Google Search

Showing posts with label claims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label claims. Show all posts

Friday, December 6, 2013

Lawyer For Cop Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Claims Officer Didn't Use ENOUGH Force


by Tim Cushing

The trial for two of the three Fullerton police officers charged in the beating death of mentally ill homeless man, Kelly Thomas, has begun. Manuel Ramos, the officer who first approached Kelly Thomas and delivered most of the damage, is facing charges of second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Officer Jay Ciccinelli, who arrived on the scene moments later, is facing charges of involuntary manslaughter and use of excessive force.

Ramos' lawyer, John Barnett, sought to have charges against his client dropped last year, claiming the 10-minute-long ordeal that Thomas suffered through before lapsing into a coma (first, attempting to tell officers he couldn't breathe and, towards the end, crying out for his father) was a direct result of Thomas' reluctance to be further hassled by the officer.
When a "recalcitrant" Thomas did not comply, Ramos was entitled to use force and the threat of force to complete his arrest, Barnett contended in his 80-page motion.

"Rather than use actual force, Officer Ramos employed a lawful, conditional threat, to use force," he wrote. "The death of Kelly Thomas was not the natural and probable consequence of that lawful threat."

The recording shows Ramos relied almost exclusively on "force" rather than the "threat of force." As mentioned earlier, Ramos approached a seated Thomas before the beating commenced and said, "You see these fists? They are getting ready to fuck you up." That, I suppose, would be considered a "threat of force." Ramos wasn't kidding. His fists, along with his nightstick and additional abuse from a handful of other officers, completely "fucked up" Kelly Thomas, leaving him in an irreversible coma. Jay Cicinelli contributed in his own way, beating Thomas' face with the butt end of his Taser. (Cicinelli is captured on Ramos' mic stating that he "smashed [Thomas'] face to hell.")

[You can go to this link to see a picture taken by Thomas' father after his son's arrival at the hospital -- but we warn you that it's gruesome.]

There's really no questioning what happened. Security camera footage, synched to Ramos' mic, paints a brutally clear picture of how much Thomas went through before his body and mind gave out. Even the coroner's report notes the death wasn't accidental, listing "mechanical suppression of the thorax" as the cause of death. [The recording is 33 minutes long. The "altercation" begins about 15 minutes in. Five minutes later, there are six officers restraining Thomas. Warning: video, especially Thomas' anguished screams, is Not Safe For Life.]

John Barnett is still defending Officer Ramos. He's decided to top his earlier claims that the officer's actions were lawful and appropriate.

Ramos? attorney? told jurors that the officers who beat Thomas on a summer night in 2011 not only didn?t use excessive force in the incident, they ?weren?t using enough force.?

The officers were forced to call for backup because they could not subdue an out-of-control Thomas, John Barnett said. ?They?re losing the fight,? Barnett said.

Watch that tape again (or for the first time) and see whether it appears the cops are "losing the battle." Thomas, who weighed 135 pounds, was subdued by six Fullerton officers. The recording clearly captures him telling officers he can't breathe. Thomas was homeless and suffered from schizophrenia. While he wasn't cooperative with Ramos' instructions before he was beaten, he was still pretty far from being a threat. Last year, Barnett claimed the force was "appropriate." Now, he claims it was "too little." Officer Ramos apparently has no idea how to deploy an appropriate amount of force, despite his training.

Barnett continues:

?This case is not about a homeless, helpless, harmless mentally ill guy, this case is about a man who made choices in his life, bad choices that led to his tragic death,? Barnett said.
No one's arrest should end in death -- no matter what "choices" they've made -- not when six officers are looking to control one person. And for Barnett to claim that somehow choices the mentally ill Thomas made earlier in his life contributed to his death is not only disingenuous, it's genuinely sickening. If that's the case, then bad choices made by Officers Ramos and Cicinelli in their lives led to them being charged with manslaughter and murder.

This isn't about Kelly Thomas' life choices. This is about the choices made by a handful of officers -- choices that resulted in the death of a man whose life, what there was of it, came to a sudden halt because he ran into Officer Ramos and his backup.


(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
- "If We Have To Get A Warrant... We're Gonna Shoot & Kill Your Dogs... Ransack Your House"
- CPS Nabs Teenager Because She Was Hanging Out With Black People
- Pentagon Changes Drone Strike Rules To Permit Bombing Civilians
- Around Here, We Don't Call Internal Affairs
- Does Politeness Constitute Probable Cause?
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- The Sadistic Profligacy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio
- NYPD Cop Arrested For Extorting Restaurant Owner

If that was my kid those fuckers would be shiting into bags and eating thru straws or fucking worse and to include them rat fuck lawyers for the the fucking pigs. If I recall correctly, when the cop killed Tarika Wilson, because his comrades shot the dog on the backyard so he thought it's him being shot at, some either attorney, or expert, also testified that cop's only mistake was that he shot not fast enough.

The priority of officer's safety is not just higher than the life of a civilian; it completely wipes the latter out of consideration.

This defense attorney is a scumbag. He needs to be exposed for the POS he andhisclient really are. Retribution against the pig nation is coming... shows the true mentality of many cops and the cop suckers who call them heros which a very few are as most are just zeros proffesionally and personally. sad state of affairs. people actually call these scum fuck assholes heros. what is wrong with americans? completely brainwashed and unable to think for themselves. Jail is to good for these assholes.

time to step America and take your country back from the Nazis.

This scenario is repeated by police 1000's of times across the landscape of America. Usually the costumed criminals are rewarded with a paid vacation, and unless a camera catches them in the act of murder and assault, their crimes go unpunished. Don't be fooled by this sacrificial arrest and charges. More often than not, police either get off entirely or receive only a small reprimand. These cocksuckers found a vulnerable young man on the street and murdered him. They should be electrocuted to death, slowly, in full public view. And those other officers who helped them should be fired, indicted, arrested, tried and sentenced to prison for accessory to murder. too bad Hammurabi's laws aren't still in effect, eye for an eye, death for death..

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, January 21, 2013

Former Marine claims military vaccines gave him brain damage


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 Marcy Martinez

Justin Gerhardt had high hopes for himself.

"I was really interested in becoming a Marine Corps officer. It's something I always wanted to do since I was a child."

[...]After graduating college he was determined to become an officer in the US Marines, but during officer candidate school everything changed.

"I was given 7 vaccinations and I got sick. I had a fever and could barely tie my boots. I had a seizure."

At 23, Justin's officer dreams were cut short as he was rushed to the hospital in Bethesda for symptoms he claims were caused by the vaccines administered.

"I have brain damage."

5 years later Justin is considered 90 percent disabled and cannot work.

Read More


(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 Brave New World
- Our Masters See Us As Cattle -- Or Guinea Pigs
- Veteran Class Certified in Drug 'Guinea Pig' Case
- NJ Attempts to Strip Parental Rights with Vaccine Anti-Exemption Bill
- UC Professor Eyes Permanent Sterilant To Cull US Population
- Portland, Oregon to spend $5 million to poison its residents with toxic fluoride
- Did Merck's Gardasil Vaccine Kill a 3 Year-Old Toddler?
- Dr. Drew Pinsky cashed in on drug company money: Is your doctor on the take?
- Donald Trump Thinks Autism & Vaccines Linked

I believe it, I believe the vaccines I received gave me a slight bit of autism too!

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

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Wall Street Editorial Page: If the Government Claims You Are a Terrorist, Then You ARE a Terrorist



by Bill Anderson

The "War on Terror" has become a sickness. Abroad, the U.S. Armed Forces either commit acts of war in small, defenseless countries or they are engaged in dirty wars of occupation, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Drone strikes kill innocents and now the government has decided that Americans are so evil that they, too, need to feel the full force of the drone.

Cheering on every lie and abuse has been the neocon (emphasis on "con") Wall Street Journal editorial page and today we see the Journal's viewpoint in all its evil: the government should not have to face any restrictions at all when it comes to pursuing what it calls "terrorists." On top of that, the Journal goes on to lambast those few "Tea Party" Republicans who have the audacity to question the abuses of the FBI, the CIA, and the Armed Forces. The editorial states:

A week ago the world learned of another foiled airplane bombing attack by the Yemeni offshoot of al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden's successors are desperate to strike the U.S. again, which isn't news to most Americans but seems to elude some Members of Congress.

As early as Thursday, the House is due to vote on a measure that effectively declares the war on terror over in the U.S. and dismantles the legal architecture that has protected the homeland since 9/11. Any wonder Americans have so little respect for Congress? Or the Constitution has Presidents run the nation's wars?

The newest "foiled" attempt was yet another CIA "false flag" operation, but the WSJ wants us to believe that the brave U.S. Government agents, using their vast intelligence network that was gained through waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" methods that in reality have produced nothing but hot air and lies at home, not to mention hatred of the USA by people abroad. But the editorial gets even better:
Adam Smith, a Washington State Democrat, and Michigan Republican and tea partier Justin Amash want to bar the U.S. military from capturing, detaining or interrogating any terrorist of any nationality captured on American soil. Their proposed amendment to next year's defense authorization bill more or less revokes the legal authority granted by Congress a week after 9/11 to fight terrorists on every front.

What this means in practice is that if al Qaeda big Ayman al-Zawahiri and his soldiers are captured overseas (say, in Pakistan), they can be detained by the military, interrogated, and dispatched to wherever the Commander in Chief decides. But if they happen to make it to the U.S., they will have to be handled like your neighborhood burglar. That means being read their Miranda rights, handed over to the local police and put before a civilian judge. The military or CIA couldn't question them to learn about future plots.

This is a bizarre distinction, as if America is not somehow part of the global terror battlefield. Try to explain that to the al Qaeda bombmakers in Yemen, or the residents of downtown Manhattan. The amendment would essentially reward al Qaeda operatives with better treatment for having the wit to get out of their caves and sneak into America to blow up civilians in shopping malls.

If this is not delusional thinking, then delusion is nonexistent. The only true "organized" terror "plots" in this country since 9/11 have been FBI or CIA-inspired "false flag" actions that were orchestrated and led by government agents. That includes the first "underwear bomber" action and the latest howler, the attempt to blow up a bridge near Cleveland, Ohio, by a gang that on their own probably could not blow up its own bongs.

But the neocon Journal is not done, as the editors include this lament:

The tragedy here is that the political battles over terrorist detention were finally calming down. The anti-antiterror left waged war against President George W. Bush for refusing to treat illegal enemy combatants the same as common criminals, but President Obama has adopted much of the same legal framework. Now a misguided wing of the tea party is giving political cover to the left to revive this fight and confuse the American public with overblown fears that the government can arrest anyone for anything and hold him forever.
Yes, yes, Barack Obama is a hardcore civil libertarian who respects the rights of everyone, including terrorists. Yeah, that truly is an example of "I'll believe it when I see it," given the legal abuses Obama and his hatchet-man Eric Holder have fomented. As much as anything, this editorial exposes the neocons' desire to essentially turn this country into a military dictatorship in which executive power is absolute and when government claims someone is a "terrorist," that person disappears, a country where no accused person is innocent.

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Citizen Video Evidence Helps Two Arrested Photographers Have Their Cases Dropped
- All-White Jury Acquits Houston Ex-Police Officer in Videotaped Beating of Black Teen Chad Holley
- DEA Terrorists Gun Down Two Pregnant Women & Other Innocents From Safety Of Helicopter
- 74-Yr-Old Calls Police After Being Beaten In His Home, Police Show Up, Arrest Him & Throw Him In Jail
- If Cops Can't Taze a Pregnant Woman, The Terrorists Will Win
- Regular Patrol Cops To Get "Ballistic Shields" In Florida
- Armed 'Environmental Police' Shut Down Ice-Cream Stand
- Terrified 12-Year-Old Put In Jail by Mistake

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

Friday, February 24, 2012

UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims

by Mike Masnick

Last year, we wrote about how the UK was following in the footsteps of the US's Homeland Security/ICE domain seizures. As we noted, the process there is even less rigorous than in the US -- often without a court being involved at all. Law enforcement just had to ask, and Nominet would take down the domain. Still, we hadn't heard about any specific domains that were seized -- and we hadn't heard of any non-Nominet (which handle .co.uk domains) being subject to UK claims.

Until now.

Dajaz1 -- who, of course, had its own issues with bogus domain seizures -- has a story up about how the site rnbxclusive.com appears to have been seized via UK law enforcement, who put up a splash page even more ridiculous (though with fewer eagles) than the ICE splash page:

The site, like many music blogs, did post various videos and commentary about new music. Perhaps some were infringing, but you'd think that there would be a trial first. This takedown is apparently happening via SOCA, the Serious Organized Crime Agency in the UK -- who, amusingly, puts a copyright symbol on their takedown splash page. There are all sorts of issues to be raised here.

First and foremost, as mentioned, this is the first time we've heard of a foreign country seizing a .com -- which the US DOJ/DHS appear to claim as their own jurisdiction. While perhaps this was done in concert with US law enforcement, it seems pretty questionable that the US would allow what they insist are "domestic" domains to be seized by foreign countries. Think of the precedent that sets for... say... Iran. The operators of the site appear to have been in the UK, so that may be the reasoning behind this, but it still raises significant jurisdictional questions about just who can seize a .com. Second, the big red warning at the top is insane. Merely downloading music wouldn't be a criminal offense with a possibility of 10 years imprisonment. While I'm not as familiar with the differences between civil and criminal infringement when it comes to UK copyright law, I believe it's not that different than the US, where merely downloading is going to be civil, not criminal. A quick review of UK law suggests that it can only be a criminal issue if it's done at commercial scale, and doesn't seem to apply at all to personal downloads. In fact, the UK explicitly fought the idea of expanding criminal sanctions to file sharing. So, SOCA is basically lying. Next, the splash page claims that the music was "stolen" from artists. While the copies may be infringing, it's doubtful that the music was literally stolen. The scare tactic of displaying your IP address and pretending that this suggests they're coming after any visitor to the site. This is, again, insane. The RIAA tried this years ago when it got the Grokster site and it was just as silly then as it is now. Merely visiting a site is not breaking the law, and splashing your IP address next to a message suggesting visitors are about to be put in jail is insane hyperbole. Further, claiming that SOCA has the ability to "monitor" you is also an exaggeration. While it may be able to monitor certain transactions, it seems to be implying that it's watching your every move. Claiming that "young, emerging artists may have had their careers damaged" because of this site is pretty silly. Most young, emerging artists are actively leaking their works to such sites so they can emerge. They know that obscurity is a much bigger threat than piracy ever was or will be. Saying that downloading music means you have (absolutley) "damaged the future of the music industry" is again insane hyperbole. The music industry has continued to grow pretty consistently over the past decade. It's just one segment -- the direct sales of music -- that has stumbled, and that was the part that rarely pays artists very much anyway.
This whole thing is pretty crazy, and I'm surprised such blatant censorship by UK law enforcement of a "US" domain hasn't received more attention yet.

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Presenting PreCheck: Fascist and Furious
- Cyberwar Is the New Yellowcake
- Prepper Declared "Mentally Defective," Put On FBI List
- Crazy Anti-Drug Ad Tells Kids to Do Parkour Instead of Drugs
- Justice Department Wants $5 Million To Bolster Its Efforts As Hollywood's Private Police Force
- Dawn of the Drones: The Realization of the Total Surveillance State
- Flying the Fascist Skies
- TSA Forces Woman To Use Naked Body Scanner Three Times Because of "Cute" Figure

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, February 5, 2012

US regime claims to have killed Osama bin Laden

The US government claims to have killed the leader of Al-Qaeda today. A profoundly mysterious official enemy is now, allegedly, dead.

What a shame they could not capture and put the man on trial, if there was sufficient evidence to secure a lawful conviction. Instead, the world's most powerful state murdered bin Laden in an extrajudicial killing -- he was killed by a gunshot to the head (consistent with a professional assassination).

A trial, no matter how problematic, could have proved whether or not he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, while providing answers to questions raised by the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. A trial would also have demonstrated that the US retains the moral high-ground. Unfortunately neither of these things have been achieved by shooting bin Laden in the head, silencing him forever.

Many people around the world, including ordinary citizens, senior officials in US and allied governments, and prominent commentators the mass media, are declaring this "justice". The majority of people in the West seem to agree, evidently having had have had their sense of "justice" eroded to the point where they are satisfied with a trial by media. Those proclaiming "justice" are in effect accepting that if politicians and the mass media say somebody is guilty, that person must therefore be guilty, and as long as the right people say so no trial is necessary to properly scrutinise the facts.

Not everybody feels comfortable with the images of Americans cheering and waving flags in the streets, chanting "USA". They are celebrating an event which seems to warrant a more sobre reaction. An unarmed old man was killed by a unit of heavily-armed Navy Seals with air support. He was seen by many as a terrorist, and by others as a freedom-fighter standing-up to invincible enemies. He was killed in his home which looked more like a prison than a fortress.

In 2001, the 11 September attacks were cited as the single official reason for invading Afghanistan. American and British officials claimed that the government of Afghanistan was "harboring" bin Laden, but logic dictates that there was no specific evidence for this -- because of course apparently nobody knew where he was located. In reality, most of the alleged 9/11 attackers were nationals of Saudi Arabia. Now we are informed that bin Laden was located in Pakistan, so when is the invasion? Such blatant double-standards are symptomatic of false reasons being cited to justify what can accurately be described as illegal military operations with self-evident imperial objectives.

Al-Qaeda ("The Base") was created by the CIA in Afghanistan in the 1970s during the Cold War. Since 2001, Osama bin Laden has been a bogey-man figure, pointed to by politicians and the mass media while targets in the "War on Terror" shifted from place to place.

SOURCE

Osama bin Laden Killed: 'Justice Is Done,' President Says
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed/story?id=13505703

BACKGROUND

CIA created al-Qaeda and gave $3 BILLION to Osama bin Laden
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0228

The truth about the US conquest of Afghanistan
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp

FURTHER READING

Osama bin Laden corpse photo is fake
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-photo-fake

"The Insider" mailing list article, 02 May 2011.


View the original article here

Friday, October 28, 2011

Iran: U.S. plot allegations resemble Iraq WMD claims

By Robin Pomeroy

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday U.S. allegations of an Iranian assassination plot resembled its claims of weapons of mass destruction that formed the basis for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and would prove to be equally untrue.

Ahmadinejad said Washington had fabricated the plot of an Iranian seeking to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington in order to cause a rift between Tehran and Saudi Arabia and dominate the oil-rich Gulf.

"In the past the U.S. administration claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They said it so strongly, they offered and presented documentations and everyone said 'yes, we believe in you, we buy it'," Ahmadinejad said in a live interview on Al Jazeera television.

"Now is everyone asking them, were those claims true? Did they find any weapon of mass destruction in Iraq? They fabricated a bunch of papers. Is that a difficult thing to do?

"The truth will be revealed ultimately and there will be no problem for us at that time," Ahmadinejad said.

Read More


Latest Cover-Up/Deceptions
- US refused to hand over information on alleged plot, Iran says
- Assassination Plot Was Pushed By DEA Informant
- Iranian Terror "Mastermind" Described as Drunk, Pothead, Hooker Frequenting "Joke"
- No Direct Evidence of Iranian Government Complicity in Plot
- The "very scary" Iranian Terror plot
- Officials concede gaps in U.S. knowledge of Iran plot
- U.S. Accusations of Iran Plot Face Skepticism
- Judge Nap Accuses AG Holder Of Using Iran Assassination Plot To Distract From Fast & Furious Scandal

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

Saturday, August 27, 2011

US regime claims to have killed Osama bin Laden

The US government claims to have killed the leader of Al-Qaeda today. A profoundly mysterious official enemy is now, allegedly, dead.

What a shame they could not capture and put the man on trial, if there was sufficient evidence to secure a lawful conviction. Instead, the world's most powerful state murdered bin Laden in an extrajudicial killing -- he was killed by a gunshot to the head (consistent with a professional assassination).

A trial, no matter how problematic, could have proved whether or not he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, while providing answers to questions raised by the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. A trial would also have demonstrated that the US retains the moral high-ground. Unfortunately neither of these things have been achieved by shooting bin Laden in the head, silencing him forever.

Many people around the world, including ordinary citizens, senior officials in US and allied governments, and prominent commentators the mass media, are declaring this "justice". The majority of people in the West seem to agree, evidently having had have had their sense of "justice" eroded to the point where they are satisfied with a trial by media. Those proclaiming "justice" are in effect accepting that if politicians and the mass media say somebody is guilty, that person must therefore be guilty, and as long as the right people say so no trial is necessary to properly scrutinise the facts.

Not everybody feels comfortable with the images of Americans cheering and waving flags in the streets, chanting "USA". They are celebrating an event which seems to warrant a more sobre reaction. An unarmed old man was killed by a unit of heavily-armed Navy Seals with air support. He was seen by many as a terrorist, and by others as a freedom-fighter standing-up to invincible enemies. He was killed in his home which looked more like a prison than a fortress.

In 2001, the 11 September attacks were cited as the single official reason for invading Afghanistan. American and British officials claimed that the government of Afghanistan was "harboring" bin Laden, but logic dictates that there was no specific evidence for this -- because of course apparently nobody knew where he was located. In reality, most of the alleged 9/11 attackers were nationals of Saudi Arabia. Now we are informed that bin Laden was located in Pakistan, so when is the invasion? Such blatant double-standards are symptomatic of false reasons being cited to justify what can accurately be described as illegal military operations with self-evident imperial objectives.

Al-Qaeda ("The Base") was created by the CIA in Afghanistan in the 1970s during the Cold War. Since 2001, Osama bin Laden has been a bogey-man figure, pointed to by politicians and the mass media while targets in the "War on Terror" shifted from place to place.

SOURCE

Osama bin Laden Killed: 'Justice Is Done,' President Says
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed/story?id=13505703

BACKGROUND

CIA created al-Qaeda and gave $3 BILLION to Osama bin Laden
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0228

The truth about the US conquest of Afghanistan
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp

FURTHER READING

Osama bin Laden corpse photo is fake
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-photo-fake

"The Insider" mailing list article, 02 May 2011.


View the original article here