchange, allowing communities themselves to decide how to help themselves.

Market anarchists contend that absent state monopolization -- and its real-world effect of creating scarcities to enrich the well-connected -- everything from utilities to aid for the poor would witness vast improvements. While Cohen would aggrandize the authoritarian institutions that have decimated the economy, market anarchists would empower individuals to work together to solve, rather than create, society's problems.
__
C4SS News Analyst David S. D'Amato is a market anarchist and a lawyer with an LL.M. in International Law and Business. His aversion to superstition and all permutations of political authority manifests itself at www.firsttruths.com.


Latest Commentary
- War on Terror Is Bad for Economy
- 9/11 and the Orwellian Redefinition of "Conspiracy Theory"
- The War on Immigrants, Farmers, and Consumers
- When the State Breaks a Man
- New York Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof: The Military as Socialist Model for America
- From Farm to Zoning Official
- The Persecution of Juan Cole
- Imperial Inanity

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. 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. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill


View the original article here