Gisteren was het 50 jaar geleden dat één van de grootste gitaristen van de twintigste eeuw overleed…….
Het is gezien een groot aantal feiten wel duidelijk dat Jimi zich niet had gesuïcideerd en de verdenking dat hij werd vermoord werd wel bevestigd door de autopsie op zijn lichaam, men beweerde dat hij was gestikt in zijn braaksel, een gevolg van ‘comadrinken’, echter in zijn bloed werd 20 milligram alcohol gevonden, een geringe hoeveelheid die veel groter zou zijn bij iemand die zich laveloos had gedronken….. Zijn longen en maag zaten vol met rode wijn, ofwel Jimi werd verdronken in de rode wijn……. Als Jimi zich had willen suïcideren had hij genoeg vesparax op zak om zich zo het leven te benemen…… Voor meer details over de dood van Jimi en de daders zie: ‘De mysterieuze dood van Jimi Hendrix: een moord in opdracht‘
Jimi Hendrix | The Last 24 Hours (ook in deze video feiten over de moord op Jimi):
Op vele manieren heeft men in documentaires geprobeerd de dood van Jimi te wijten aan suïcide……
Jimi leefde voor zijn muziek, wat wel blijkt uit het feit dat hij links- en rechtshandige gitaren kon bespelen en dat ook nog middels het verkeerd vasthouden van de gitaar, overigens kon Jimi ook de bas spelen en ook dat weer aangevuld met deze vreemde manieren van spelen…..
Jimi stays alive forever!
Update: mijn excuus, dit bericht te snel geplaatst, heb een aantal uren later de tekst enigszins aangepast.
Craig
John Murray, historicus, voormalig ambassadeur van Groot-Brittannië
en mensenrechtenactivist, volgt het proces tegen Assange en doet daar
verslag van op zijn internetsite.
Craig John Murray
In een
uitvoerig schrijven doet hij verlag van het proces in de Old Bailey,
waar hij in het begin m.i. Iets teveel ingaat op het gebouw en haar
geschiedenis.
Het
schrijven geeft aan dat er van een onafhankelijke en transparante
rechtspraak geen sprake is in deze zaak, zo worden door de verdediging
aangevoerde getuigen niet gehoord, dat is volgens de rechter niet
nodig daar ze al een schriftelijke verklaring hebben gegeven……
Schandalig uiteraard, immers zo’n verklaring op schrift is altijd
beknopt en het is dan ook zaak dat iedereen mag weten wat deze
getuigen nog meer te zeggen hebben…… De rechter was zo zot om te
beweren dat justitie is gebaat bij de meer dan belachelijke
en beperkende maatregelen die zijn genomen…. Alsof je zegt dat een eerlijk proces
is gebaat bij afwezigheid van de advocaat van de verdachte……
De
rechter durft zelfs te stellen dat wanneer getuigen een mondelinge
verklaring afleggen, de kans groot is dat er nieuwe feiten boven
tafel komen en dat dit niet in het belang is van een eerlijk
proces…….. Eventueel nieuw aangevoerde feiten zijn juist van belang voor Assange en komen daarnaast ook de transparantie van het proces voor het publiek ten goede…… Hoe is het gvd mogelijk??!!!
Daarover
gesproken, transparantie en het recht van het volk om te weten hoe
het proces verloopt, wordt ernstig schade aangedaan daar er vanwege
het Coronavirus maar weinig mensen in de zaal mogen aanschuiven en
moeten Murray en anderen het in een ander zaaltje doen, waar men NB
naast elkaar mag zitten, als is er ‘na elke rij’ één rij leeg…..
Daar moet men op een klein scherm proberen te horen wat er wordt
gezegd, iets dat moeilijk is daar het geluid zo slecht is dat John
Pilger, filmmaker en onderzoeksjournalist, de ruimte al snel verliet…….
Waarom
is er voor zo’n groot proces een zo kleine zaal uitgekozen? Juist, om
de beperkende maatregelen te kunnen legitimeren die de rechter
aanvoert……
Het
voorgaande is nog maar het puntje van de spreekwoordelijke ijsberg, wat (nogmaals)
aangeeft dat er van een eerlijk proces geen sprake is en kan zijn (al moet ik
zeggen dat het tegenovergestelde me enorm zou hebben
verbaasd…..)…..
Het smerige spel van de VS over de uitlevering van Assange is ook een vuig stuk werk dat tijdens het spel gewoon wordt aangepast met andere zogenaamde criminele daden van Assange, je gelooft je ogen niet….. (en dan durven te stllen dat mondelinge getuigenissen ongewenste nieuwe feiten kunnen opleveren…..) Men durft commentaar te leveren op rechtszaken in China, terwijl het Kafkiaanse gehalte van dit proces een heel stuk groter is dan processen daar en vergeet daarbij niet dat Groot-Brittannië en de VS zich in tegenstelling tot China voordoen als democratische rechtsstaten!!
Lees het
geheel en zie de video onder het artikel van Information Clearing
House. Geeft het door mensen, tijd dat de wereld zich het vreselijk
lot van Assange aantrekt, dat andere journalisten eindelijk erkennen
dat ze fout zitten met de door hen gevoerde aanvallen op Assange, die
de waarheid heeft verteld over o.a. het uiterst agressieve optreden
(grootschalige terreur) van de VS over de wereld en daarbij niemand maar dan ook helemaal
niemand in gevaar heeft gebracht…..
Assange heeft in tegenstelling
tot de meeste van zijn collega’s zijn werk wel gedaan, zonder zich te
verlaten op misleidende informatie van neoliberale regeringen, regeringen die samen met de VS
illegale oorlogen voerden en voeren op basis van door geheime
diensten aangeleverde leugens, die met grote graagte werden herhaald
door de ‘collega’s van Assange….’ (bewijzen te over: vele meters
aan dossiers!!)
Beste
bezoeker het is een lang artikel, maar lees het, Murray is een goede schrijver, is bij tijd en wijle uiterst sarcastisch (op een humoristische manier), kortom meer dan de moeite
waard!! Onder het artikel nog een uiterst lollige video van een paar mninuten, zien! (onder het artikel kan je klikken voor een Nederlandse [Dutch] vertaling, dit neemt enkele tientallen seconden tijd in
beslag):
The
Assange Hearing Day 6: Your Man in the Public Gallery
By
Craig John Murray
September 08, 2020
“Information
Clearing House”
– I went to the Old Bailey today expecting to be awed by the majesty
of the law, and left revolted by the sordid administration of
injustice.
There is a romance
which attaches to the Old Bailey. The name of course means fortified
enclosure and it occupies a millennia old footprint on the edge of
London’s ancient city wall.
It is the site of the medieval Newgate
Prison, and formal trials have taken place at the Old Bailey for at
least 500 years, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. For the
majority of that time, those convicted even of minor offences of
theft were taken out and executed in the alleyway outside. It is
believed that hundreds, perhaps thousands, lie buried under the
pavements.
The hefty Gothic
architecture of the current grand building dates back no further than
1905, and round the back and sides of that is wrapped some horrible
cheap utility building from the 1930’s. It was through a tunnelled
entrance into this portion that five of us, Julian’s nominated
family and friends, made our nervous way this morning. We were shown
to Court 10 up many stairs that seemed like the back entrance to a
particularly unloved works canteen. Tiles were chipped, walls were
filthy and flakes of paint hung down from crumbling ceilings. Only
the security cameras watching us were new – so new, in fact, that
little piles of plaster and brick dust lay under each.
Court 10 appeared to
be a fairly bright and open modern box, with pleasant light woodwork,
jammed as a mezzanine inside a great vault of the old building. A
massive arch intruded incongruously into the space and was obviously
damp, sheets of delaminating white paint drooping down from it like
flags of forlorn surrender. The dock in which Julian would be held
still had a bulletproof glass screen in front, like Belmarsh, but it
was not boxed in. There was no top to the screen, no low ceiling, so
sound could flow freely over and Julian seemed much more in the
court. It also had many more and wider slits than the notorious
Belmarsh Box, and Julian was able to communicate quite readily and
freely through them with his lawyers, which this time he was not
prevented from doing.
Rather to our
surprise, nobody else was allowed into the public gallery of court 10
but us five. Others like John Pilger and Kristin Hrafnsson, editor in
chief of Wikileaks, were shunted into the adjacent court 9 where a
very small number were permitted to squint at a tiny screen, on which
the sound was so inaudible John Pilger simply left. Many others who
had expected to attend, such as Amnesty International and Reporters
Without Borders (RSF), were simply excluded, as were MPs from the German
federal parliament (both the German MPs and Reporters Without Borders
at least later got access to the inadequate video following strong
representations from the German Embassy).
The reason given that
only five of us were allowed in the public gallery of some 40 seats
was social distancing; except we were allowed to all sit together in
consecutive seats in the front row. The two rows behind us remained
completely empty.
To finish scene
setting, Julian himself looked tidy and well groomed and dressed, and
appeared to have regained a little lost weight, but with a definite
unhealthy puffiness about his features. In the morning he appeared
disengaged and disoriented rather as he had at Belmarsh, but in the
afternoon he perked up and was very much engaged with his defence
team, interacting as normally as could be expected in these
circumstances.
Proceedings started
with formalities related to Julian’s release on the old extradition
warrant and re-arrest under the new warrant, which had taken place
this morning. Defence and prosecution both agreed that the points
they had already argued on the ban on extradition for political
offences were not affected by the superseding indictment.
Magistrate Baraitser
then made a statement about access to the court by remote hearing, by
which she meant online. She stated that a number of access details
had been sent out by mistake by the court without her agreement. She
had therefore revoked their access permissions.
As she spoke, we in
the court had no idea what had happened, but outside some
consternation was underway in that the online access of Amnesty
International, of Reporters without Borders, of John Pilger and of
forty others had been shut down. As these people were neither
permitted to attend the court nor observe online, this was causing
some consternation.
Baraitser went on to
say that it was important that the hearing was public, but she should
only agree remote access where it was “in the interests of
justice”, and having considered it she had decided it was not. She
explained this by stating that the public could normally observe from
within the courtroom, where she could control their behaviour. But if
they had remote access, she could not control their behaviour and
this was not in the “interests of justice”.
Baraitser did not
expand on what uncontrolled behaviour she anticipated from those
viewing via the internet. It is certainly true that an observer from
Amnesty sitting at home might be in their underwear, might be humming
the complete soundtrack to Mamma Mia, or might fart loudly. Precisely
why this would damage “the interests of justice” we are still
left to ponder, with no further help from the magistrate. But
evidently the interests of justice were, in her view, best served if
almost nobody could examine the “justice” too closely.
The next “housekeeping
issue” to be addressed was how witnesses should be heard. The
defence had called numerous witnesses, and each had lodged a written
statement. The prosecution and Baraitser both suggested that, having
given their evidence in writing, there was no need for defence
witnesses to give that evidence orally in open court. It would be
much quicker to go straight to cross-examination by the prosecution.
For the defence,
Edward Fitzgerald QC countered that justice should be seen to be done
by the public. The public should be able to hear the defence evidence
before hearing the cross-examination. It would also enable Julian
Assange to hear the evidence summarised, which was important for him
to follow the case given his lack of extended access to legal papers
while in Belmarsh prison.
Baraitser stated there
could not be any need for evidence submitted to her in writing to be
repeated orally. For the defence, Mark Summers QC was not prepared to
drop it and tension notably rose in the court. Summers stated it was
normal practice for there to be “an orderly and rational exposition
of the evidence”. For the prosecution, James Lewis QC denied this,
saying it was not normal procedure.
Baraitser stated she
could not see why witnesses should be scheduled an one hour forty
five minutes each, which was too long. Lewis agreed. He also added
that the prosecution does not accept that the defence’s expert
witnesses are expert witnesses. A Professor of journalism telling
about newspaper coverage did not count. An expert witness should only
be giving evidence on a technical point the court was otherwise
unqualified to consider.
Lewis also objected that in giving evidence
orally, defence witnesses might state new facts to which the Crown
had not had time to react. Baraitser noted that the written defence
statements were published online, so they were available to the
public.
Edward Fitzgerald QC
stood up to speak again, and Baraitser addressed him in a quite
extraordinary tone of contempt. What she said exactly was: “I have
given you every opportunity. Is there anything else, really, that you
want to say”, the word “really” being very heavily emphasised
and sarcastic. Fitzgerald refused to be sat down, and he stated that
the current case featured “substantial and novel issues going to
fundamental questions of human rights.” It was important the
evidence was given in public. It also gave the witnesses a chance to
emphasise the key points of their evidence and where they placed most
weight.
Baraitser called a
brief recess while she considered judgement on this issue, and then
returned. She found against the defence witnesses giving their
evidence in open court, but accepted that each witness should be
allowed up to half an hour of being led by the defence lawyers, to
enable them to orient themselves and reacquaint with their evidence
before cross-examination.
This half hour for
each witness represented something of a compromise, in that at least
the basic evidence of each defence witness would be heard by the
court and the public (insofar as the public was allowed to hear
anything). But the idea that a standard half hour guillotine is
sensible for all witnesses, whether they are testifying to a single
fact or to developments over years, is plainly absurd. What came over
most strongly from this question was the desire of both judge and
prosecution to railroad through the extradition with as little of the
case against it getting a public airing as possible.
As the judge adjourned
for a short break we thought these questions had now been addressed
and the rest of the day would be calmer. We could not have been more
wrong.
The court resumed with
a new defence application, led by Mark Summers QC, about the new
charges from the US governments new superseding indictment. Summers
took the court back over the history of this extradition hearing. The
first indictment had been drawn up in March of 2018. In January 2019
a provisional request for extradition had been made, which had been
implemented in April of 2019 on Assange’s removal from the Embassy.
In June 2019 this was replaced by the full request with a new, second
indictment which had been the basis of these proceedings before
today. A whole series of hearings had taken place on the basis of
that second indictment.
The new superseding
indictment dated from 20 June 2020. In February and May 2020 the US
government had allowed hearings to go ahead on the basis of the
second indictment, giving no warning, even though they must by that
stage have known the new superseding indictment was coming. They had
given neither explanation nor apology for this.
The defence had not
been properly informed of the superseding indictment, and indeed had
learnt of its existence only through a US government press release on
20 June. It had not finally been officially served in these
proceedings until 29 July, just six weeks ago. At first, it had not
been clear how the superseding indictment would affect the charges,
as the US government was briefing it made no difference but just gave
additional detail. But on 21 August 2020, not before, it finally
became clear in new US government submissions that the charges
themselves had been changed.
There were now new
charges that were standalone and did not depend on the earlier
allegations. Even if the 18 Manning related charges were rejected,
these new allegations could still form grounds for extradition. These
new allegations included encouraging the stealing of data from a bank
and from the government of Iceland, passing information on tracking
police vehicles, and hacking the computers both of individuals and of
a security company.
“How much of this
newly alleged material is criminal is anybody’s guess”, stated
Summers, going on to explain that it was not at all clear that an
Australian giving advice from outwith Iceland to someone in Iceland
on how to crack a code, was actually criminal if it occurred in the
UK. This was even without considering the test of dual criminality in
the US also, which had to be passed before the conduct was subject to
extradition.
It was unthinkable
that allegations of this magnitude would be the subject of a Part 2
extradition hearing within six weeks if they were submitted as a new
case. Plainly that did not give the defence time to prepare, or to
line up witnesses to these new charges. Among the issues relating to
these new charges the defence would wish to address, were that some
were not criminal, some were out of time limitation, some had already
been charged in other fora (including Southwark Crown Court and
courts in the USA).
There were also
important questions to be asked about the origins of some of these
charges and the dubious nature of the witnesses. In particular the
witness identified as “teenager” was the same person identified
as “Iceland 1” in the previous indictment. That indictment had
contained a “health warning” over this witness given by the US
Department of Justice.
This new indictment removed that warning. But
the fact was, this witness is Sigurdur Thordarson, who had been
convicted in Iceland in relation to these events of fraud, theft,
stealing Wikileaks money and material and impersonating Julian
Assange.
The indictment did not
state that the FBI had been “kicked out of Iceland for trying to
use Thordarson to frame Assange”, stated Summers baldly.
Summers said all these
matters should be ventilated in these hearings if the new charges
were to be heard, but the defence simply did not have time to prepare
its answers or its witnesses in the brief six weeks it had since
receiving them, even setting aside the extreme problems of contact
with Assange in the conditions in which he was being held in Belmarsh
prison.
The defence would
plainly need time to prepare answers to these new charges, but it
would plainly be unfair to keep Assange in jail for the months that
would take. The defence therefore suggested that these new charges
should be excised from the conduct to be considered by the court, and
they should go ahead with the evidence on criminal behaviour confined
to what conduct had previously been alleged.
Summers argued it was
“entirely unfair” to add what were in law new and separate
criminal allegations, at short notice and “entirely without warning
and not giving the defence time to respond to it. What is happening
here is abnormal, unfair and liable to create real injustice if
allowed to continue.”
The arguments
submitted by the prosecution now rested on these brand new
allegations.
For example, the prosecution now countered the arguments
on the rights of whistleblowers and the necessity of revealing war
crimes by stating that there can have been no such necessity to hack
into a bank in Iceland.
Summers concluded that
the “case should be confined to that conduct which the American
government had seen fit to allege in the eighteen months of the case”
before their second new indictment.
Replying to Summers
for the prosecution, Joel Smith QC replied that the judge was obliged
by the statute to consider the new charges and could not excise them.
“If there is nothing proper about the restitution of a new
extradition request after a failed request, there is nothing improper
in a superseding indictment before the first request had failed.”
Under the Extradition Act the court must decide only if the offence
is an extraditable offence and the conduct alleged meets the dual
criminality test. The court has no other role and no jurisdiction to
excise part of the request.
Smith stated that all
the authorities (precedents) were of charges being excised from a
case to allow extradition to go ahead on the basis of the remaining
sound charges, and those charges which had been excised were only on
the basis of double jeopardy. There was no example of charges being
excised to prevent an extradition. And the decision to excise charges
had only ever been taken after the conduct alleged had been examined
by the court. There was no example of alleged conduct not being
considered by the court. The defendant could seek extra time if
needed but the new allegations must be examined.
Summers replied that
Smith was “wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong”. “We are not saying
that you can never submit a new indictment, but you cannot do it six
weeks before the substantive hearing.” The impact of what Smith had
said amounted to no more than “Ha ha this is what we are doing and
you can’t stop us.” A substantive last minute change had been
made with no explanation and no apology. It could not be the case, as
Smith alleged, that a power existed to excise charges in fairness to
the prosecution, but no power existed to excise charges in fairness
to the defence.
Immediately Summers
sat down, Baraitser gave her judgement on this point. As so often in
this hearing, it was a pre-written judgement. She read it from a
laptop she had brought into the courtroom with her, and she had made
no alterations to that document as Summers and Smith had argued the
case in front of her.
Baraitser stated that
she had been asked as a preliminary move to excise from the case
certain conduct alleged. Mr Summers had described the receipt of new
allegations as extraordinary. However “I offered the defence the
opportunity to adjourn the case” to give them time to prepare
against the new allegations. “I considered of course that Mr
Assange was in custody. I hear that Mr Summers believes this is
fundamental unfairness”. But “the argument that we haven’t got
the time, should be remedied by asking for the time.”
Mr Summers had raised
issues of dual criminality and abuse of process; there was nothing
preventing him for raising these arguments in the context of
considering the request as now presented.
Baraitser simply
ignored the argument that while there was indeed “nothing to
prevent” the defence from answering the new allegations as each was
considered, they had been given no time adequately to prepare. Having
read out her pre-prepared judgement to proceed on the basis of the
new superseding indictment, Baraitser adjourned the court for lunch.
At the end of the day
I had the opportunity to speak to an extremely distinguished and
well-known lawyer on the subject of Baraitser bringing pre-written
judgements into court, prepared before she had heard the lawyers
argue the case before her. I understood she already had seen the
outline written arguments, but surely this was wrong. What was the
point in the lawyers arguing for hours if the judgement was
pre-written? What I really wanted to know was how far this was normal
practice.
The lawyer replied to
me that it absolutely was not normal practice, it was totally
outrageous. In a long and distinguished career, this lawyer had very
occasionally seen it done, even in the High Court, but there was
always some effort to disguise the fact, perhaps by inserting some
reference to points made orally in the courtroom. Baraitser was just
blatant. The question was, of course, whether it was her own
pre-written judgement she was reading out, or something she had been
given from on high.
This was a pretty
shocking morning. The guillotining of defence witnesses to hustle the
case through, indeed the attempt to ensure their evidence was not
spoken in court except those parts which the prosecution saw fit to
attack in cross-examination, had been breathtaking.
The effort by the
defence to excise the last minute superseding indictment had been a
fundamental point disposed of summarily. Yet again, Baraitser’s
demeanour and very language made little attempt to disguise a
hostility to the defence.
We were for the second
time in the day in a break thinking that events must now calm down
and get less dramatic. Again we were wrong.
Court resumed forty
minutes late after lunch as various procedural wrangles were
addressed behind closed doors. As the court resumed, Mark Summers for
the defence stood up with a bombshell.
Summers said that the
defence “recognised” the judgement Baraitser had just made – a
very careful choice of word, as opposed to “respected” which
might seem more natural. As she had ruled that the remedy to lack of
time was more time, the defence was applying for an adjournment to
enable them to prepare the answers to the new charges. They did not
do this lightly, as Mr Assange would continue in prison in very
difficult conditions during the adjournment.
Summers said the
defence was simply not in a position to gather the evidence to
respond to the new charges in a few short weeks, a situation made
even worse by Covid restrictions. It was true that on 14 August
Baraitser had offered an adjournment and on 21 August they had
refused the offer. But in that period of time, Mr Assange had not had
access to the new charges and they had not fully realised the extent
to which these were a standalone new case. To this date, Assange had
still not received the new prosecution Opening Note in prison, which
was a crucial document in setting out the significance of the new
charges.
Baraitser pointedly
asked whether the defence could speak to Assange in prison by
telephone. Summers replied yes, but these were extremely short
conversations. They could not phone Mr Assange; he could only call
out very briefly on the prison payphone to somebody’s mobile, and
the rest of the team would have to try to gather round to listen. It
was not possible in these very brief discussions adequately to
expound complex material.
Between 14 and 21 August they had been able
to have only two such very short phone calls. The defence could only
send documents to Mr Assange through the post to the prison; he was
not always given them, or allowed to keep them.
Baraitser asked how
long an adjournment was being requested. Summers replied until
January.
For the US government,
James Lewis QC replied that more scrutiny was needed of this request.
The new matters in the indictment were purely criminal. They do not
affect the arguments about the political nature of the case, or
affect most of the witnesses. If more time were granted, “with the
history of this case, we will just be presented with a sleigh of
other material which will have no bearing on the small expansion of
count 2”.
Baraitser adjourned
the court “for ten minutes” while she went out to consider her
judgement. In fact she took much longer. When she returned she looked
peculiarly strained.
Baraitser ruled that
on 14 August she had given the defence the opportunity to apply for
an adjournment, and given them seven days to decide. On 21 August the
defence had replied they did not want an adjournment. They had not
replied that they had insufficient time to consider. Even today the
defence had not applied to adjourn but rather had applied to excise
charges. They “cannot have been surprised by my decision” against
that application.
Therefore they must have been prepared to proceed
with the hearing. Their objections were not based on new
circumstance. The conditions of Assange in Belmarsh had not changed
since 21 August. They had therefore missed their chance and the
motion to adjourn was refused.
The courtroom
atmosphere was now highly charged. Having in the morning refused to
cut out the superseding indictment on the grounds that the remedy for
lack of time should be more time, Baraitser was now refusing to give
more time. The defence had called her bluff; the state had apparently
been confident that the effective solitary confinement in Belmarsh
was so terrible that Assange would not request more time. I rather
suspect that Julian was himself bluffing, and made the call at
lunchtime to request more time in the full expectation that it would
be refused, and the rank hypocrisy of the proceedings exposed.
I previously
blogged about how the procedural trickery of the superseding
indictment being used to replace the failing second indictment – as
Smith said for the prosecution “before it failed” – was
something that sickened the soul. Today in the courtroom you could
smell the sulphur.
Well, yet again we
were left with the feeling that matters must now get less exciting.
This time we were right and they became instead excruciatingly banal.
We finally moved on to the first witness, Professor Mark Feldstein,
giving evidence to the court by videolink for the USA. It was not
Professor Feldstein’s fault the day finished in confused
anti-climax. The court was unable to make the video technology work.
For ten broken minutes out of about forty Feldstein was briefly able
to give evidence, and even this was completely unsatisfactory as he
and Mark Summers were repeatedly speaking over each other on the
link.
Professor Feldstein’s
evidence will resume tomorrow (now in fact today) and I think rather
than split it I shall give the full account then. Meantime you can
see these excellent summaries from Kevin
Gosztola or the morning
and afternoon
reports from James Doleman. In fact, I should be grateful if you did,
so you can see that I am neither inventing nor exaggerating the facts
of these startling events.
If you asked me to sum
up today in a word, that word would undoubtedly be “railroaded”.
it was all about pushing through the hearing as quickly as possible
and with as little public exposure as possible to what is happening.
Access denied, adjournment denied, exposition of defence evidence
denied, removal of superseding indictment charges denied. The
prosecution was plainly failing in that week back in Woolwich in
February, which seems like an age ago. It has now been given a new
boost.
How the defence will
deal with the new charges we shall see. It seems impossible that they
can do this without calling new witnesses to address the new facts.
But the witness lists had already been finalised on the basis of the
old charges. That the defence should be forced to proceed with the
wrong witnesses seems crazy, but frankly, I am well past being
surprised by anything in this fake process.
Craig’s coverage of
Julian’s case is entirely dependent on your financial support.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th
Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other
warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state,
corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on
voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not
necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative
voice, insider information and debate. – “Source“
–
Op
het vrijgeven van eerder geheime documenten blijkt dat de Obama
administratie samen met de FBI een wel heel smerige rol hebben
gespeeld in Russiagate, echter
de belangstelling daarvoor van de reguliere (massa-) media is nul komma
nada……
Dezelfde
media die nog steeds volhouden dat Rusland de verkiezingen in de VS
heeft gemanipuleerd ten gunste van Trump, zonder dat daar enig
bewijs voor kan worden geleverd en het al lang duidelijk is dat er
geen sprake was van ‘ Russiagate…..’ Dit geldt overigens voor alle
reguliere westerse media, zoals die in ons land, hoe bestaat het dat
deze media, met de vuilbek vol van ‘fake news’ (nepnieuws), ondanks
alle bewijs van het tegendeel, vol blijven houden dat er wel degelijk
sprake is van een Russische manipulatie van de verkiezingen in de VS…… Dit aangevuld met dezelfde ongefundeerde beschuldigingen t.a.v. het
Brexit referendum, het Catalaanse onafhankelijkheidsreferendum en ga
nog maar even door, D66 mafketel en godbetert minister Ollongren beweert zelfs dat de Russen hier zo ongeveer allles manipuleren….. ha! ha! ha! ha! Zie daarvoor de links onder dit bericht.
Ik
heb op deze plak al veel geschreven over de valse beschuldigingen aan
het adres van Rusland en in feite Trump (hoewel ik de pest heb aan de
psychopathische fascist), je zou denken dat je alles wel gehad hebt,
echter de desinteresse van de reguliere media, laat me weer
verbijsterd achter…. Ach het zoveelste bewijs dat de media in
handen zijn van plutocraten die de huidige status quo beschermen, een
status quo waarin men Rusland en China als vijanden ziet, immers dat
is goed voor het militair-industrieel complex, waar de eigenaren van
die media grootaandeelhouders zijn van de wapenindustrie en ja die
industrie heeft continu een vijand nodig om de winsten te blijven
opvoeren…….
De VS is de grootste terreurentiteit op onze kleine planeet en heeft sinds het eind van WOII al
meer dan 22,5 miljoen mensen vermoord in illegale oorlogen, het
organiseren van staatsgrepen en middels het vermoorden van verdachten
middels drones, waarbij meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers niet eens
werd verdacht…….Alleen deze eeuw is de VS al 4 illegale oorlogen begonnen en heeft het illegale oorlogen elders militair gesteund en geregisseerd, daarbij zijn meer dan 2,5 miljoen mensen vermoord en dat is een cijfer van een paar jaar geleden…..
Het
voorgaande werd verricht met de regelmatige hulp van andere NAVO-lidstaten,
hielenlikkers van de VS zoals Nederland, mede verantwoordelijk voor
de enorme massamoorden die uit naam van ‘de vrijheid en het brengen van democratie’ worden begaan
en dat veelal juist tegen democratisch gekozen regeringen…… De VS
en haar hielenlikkers beweren democratie en stabiliteit te brengen,
echter met de westerse terreur worden er bloedige dictators
geparachuteerd die schijt hebben aan democratie, vrijheid van
meningsuiting en alle andere zogenaamd in het westen gekoesterde
burgerrechten, waarvoor niet alleen enorme slachtingen worden
aangericht, maar waar de overlevenden ook nog eens in diepe ellende
en chaos worden gestort…….. Stabiliteit door grootschalige VS terreur? ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Terug naar Obama, de Nobelprijs voor de Vrede winnaar, die niet alleen illegale oorlogen begon, maar ook heeft meegholpen aan de Russiagate leugen. Denk aan het voorgaande en het volgende artikel als je weer de reguliere fake
news media hoort blaten over Rusland en China als waren het staten die
bezig zijn met de ene na de andere illegale oorlog en de boel her en der menipuleren, terwijl men de VS
prijst als grote democratie brenger, waar de dagelijkse waarheid laat
zien dat de VS de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde is en illegaal ingrijpt waar het maar wil, of dat nu is via het manipuleren van verkiezingen elders of het organiseren van een coup, dan wel door onvervalste grootschalige terreur als in illegale oorlogen…… Voor het
maken van winst steunt de VS zelfs de genocide in Jemen, niet alleen
middels enorme wapenexporten voor de daders, de Saoedische terreurcoalitie, maar ook door deelname aan die
genocide…… Het volkgende artikel nam ik over van Information Clearing house >> ICH en werd eerder gepubliceerd op The Hill:
More
willful blindness by the media on spying by Obama administration
By
Jonathan Turley
July 27, 2020
“Information
Clearing House” (ICH)
–The
Washington press corps seems engaged in a collective demonstration of
the legal concept of willful blindness, or deliberately ignoring the
facts, following the release of yet another declassified document
which directly refutes prior statements about the investigation into
Russia collusion. The document shows that FBI officials used a
national security briefing of then candidate Donald
Trump and his top aides to gather possible evidence for Crossfire
Hurricane, its code name for the Russia investigation.
It
is astonishing that the media refuses to see what is one of the
biggest stories in decades.
The Obama administration targeted the
campaign of the opposing party based on false evidence. The media
covered Obama administration officials ridiculing the suggestions of
spying on the Trump campaign and of improper conduct with the Russia
investigation. When Attorney General William Barr told the Senate
last year that he believed spying did occur, he was lambasted in the
media, including by James Comey and others involved in that
investigation. The mocking “wow” response of the fired FBI
director received extensive coverage.
The
new document shows that, in summer 2016, FBI agent Joe Pientka
briefed Trump campaign advisers Michael Flynn and Chris Christie over
national security issues, standard practice ahead of the election. It
had a discussion of Russian interference. But this was different. The
document detailing the questions asked by Trump and his aides and
their reactions was filed several days after that meeting under
Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor, the FBI investigation of
Flynn. The two FBI officials listed who approved the report are Kevin
Clinesmith and Peter Strzok.
Clinesmith
is the former FBI lawyer responsible for the FISA surveillance
conducted on members of the Trump campaign. He opposed Trump and sent
an email after the election declaring “viva the resistance.” He
is now under review for possible criminal charges for altering a FISA
court filing. The FBI used Trump adviser Carter Page as the basis for
the original FISA application, due to his contacts with Russians.
After that surveillance was approved, however, federal officials
discredited the collusion allegations and noted that Page was a CIA
asset. Clinesmith had allegedly changed the information to state that
Page was not working for the CIA.
Strzok
is the FBI agent whose violation of FBI rules led Justice Department
officials to refer him for possible criminal charges. Strzok did not
hide his intense loathing of Trump and famously referenced an
“insurance policy” if Trump were to win the election. After FBI
officials concluded there was no evidence of any crime by Flynn at
the end of 2016, Strzok prevented the closing of the investigation as
FBI officials searched for any crime that might be used to charge the
incoming national security adviser.
Documents
show Comey briefed President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on
the investigation shortly before the inauguration of Trump. When
Comey admitted the communications between Flynn and Russian officials
appeared legitimate, Biden reportedly suggested using the Logan Act,
a law widely seen as unconstitutional and never been used to
successfully convict a single person, as an alternative charge
against Flynn. The memo contradicts eventual claims by Biden that he
did not know about the Flynn investigation. Let us detail some proven
but mostly unseen facts.
First,
the Russia collusion allegations were based in large part on
the dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic
National Committee (DNC). The Clinton campaign repeatedly denied paying for
the dossier until after the election, when it was confronted with
irrefutable evidence that the money had been buried among legal
expenditures. As New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote,
“Folks involved in funding this lied about it and with sanctimony
for a year.”
Second,
FBI agents had warned that dossier author Christopher Steele may have
been used by Russian intelligence to plant false information to
disrupt the election. His source for the most serious allegations
claims that Steele misrepresented what he had said and that it was
little more than rumors that were recast by Steele as reliable
intelligence.
Third,
the Obama administration had been told that the basis for the FISA
application was dubious and likely false. Yet it continued the
investigation, and then someone leaked its existence to the media.
Another declassified document shows that, after the New York Times
ran a leaked story on the investigation, even Strzok had balked at
the account as misleading and inaccurate. His early 2017 memo
affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in contact
with Russians. This information came as the collusion stories were
turning into a frenzy that would last years.
Fourth,
the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and inspectors
general found no evidence of collusion or knowing contact between the
Trump campaign and Russian officials. What inspectors general did
find were false statements or possible criminal conduct by Comey and
others. While unable to say it was the reason for their decisions,
they also found statements of animus against Trump and his campaign
by the FBI officials who were leading the investigation. Former
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified he never would have
approved renewal of the FISA surveillance and encouraged further
investigation into such bias.
Finally,
Obama and Biden were aware of the investigation, as were the
administration officials who publicly ridiculed Trump when he said
there was spying on his campaign. Others, like House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, declared they had evidence of
collusion but never produced it. Countless reporters, columnists, and
analysts still continue to deride, as writer Max Boot said it, the
spinning of “absurd conspiracy theories” about how the FBI
“supposedly spied on the Trump campaign.”
Willful
blindness has its advantages. The media covered the original leak and
the collusion narrative, despite mounting evidence that it was false.
They filled hours of cable news shows and pages of print with a
collusion story discredited by the FBI. Virtually none of these
journalists or experts have acknowledged that the collusion leaks
were proven false, let alone pursue the troubling implications of
national security powers being used to target the political opponents
of an administration. But in Washington, success often depends not on
what you see but what you can unsee.
Jonathan
Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George
Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley. – “Source“
–
‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘
Tot het jaar 2000, waar deze eeuw intussen al meer dan 2,5 miljoen
moorden aan toe zijn te voegen, moorden begaan door de VS en de NAVO
(deze terreurorganisatie stond en staat onder militair opperbevel stond
de VS, de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde…)….
Kan helaas niet alle labels aanmaken die ik zou willen toevoegen, daar de ruimte daarvoor beperkt is, het lijkt er zelfs op dat met de nieuwe (overbodige) interface voor Blogger, je straks zelfs geen labels meer kan aanmaken…… Schande!!
De rechterhand van Jeffrey Epstein, die zich zogenaamd het leven
benam, is onlangs opgepakt nadat ze lang uit handen van justitie wist
te blijven, wellicht met hulp van boven, immers ze moet veel kennis
hebben van machtige figuren die gebruik maakten van Epsteins
pedofeesten…..
Over die
kennis gesproken: een nicht van prins Andrew (Groot-Brittannië)
beweert dat Ghislaine Maxwell een (compromitterende) video heeft van
de prins….. Maxwell maakte er een gewoonte van om de pedo’s te
filmen tijdens het misbruik van kinderen, ofwel zij moet nog veel meer van deze tapes hebben met machtige mannen die zich vergrijpen aan kinderen…..
Zo zie
je maar weer: de hele smerige soap rond Jeffrey Epstein is nog lang
niet ten einde ook al heeft men hem de mond gesnoerd door hem te
vermoorden; blijft de vraag of Maxwell haar gevangenschap zal overleven, immers ook zij heeft wetenschap en zoals je kan lezen video’s over alle hoogwaardigheidsbekleders die zich hebben vergrepen aan kinderen op de ‘seksfeestjes’ van Epstein…….. (naast prins Andrew o.a. Tony Blair, Bill Clinton en Donald Trump……) Maxwell zou in de gevangenis waar ze wordt vastgehouden papieren kleding dragen dit vanwege ‘suïcide gevaar….’
Hier een artikel van Steve Watson over deze zaak, eerder gepubliceerd op Summit News, ik nam het over van Zero Hedge:
Prince
Andrew’s Cousin Says Ghislaine Maxwell Has ‘Secret Video’ Of
Him
“He is not a victim
here, but Ghislaine was never his friend, she was taping him.”
Published 17 hours ago
on 8 July, 2020
Steve Watson
LINDSEY PARNABY/AFP via Getty Images
An
acquaintance of Ghislaine Maxwell has told reporters that the
socialite has secret video footage of Prince Andrew that was filmed
during her time as Jeffrey Epstein’s so called ‘madam’.
Christina Oxenberg told The
Sun
that Andrew, the British Queen’s son, “is one of many johns, all
of whom were videotaped by Ghislaine.”
“He is not a victim
here, but Ghislaine was never his friend, she was taping him,”
Oxenberg added, noting that “Friends don’t tape friends.”
Oxenberg is the
daughter of Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, making her Prince
Andrew’s cousin.
She told reporters
that she believes Maxwell is seeking to trade information with the
FBI, and possibly the videos to save herself.
“I think she thinks
she can get out, obviously she’s planning on trading
[information],” Oxenberg said.
Oxenberg says she was
interviewed by the FBI last year in regards to the case, and that she
is willing to testify against Maxwell.
The report claims that
the royal said Maxwell previously bragged to her about obtaining
underage girls under Epstein’s influence.
“I will definitely
be there to remind her that in ’97, she told me copious amounts,”
Oxenberg said.
It is not clear if
Oxenberg is the same person who was cited anonymously in another
report this week claiming that Maxwell has secret sex tapes that
“could implicate some twisted movers and shakers.”
“If Ghislaine goes
down, she’s going to take the whole damn lot of them with her,”
the source told
the Daily Mail.
As we highlighted
last week, a lawyer for one of Epstein’s accusers thinks that
Ghislaine Maxwell could reveal a “bigger name” involved in
Epstein’s pedophile network in order to secure a plea deal
following her arrest.
“I’m sure that
Ghislaine’s attorneys will try to make a deal where she speaks
out about a bigger name to get reduced charges for herself,” said
Lisa Bloom.
Naar aanleding van de gruwelijke moord op George Floyd en onnoemelijk veel andere gekleurde VS burgers in het (ook recente) verleden: politie VS schiet, vermoordt en
zet meer mensen gevangen dan andere ontwikkelde landen aldus CNN dat met ‘de
cijfers’ komt. Cijfers die belachelijk genoeg niet zijn gebaseerd op gegevens van de politie in de VS, daar die niet bijhoudt hoeveel burgers er worden vermoord door haar personeel……. (wel houdt de poltie bij hoeveel mensen er volgens de politie terecht werden vermoord door agenten; moet je nagaan……)
In het hieronder opgenomen artikel, zoals je hiervoor kon lezen, ook aandacht voor de 2,2 miljoen gevangenen die de VS ‘rijk is’, in verhouding worden daar veel meer gekleurde mensen gevangen gezet dan die van de witte meerderheid…. (en dit nog buiten de door ICE gavengen gezette vluchtelingen en kinderen van vluchtelingen, die nog steeds apart gevangen worden gezet….) Het gevangenissysteem in de VS wordt vooral bestuurt door een beursgenoteerd bedrijf dat belang heeft bij zoveel mogelijk gevangenen en lullig genoeg heeft dit bedrijf een machtige lobby in Washington……
Het volgend artikel werd eerder gepubliceerd op CNN en werd door mij overgenomen van Information Clearing House, verder commentaar is wat mij betreft overbodig, behalve dan de waarschuwing de veiligheidsriemen vast te klikken, ofwel houd je vast!
U.S.
police shoot, kill and imprison more people than other developed
countries. Here’s the data
That’s the message
from many of the protesters who have filled American cities for
nearly two weeks, demanding justice for the death of George Floyd and
seeking to end a litany of police killings of black Americans.
The protests have
rippled across the United States and throughout the world, with
activists streaming through the streets of many
capital cities in solidarity with the movement.
Floyd was just one of
the many Americans killed by police officers each year. But in other
developed countries, such incidents are rare.
Statistical
comparisons show that police in the US typically shoot, arrest and
imprison more people than similarly developed nations.
Each
nation listed below either accompanies the US in the G7 group of the
world’s most advanced economies, or is ranked similarly on global
wealth, freedom and democracy indexes. But when it comes to policing
and criminal justice, the US is a noticeable outlier, and black
Americans are disproportionately affected.
Data
on arrests, deaths and prison populations do not exist uniformly
across developed countries, so it can be difficult to pinpoint
exactly how the US fares in comparison to every nation. For instance,
it is impossible to know exactly how many people die at the hands of
police officers in the US each year: no single, nationwide database
that contains such information exists.
“We can’t have an
informed discussion, because we don’t have data,” former FBI
Director James Comey told the House Judiciary Committee in 2015.
“People have data about who went to a movie last weekend … and
I cannot tell you how many people were shot by police in the United
States last month, last year, or anything about the demographics. And
that’s a very bad place to be.”
We are therefore
forced to rely on estimates — but even they paint a stark picture.
A media
review by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found a total of
1,348 potential arrest-related deaths in the ten months from June
2015 through March 2016 — an average of 135 deaths per month, or
just over 4 per day. (The review excludes deaths under the
jurisdiction of federal and tribal law enforcement, and the BJS
acknowledged it does not provide a complete picture.)
By comparison, only 13
people in the UK died in or following police custody in the closest
time period, according to the country’s police
watchdog. In Australia, 21 deaths occurred in police custody or
custody-related operations in 2015/16. Those measures are the most
accurate comparison to the US’s figure of arrest-related deaths, according
to the UK Home Office. The UK’s figure does not include every death
that occurred following police contact.
American
police also shoot more people than forces in similarly developed
countries.
The
FBI recorded
that 407 people were shot in an act of “justifiable homicide”
by a police officer in 2018, a decline on previous years. But
homicides ruled justifiable do not capture every police killing, and
the FBI’s numbers are derided by many human rights groups and news
organizations which have collected far higher figures. The Washington
Post counted 1,004 people fatally shot by police in 2019, for
instance, while the group Mapping
Police Violence tallied 1,099.
Comey’s comments to
the House Judiciary Committee illustrate the FBI’s own acceptance
that their number does not tell the full story. Nonetheless, even the
FBI’s figure dramatically dwarfs that of many other countries, where
police shootings are highly isolated incidents.
And police in New
Zealand and the UK (except Northern Ireland) do not routinely carry
firearms.
Canada may most
closely follow the US among G7 countries. Official data is only
collected when an officer is charged, but an analysis by CNN
affiliate CBC
found 461 fatal police encounters between 2000 and 2017.
In the US police arrrested three for every 100 people in 2018
In Australia it’s two
In the UK it’s one
Americans
are also more likely to be arrested or jailed than their peers
worldwide.
A
total of 10,310,960 arrests were made in the US in 2018 — that’s one
arrest made per every 32 American citizens. Those figures give the US
a far higher arrest rate than the UK or Australia, among others. Of
those confronted or arrested by police, black Americans are more
likely to be subjected to force — a key complaint of the protesters
marching across the US.
Police
officers are more likely to use force on black Americans — and, according
to a 2016 study published in the American Journal of Health,
black men are nearly three times more likely than white men to be
killed by police intervention. Comparable figures for other countries
are not readily available.
In
general, more Americans are subjected to the cogs of the criminal
justice system than in many other countries; and more end up in
prison, too.
The US has the largest
prison population in the world, as well as the largest incarceration
rate per capita, according to World
Prison Brief — a London-based initiative that counts inmate
populations around the world annually.
Rates are high across
the country. If every US state were counted as a country, the 31
countries with the highest incarceration rates in the world would all
be US states, according to the Prison
Policy Initiative (PPI). Oklahoma, Louisiana and Mississippi all have
incarceration rates of over 1,000, meaning more than one in a hundred
people in those states were prisoners in 2018. By comparison, the
highest incarceration rate outside the US is in El Salvador, where
614 people per 100,000 are prisoners, according to the Prison Policy
Initiative.
Black
Americans make up a third of the US prison population, despite only
making up around an eighth of the country’s total population.
The UK and Canada
suffer similar issues, but not on the scale that the United States
does.
The available data
paints a clear and concerning picture — and explains why policing
and justice reform have been rallying cries of protesters for so
long.
CNN’s Sergio
Hernandez contributed to this report. – “Source“–
See
also
George
Floyd’s Niece Invokes Trump at Houston Funeral: ‘When Has America
Ever Been Great?’
Caught
on camera: Police brutality and racism in Trump’s America
De VS, het land van de ongekende mogelijkheden, dat blijkt maar weer eens (in uiterst negatieve zin wel te verstaan…….)…. Lullig dat de reguliere westerse media en politiek de VS nog steeds als een lichtend voorbeeld zien…… Moet wel opmerken dat het me nog meevalt dat het gevangeniswezen hier nog steeds niet is geprivatiseerd, zoals de zorg in feite wel voor een fiks deel is geprivatiseerd, één van de redenen waarom er veel te weinig zorgpersoneel is en er ziekenhuizen met IC-bedden werden gesloten….. Dat personeelstekort is ook nog eens fiks aangewakkerd door Rutte 2 (hoofdverantwoordelijken: Rutte van de VVD en Asscher van de PvdA) die maar liefst 75.000 zorgkrachten op straat hebben gezet….. En dan vindt men ook nog eens dat de Corona-aanpak van Rutte zo geweldig is……
Voor
Trump is de Coronacrisis al voorbij, er moet weer geld verdiend
worden, dus geen gezeur meer over het Coronavirus, dat vooral de
grote (gekleurde) arme onderlaag in de VS treft. Waar deze ploert ook
nog een de naam van George Floyd durft te misbruiken, door gekleurden
die demonstreren tegen het ongebreidelde politiegeweld na te schoppen met woorden als zouden zij juist de nagedachtenis
van Floyd misbruiken om te rellen…….
Het is
intussen (zeker in de VS) bekend dat infiltranten van politie, FBI
en zelfs de CIA (‘agent provocateur’) mensen aanzetten tot het plunderen van winkels en geweld te gebruiken
tijdens demonstraties, meerdere beelden en getuigenissen bevestigen
e.e.a…..* De bedoeling daarvan is duidelijk: het bagatelliseren van de politiemoorden op gekleurde mensen en het demoniseren van de demonstranten, zodat desnoods dodelijk geweld kan worden gebruikt tegen de demonstranten die voor het overgrote deel vreedzaam protesteren…….. Kortom het gaat hier om een vorm van een false flag operatie, waarbij men de schuld voor bijvoorbeeld vernielingen aangericht door deze infiltranten in de schoenen kan schuiven van demonstranten die geen geweld hebben gebruikt……
Arme
gekleurde inwoners van de VS worden nog steeds niet als gelijken van
de witte bevolking behandeld, zo verdient een gekleurde arbeider
minstens 30% minder dan diens witte collega…. Ook de
gezondheidszorg is voor velen uit die onderlaag niet te betalen,
zodat velen overlijden daar ze geen geld hebben om bijvoorbeeld een
chemokuur te betalen…… De wijken waar deze mensen wonen zijn vaak
in de buurt van zware en vervuilende industrieën, waaronder
chemische bedrijven, zaken die de gezondheid van deze mensen
allesbehalve ten goede komt en hun weerstand afbreekt (waardoor ze meer bevattelijk zijn voor virussen als COVID-19…..)
Vind je
het dan gek dat na de zoveelste (en bijna ontelbare) politiemoord op
een gekleurde, de stoppen doorslaan bij deze mensen……
Het
volgende artikel is er één uit een reeks die elke vrijdag wordt
gepubliceerd en waarin wordt aangeven wat Trump de afgelopen week
weer heeft geflikt, zoals het gewelddadige opbreken van een vreedzame
demonstratie voor het Witte Huis, daar hij een foto van zichzelf kon laten nemen, zogenaamd met een serieuze
kop en een bijbel in de hand
voor een kerk……. (daarbij hield deze psychopathische fascist die bijbel, ook nog
eens op de kop! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!):
Aan het
eind van het volgende artikel nog even aandacht voor Obama die weer
eens met het cliché ‘change’ op de proppen kwam, terwijl deze
hypocriete oorlogsmisdadiger tijdens de 2 termijnen van zijn presidentschap amper of niets heeft gedaan om de
situatie van de gekleurden te verbeteren, sterker nog de eerste 2
jaar van zijn eerste termijn had hij daadwerkelijk veel kunnen doen
op dat gebied vanwege een sterke Democratische fractie in het congres
en de senaat, maar helaas Obama die zo vaak het woord ‘change’
gebruikte (lees: misbruikte) in aanloop van de presidentsverkiezingen
in 2008, deed zo goed als niets voor gekleurden…….
(Oplichter Obama op een verkiezingsaffiche uit 2008:)
Confirmed
cases rise but Trump is ready to ignore coronavirus
Trump
During COVID-19 [PFAW Update]
Donald Trump’s
cruelty, corruption, and leadership failures are deeply connected to
the anger and pain millions of Americans feel following the fatal
anti-Black violence and police brutality against Ahmaud Arbery,
Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, George Floyd, and others. It’s
important to understand the ways that the pandemic – and Trump’s
response to it – have disproportionately
hurt the Black community. As Zinzi Bailey, a social
epidemiologist, said,
“The stories about the protests are also the stories about COVID-19
and racism.”
Even though Trump is
not singularly responsible for the scope of systemic racism
in this country, his
dangerous lies and failures during the coronavirus crisis
have undoubtedly inflamed anti-Black racism, and have exacerbated
the disproportionate harm that the
pandemic has caused to Black Americans.
This week, Trump’s
falsehoods and failures continued:
No
list of Trump’s failures this week would be complete without
noting the appalling events of Tuesday evening, when Trump tasked
Attorney General William Barr with forcefully clearing
peaceful protesters from Lafayette Park for a Trump photo-op in
front of a church.
(He did not
wear a mask.) Trump described the images of National Guard and
police forces enacting violence against the protestors as “a
beautiful thing to watch.”
In
the midst of all his other bad actions this week, Trump continued to assail
the legitimacy
of voting by mail, despite its success
in more states as their election security measures are expanded. Trump’s
assault has been so forceful that the GOP has started to worry that
his relentless criticism of and lies
surrounding mail-in ballots might harm
his reelection prospects in November.
Trump
appears ready
to “move past” dealing with the coronavirus crisis, even
though confirmed cases continue to rise
across the country.
On Sunday, Adm. Brett Giroir confirmed that he will be standing down
from his pandemic-appointed role and that there is no
plan to replace him as the head of coronavirus testing. Dr.
Anthony Fauci also said on Sunday that he hasn’t spoken to Trump in
weeks. The
White House’s coronavirus
task force has been “sharply
curtailed” while millions of Americans still need unemployment
and other assistance.
Additionally, there is no plan to lessen the estimated
$8 trillion cost of the pandemic through 2030.
President Barack Obama
posted an op-ed in Medium
on Sunday, in which he wrote, “These
past few months have been hard and dispiriting … the fear, sorrow,
uncertainty, and hardship of a pandemic have been compounded by
tragic reminders that prejudice and inequality still shape so much of
American life.”
He continued to encourage Americans to channel our heightened
emotions into concrete action, including “[electing]
government officials who are responsive to our demands.”
Trump is not
responsive to the demands of anyone other
than his far-right base,
and his actions this week have only highlighted the narrowness of his
focus. He
has no place in the next chapter of the American story.
Niets
nieuws, het feit dat de politie en de FBI in de VS infiltreren in
groepen die zich verzetten tegen onrecht, al zo oud en zelfs nog
ouder dan het Counter Intelligence Program ofwel COINTELPRO. Dit is een FBI
programma dat tussen 1956 en 1971 werd gebruikt om groepen in de VS
die zich tegen onrecht verzetten, in diskrediet te brengen en de
activisten tegen elkaar op te zetten, plus een aantal andere smerige
acties……
Nu
blijkt weer dat ook tijdens de rellen n.a.v. de politiemoord op
George Floyd, FBI/politie infiltranten bezig zijn om de mensen aan te
zetten tot geweld, zodat men een legitimatie heeft om bijvoorbeeld op de
demonstranten te kunnen schieten en de aandacht af te leiden van waar het echt om gaat: de zoveelste in een onafzichtelijke rij politemoorden op gekleurde mensen…… Eén en ander is te vergelijken met de false flag
acties van de VS in het buitenland, zoals die tegen Noord-Vietnam,
waardoor de VS zogenaamd legaal een oorlog kon beginnen tegen dat
land…. Ook in Syrië vonden meerdere VS false flag acties plaats,
terreurgroepen die onder regie van de CIA gifgasaanvallen uitvoerden
om deze in de schoenen van Assad te schuiven…….
De VS:
het land van de ongekende mogelijkheden, waar gekleurden minstens 30% minder verdienen dan de witten die hetzelfde werk doen…….(ook een reden voor het plunderen van winkels)
Op BBC
World Service durfde men zaterdagmiddag na 15.00 u. te zeggen dat de
protesten en vernielingen ‘spontaan’ plaatsvinden……. ‘Spontaan’ na de zoveelste politemoord op een gekleurde…… Erger me ook enorm aan de zogenaamd onafhankelijke NOS dat in haar nieuwsberichten continu spreekt over de dood van een gekleurde tijdens een arrestatie, terwijl het bij wijze van spreken voor een kind duidelijk is dat het hier om een (politie-) moord gaat……
Het
volgende artikel werd geschreven door Caitlin Johnstone, waarin zij o.a. wijst op de getuigenis van journalist Max Blumenthal* die eerder politie/FBI infiltranten ontmaskerde, lees het artikel en geeft het door, tijd dat de waarheid nu eindelijk tot iedereen doordringt!!
A video
has been circulating of
a white man casually smashing the windows of a Minneapolis shop with
a hammer during protests against the police murder of George Floyd.
The man is clearly trying to hide his identity by wearing a gas mask,
carrying a large umbrella, and wearing full-length black clothing.
Protesters
can be seen intervening to stop his destructive behavior in the
video.
“Are
you a fucking cop?” one asks.
An
officer with the Saint Paul Police Department has
been publicly named
by someone identified as the officer’s ex-wife, who
said his voice, walk and gas mask made her “90% sure” it was
him. The Saint Paul Police Department has
denied this.
Maybe
it is, maybe it isn’t, but it is a very safe bet that it’s a law
enforcement officer of some kind. Disruptive police infiltration of
protest movements is a historical constant in America, after all. It
is the norm, not the exception.
Journalist
Max Blumenthal has uploaded a very
interesting video
of an encounter he had with an undercover cop posing as a protester
in Washington, DC.
Look
what I found outside #dcprotest.
An obvious cop dressed like a protester getting out of an unmarked
car and telling me he’s a CNN reporter. Beware of the lying
provocateurs out here! pic.twitter.com/f90wYSjbGS
Blumenthal
began following a man he
reports
he’d spotted coming out of an unmarked vehicle in an area that had
been completely sealed off by marked police cars, meaning the police
were restricting who came and went from that area. Blumenthal began
questioning the man, asking him if he’d been to the protests and if
he was a cop. The man said he’d been to the protests but denied he
was a cop, saying that he worked with CNN.
Blumenthal
then went to the unmarked vehicle the man had come from, where two
more men were seated. He asked them if they were cops, which they
denied, then asked if they were with CNN, which they also denied,
saying they were “just hanging out”. Blumenthal informed
them that he’d just caught the fake protester in a lie, at which
point they rolled up the car window.
Local
outlet KHOU 11 News was told by the Houston police department that
protests over George Floyd’s murder would be attended by both
“uniformed officers and plain-clothed officers”. This
admission cannot be found in KHOU’s reporting any longer, but it has
been screenshotted
and still shows
up on Google searches
as of this writing.
None
of these people are paranoid or irrational. For generations it has
been a well-established fact that police will reliably infiltrate
protests and political movements, and it remains
so to this day.
From
J Edgar Hoover’s illicit COINTELPRO
infiltration campaign
to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise
Neutralize” dissident political movements, all the way up to
infiltration and espionage targeting
Black Lives Matter
and Occupy
protesters,
police infiltration of American protests has been as certain as death
and taxes.
How
many agents or infiltrators can we expect to see inside a movement?
One of the most notorious “police riots” was at the 1968
Democratic National Convention. Independent journalist Yasha
Levine writes:
“During the 1968 protests of the Democratic National Convention in
Chicago, which drew about 10,000 protesters and was brutally crushed
by the police, 1
out of 6 protesters was a federal undercover agent.
That’s right, 1/6th of the total protesting population was made up
of spooks drawn from various federal agencies. That’s roughly 1,600
people! The stat came from an Army document obtained by CBS News in
1978, a full decade after the protest took place.
According
to CBS, the infiltrators were not passive observers, monitoring and
relaying information to central command, but were involved in violent
confrontations with the police.”
Peter
Camejo, who ran as a Socialist Workers Party candidate for president
in 1976, as a Green Party candidate for governor of California in
2003 and as Ralph Nader’s vice presidential running mate in 2004,
often told
of infiltration in
his mid-’70s presidential campaign. After campaign offices were
burglarized, Camejo was able to get the FBI into court by suing it
over COINTELPRO activities. The judge asked the FBI special agent in
charge how many FBI agents had worked in Camejo’s presidential
campaign; the answer was 66.
Camejo
estimated he had a campaign staff of 400 across the country. Once
again that would be an infiltration rate of about one in six.
Camejo discovered that among the agents was his campaign co-chair. He
also discovered eavesdropping equipment in a campaign office and
documents showing the FBI had followed him since he was an
18-year-old student activist.
This
is important for all of us to be aware of, not just the people
attending these protests.
Any
time we are told a protester threw this or rioters set fire that, we
must take this information with a very large grain of salt, because
we usually won’t be able to know it wasn’t an undercover cop acting
as an agent
provocateurto
shape a narrative and justify more use of force to disperse the
crowd. The idiot with the umbrella did it in a very ham-fisted and
obvious way, and we can expect other police infiltrators to be more
clever about it as well.
This
is not to say none of the anger we’ve seen exhibited at these
protests is real and grassroots; people have a lot to be angry about,
and surely much of the destruction we’re seeing is the organic result
of way too many people being pushed way too far by a cruel and
abusive system. It’s just to say that we should all be as skeptical
as we would be when dealing with any other narratives we know
powerful factions have a vested interest in manipulating, and not
treat any claim about protester behavior as a certain fact.
The
powerful few are afraid of the many. Always have been, always will
be. And there’s nothing they and their goon squad won’t do to try and
rein in any group which poses a threat to their power if they can get
away with it.
*Het artikel van Jonhnstone
nam ik eerder over van een mail, echter het artikel zit iets anders in
elkaar, je ziet dan ook in het bovenstaande artikel een paar andere
zaken dan in het officiële artikel van Johnstone, waar de alinea’s over
Blumenthal ontbreken……
Al even onderwerp van gesprek in Duitsland: het bespioneren van het Duitse parlement door de Russische geheime dienst 5 jaar geleden…..
Duitsland heeft afgelopen donderdag de Russische ambassadeur op het matje geroepen om de sancties te bespreken die Duitsland wil nemen n.a.v. dit hacken ‘door de Russische geheime dienst’ in de persoon van Dmitri Badin…… Badin zou een Russische inlichtingenofficier en tevens hacker zijn. Merkel heeft intussen flink pissig laten weten dat ook zij en andere politici doel van deze spionage zijn geweest….. Het land wil dan ook sancties zoals die in de EU zijn afgesproken in geval van een cyberaanval……
Grof genoeg vervolgt ook de FBI Badin vanwege het hacken van de Democratische Partij in 2016….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Ze kunnen het niet laten in de VS, telkens weer de leugen oppoetsen dat Rusland de verkiezingen in de VS heeft gemanipuleerd, waarvoor geen andere bewijzen zijn te vinden dan wat advertenties op Facebook voor borsjt en wodka…… Overigens geeft dit wel aan dat de FBI in deze op zeker samenwerkt met de Duitse geheime diensten…….
Opvallend hoe lang men dit verhaal gaande houdt in de Duitse media en politiek, opvallend daar het eerder hacken van de Duitse overheid door de VS en dat tot en met de smartphone van premier Merkel, heel even verontwaardiging uitlokte, maar als door een zuchtje wind doofde deze vlam….. Er werd amper met een kwaad woord over de VS gesproken, terwijl men nu net doet of het hele Duitse parlement wel naar huis kan door deze ‘Russiche spionage…..’ En nee, toen geen sancties tegen de VS…… Sterker nog: men weet in Duitsland dat de CIA en NSA gewoon doorgaan met het bespioneren van met de VS bevriende staten en zelfs dat laat men zonder verder protest gewoon doorgaan…….
Bij het voorgaande moet niet vergeten worden dat de aanbrenger van het bericht over Russische spionage, één van de Duitse geheime diensten is, diensten die ‘niet echt bekendstaan’ voor het brengen van de waarheid…… (en tel dat op bij de eerdere vaststelling dat de FBI, een gewiekste terreurorganisatie, waar men oneindig veel vaker liegt dan de waarheid spreekt, in deze samenwerkt met Duitse geheime diensten….)
Stelletje mafketels, beter had men dit onder het tapijt gehouden daar hiermee nog eens wordt aangetoond dat de servers van de Duitse overheid zo lek zijn als een mandje, bepaald geen reclame anno 2020 en al helemaal niet als je beseft dat het hacken door de VS van voor de Russische hack was (als die Russische hack inderdaad heeft plaatsgevonden……). Kortom de Duitse overheid schiet volkomen tekort als het om internet veiligheid gaat en wijst als afleiding voor dat feit naar de Russen, totaal belachelijk!!!!! (ach ja, de aanval is de beste verdediging zal men ook daar denken….)
Eén ding is bijna zeker: Duitsland zal als sanctie wellicht afzien van de verdere aanleg van Nord Stream 2 (NS2), een gaspijpleiding van Rusland door de Oostzee naar Duitsland, waarvoor de VS Duitsland al heeft gedreigd met sancties, mocht de aanleg van deze gaspijpleiding worden afgemaakt…… De meeste medewerkende bedrijven hebben van verdere samenwerking afgezien, uit angst gestraft te worden door de VS…….. Zo wordt de kans groter dat de VS straks haar zwaar gesubsidieerde en peperdure schaliegas in de vorm van LNG aan EU-lidstaten kan verkopen…..
Caitlin Johnstone heeft een artikel geschreven over Obamagate* en concludeert dat dit nooit tot iets van enig
belang zal leiden. Sinds 2016 beroepen beide partijen, de Democraten
zowel als de Republikeinen, die samen met het bedrijfsleven, de
financiële sector en de geheime diensten het land besturen, zich
erop dat de andere partij ieder moment kan vallen door een enorm
schandaal, terwijl beide partijen de beschuldigingen van de ander
afdoen als nonsens…..
Volgens de Democraten gebruikt Trump ‘Obamagate’ om daarmee de aandacht af te leiden van de enorme blunders van de Trump administraite op het Coronadossier…… Johnstone gelooft daar duidelijk niet in, terwijl er wel degelijk een vorm van waarheid inzit.
Voor de
claim van de Democraten dat de Russen de servers van het Democratic National Committee (DNC) zouden hebben gehackt (een onderdeel van Russiagate), is
geen schijn aan bewijs geleverd en toch blijft men daar volhouden dat
dit wel het geval was, e.e.a. gesteund door de reguliere westerse (massa-)
media, die in deze op de hand van de Democraten zijn……(en media van wie de spuugrijke eigenaren Rusland het liefst zoveel mogelijk gedemoniseerd willen zien…..)
Je zou
denken dat dit allemaal van weinig of geen belang is, echter het gaat
hier wel om de VS, het machtigste land ter wereld, met meer dan 800
militaire bases over de wereld, een land dat desgewenst morgen weer
een illegale oorlog kan beginnen op basis van leugens en false flag
operaties……**
Als je
ziet hoe smerig men in de VS bezig is om elkaar de loef af te steken
en dat geheel in het openbaar, voedt dit de vrees dat de VS tot alles in
staat is***, zelfs het voeren van een zogenaamde beperkte kernoorlog (een contradictio in terminis, immers ieder gebruik van
kernwapens zal tot een wereldwijde kernoorlog leiden waarbij men elkaar
zal proberen te vernietigen en zal men de aarde
voor de mens en een enorm aantal diersoorten onbewoonbaar maken, althans als een aantal van deze mensen en dieren zo’n oorlog al kunnen overleven….)….
De ruzie tussen de Democraten en de
Republikeinen toont m.i. nog eens aan dat men zelfs lak heeft aan de
eigen bevolking, men liegt er keihard op los en hoopt zo de burgers
over te halen om in november op de kandidaat van hun keus te
stemmen…… Ofwel men heeft schijt aan de kiezer, liegt die 4 jaar
lang voor en doet er nog een schep bovenop als de verkiezingen in
aantocht zijn……
En toch
doet men alles om nog enigszins aan te tonen dat men ethisch en
moreel zuiver handelt, waarden die men ook gebruikt om aan te tonen
dat de VS weer een massamoord moet plegen om ‘democratie te brengen
en corruptie uit te bannen’ in het land van keuze (dat ofwel een
strategische ligging heeft, dan wel bodemschatten heeft die de VS
voor zich wil houden, neem Venezuela dat voor beide zaken
opgaat…..)
These
are important revelations that are worthy of mainstream attention,
but like basically everything else in this stupid, stupid timeline
this issue has instead been reduced to the stagnation of vapid
partisan squabbling. Democrats and their allied media are finger
wagging at Trump for using “conspiracy theories” to
distract from his coronavirus failures, and “MAGA”****
pundits once again beating the tired old drum that this scandal
is going to bring down major Deep State players and drain the swamp
once and for all.
Ever
since 2016 both of America’s mainstream political parties have been
taking turns screaming at the top of their lungs that
earth-shattering revelations are right around the corner which are
about to obliterate the other party any minute now, and if you’re
still buying into this show I highly recommend you also take up
watching WWE*****, because you’ll definitely love it.
“By
any normal standard, former FBI Director Comey would now be in
serious legal trouble, as should [former Director of National
Intelligence James] Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, et
al,” Ray McGovern wrote
for Consortium
News
the other day. “Additional evidence of FBI misconduct under
Comey seems to surface every week — whether the abuses of FISA,
misconduct in the case against Gen. Michael Flynn, or misleading
everyone about Russian hacking of the DNC. If I were attorney
general, I would declare Comey a flight risk and take his passport.
And I would do the same with Clapper and Brennan.”
Indeed,
this would be the “normal standard”, yet it hasn’t
happened. Neither Comey nor Clapper nor Brennan are in any legal
trouble at all, nor will they be, nor will any other major player
responsible for leading America on a crazy collusion wild goose chase
which accomplished nothing but distracting
from real issues
and manufacturing consent for mountains
of cold war escalations
against Russia.
You
will never see Obama or his administration officials brought down by
“Obamagate” for the same reason Trump wasn’t brought down
by the Mueller investigation: the
swamp protects its own.
Both Obama and Trump administrations are packed full of crooks and
mass murderers who could and should be imprisoned for any number of
offenses, but they won’t be, because that would require a
prosecutorial body that is separate from the swamp of corruption with
which both of America’s mainstream parties are inexorably interwoven.
You cannot use the swamp to drain the swamp.
Do
you know why Trump never made good on his campaign platform of
locking up Hillary Clinton? Besides the fact that their entire
conflict has always been fake, I mean? The Trump administration could
easily have found grounds upon which to prosecute Clinton if they
wanted to, but going after a loyal establishment swamp monster would
have brought the wrath of the entire swamp down upon him. As soon as
he had a political opponent in office, if not before, Trump would
himself be facing criminal prosecution. By collaborating with the
swamp you ensure your own protection, and by attacking it you ensure
your destruction.
A fundamental point that many Russiagate-peddling left pundits — including fake “adversarial” voices like @mehdirhasan — cannot process in their minds, because doing so would threaten their club membership. Russiagate helps clarify where priorities really lie. https://twitter.com/MarkSaw43180398/status/1260285597173735424 …
That’s
why no serious attempt has ever been made to remove Trump from
office; he’s been
playing nice with existing power structures
without challenging them in any meaningful way. Everyone who knew
anything was aware that the Mueller collusion would never go
anywhere, and anyone who could count Senate seats knew impeachment
would fizzle. It was all kayfabe conflict so that Trump’s
“opposition” could present the appearance of opposition
without interfering in agendas they themselves support or prosecuting
crimes of which they themselves are also guilty.
It’s
also why Obama never
had any intention
of prosecuting Bush’s heinous war crimes, citing “a belief
that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards”.
In reality Obama always understood that in order to play the
“president” role (and enjoy its massive
perks
for the rest of his life), he’d need to collaborate with
establishment power structures rather than upsetting them. He knew
that if he were to go after Bush he’d ensure his own destruction;
under “normal standards” prosecution is the only sane and
normal response to war crimes, but in the Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD) environment of establishment corruption, there are no
normal standards.
I
point this out because it’s painful to watch people on both sides
continually getting their hopes up that the big KABOOM is right
around the corner which will finally vindicate their worldview and
punish their partisan rivals. It will not happen. Trump will not
drain the swamp, and neither will Biden or whatever soulless swamp
monster inhabits the White House next. You were lied to. It’s good to
be aware of surveillance abuses, mass-scale psyops and media
malpractice, but definitely abandon hope that any of this will lead
to any major changes in the establishment itself.
If
we want real change, it cannot and will not come from either of the
two mainstream political factions whose primary job is preventing
real change. It’s going to have to come from the people; we’re going
to have to find a way to punch through the propaganda brainwashing,
wake up to reality, and use the power of our numbers to force the
changes which will benefit us past all the oligarchic safeguards that
have been placed in front of us to prevent us from doing so.
This
is a lot less pleasant than believing some magical hero in a white
hat is going to ride in and do all our work for us and all we need to
do is relax and “trust the plan”. It’s a lot less
comfortable than expunging the fake two-party worldview from our
minds which vast fortunes and years of conditioning have gone into
manufacturing. But it is reality.
*Obamagate is m.i. niets anders dan een andere
benaming voor Russiagate, een term die Trump eerder gebruikte nadat de Democraten hem beschuldigden van samenwerking met Rusland, waarvoor men geen steekhoudend bewijs kon leveren. Onlangs werd dit woord geherintroduceerd door Trump nadat Obama zich in het openbaar met zijn Coronabeleid bemoeide.
** Een false flag operatie is het begaan van een zware misdaad en de schuld daarvoor in de
schoenen schuiven van een ander (veelal democratisch gekozen) bewind,
een bewind dat
men in de VS wil vervangen voor desnoods een dictator, zolang deze
maar doet wat de VS wil dat er gebeurt in dat land en die voorts
fungeert als een lakei die de belangen van de VS behartigt (bijvoorbeeld
grote VS bedrijven vrijbaan geven…)….
*** Dezelfde VS dat alleen deze eeuw al 4 illegale oorlogen is begonnen, waarbij tot nu toe meer dan 2,5 mensen zijn omgekomen, ofwel die zijn in feite vermoord door de VS en haar hielenlikkende andere NAVO-lidstaten, zoals Nederland, dat in Hawija 70 mensen vermoordde middels een bombardement, waar volgens deskundigen het werkelijke aantal doden veel hoger moet liggen…… Schande dat hare CDA hufterigheid Bijleveld al stumperend een moetie van wantrouwen overleefde, terwijl zij alleen op basis van deze aanval de eer aan zichzelf had moeten houden, maar ja, het woord ‘eer’ komt in de meeste woordenboeken van politici al lang niet meer voor…..
**** WWE: World Wrestling Entertainment, je weet wel van die belachelijke worstel vertoningen, waarvan velen denken dat de aanvallen op elkaar echt gebeuren…..
Het is
vandaag 17 jaar gelden dat de VS volkomen illegaal Irak binnenviel,
waarbij men met een groot aantal leugens een ‘legitimering gaf’ voor deze illegale oorlog, o.a. in de VN bepleit door generaal Colin Powell…….
Wat
velen niet weten is dat de NSA een grote bijdrage leverde aan de
leugens die men gebruikte, waar deze geheime dienst zelfs het gore
lef had om VN delegaties van 6 landen af te luisteren en deze landen probeerde te chanteren om zo toch te tekenen voor een oorlog tegen Irak…..(zo meer daarover)
Lullig
genoeg heeft VN wapeninspecteur Blix het vuur uit z’n sloffen
gelopen om de leugens van de VS te ontkrachten, hij en zijn team
hadden bij wijze van spreken Irak helemaal onderzocht met een
stofkam, zonder dat er ook maar iets werd gevonden wat op een
massavernietigingswapen zou kunnen lijken…….
Katherine
Gun, destijds medewerker van en Britse inlichtingendienst, speelde een hoofdrol in wat een vreselijke oorlog zou worden die
intussen (in feite is de oorlog nog steeds gaande*) aan meer dan 2
miljoen Irakezen het leven heeft gekost, mensen die in feite zijn
vermoord door de VS en haar coalitie (zo werd onlangs nog bekend
gemaakt dat Nederland niet 0 maar 70 burgers, inclusief kinderen,
heeft vermoord met een aanval op een wijk waar een ‘bommenfabriek’
gevestigd was…..)
Katherine
Gun ontving op 31 januari 2003 een mail van Frank Koza het hoofd van
een NSA afdeling. Hij vroeg hulp bij het afluisteren en chanteren van
de delegaties van 6 landen die tegen de oorlog in Irak waren en dat
in de VN volhielden. Het ging hier om Angola, Bulgarije, Kameroen,
Chili, Guinee en Pakistan. Gun was daardoor zo ongelofelijk pissig
dat ze de mail naar buiten bracht, echter pas op een later tijdstip
verscheen de mail in de pers…. Gun werd gearresteerd en na veel
gedoe zag de Britse regering uiteindelijk af van vervolging (een vervolging die
veel protest uitlokte, o.a. van Jesse Jackson, Daniel Ellsberg van de
Pentagon Papers en acteur en regisseur Sean Penn, die haar een held
noemde)…. De Britse regering stopte met de vervolging daar men anders documenten had moeten vrijgeven die
aantoonden dat Gun volkomen gelijk had….. Vergelijk dit eens met hoe men nu omgaat met Julian Assange, waar zelfs zijn collega’s zich tegen hem hebben gekeerd en dat op uiterst valse gronden……
Ongelofelijk
dat Nederland in eerste instantie politieke steun gaf aan de VS en
later zelfs militair deelnam aan deze illegale oorlog tegen Irak….
Hé wacht even, Nederland had een nog veel smeriger rol in het
geheel, dit daar een Nederlandse duikboot met VS personeel (geheime
dienst) aan boord inlichtingen verzamelde die later werden gebruikte
in die illegale oorlog tegen het Iraakse volk…… Absoluut
dieptepunt voor Nederland was wel het met de pet in de hand staan van
destijds CDA premier Balkenende (hoe heeft deze drol ooit premier
kunnen worden??) en zijn partijcollega en destijds minister van
Buitenlandse Zaken de Hoop Scheffer, toen ze om 7 uur ‘s morgens
werden ontvangen aan de dienstingang van het Witte Huis, om
oorlogsmisdadiger George W. Bush, destijds VS president, de
Nederlandse steun aan te bieden voor die verschrikkelijke oorlog…… De Hoop Scheffer staat nog steeds achter deze illegale oorlog, zo liet hij een paar jaar geleden nog weten……
Als
bedankje mocht de Hoop Scheffer nog even secretaris-generaal van de
NAVO spelen, echter dat deed hij zo slecht dat hij maar één periode
mocht dienen (deze kwast mag godbetert les geven aan een
universiteit!!!) Misschien nog achterlijker is het dat VVD leeghoofd
Hennis-Plasschaert als bedankje voor haar hulp aan de illegale
oorlog tegen het Iraakse volk, door de VN is aangesteld als speciaal
gezant voor Irak…. Moet je nagaan wat een schoffering dat is voor dit volk……
Nog een weetje wat velen alweer zijn vergeten, VVD hufter Arend Jan Boekestijn was destijds veelvuldig op tv en radio, waar hij een oorlog tegen Irak propageerde vanwege zogenaamde massavernietigingswapens, toen daar geen sprake van bleek te zijn bleef hij alsnog voor een oorlog tegen het Iraakse volk….. Later bood deze VVD kleuterploert zijn excuses aan, waarbij hij het gore lef had te zeggen dat hij was besodemieterd door Saddam Hoessein (!!!) en dat geheime diensten hem verkeerdf hadden voorgelicht….. Oplichter Boekestijn was even vergeten dat er vuistdikke rapporten lagen van de VN waarin uit en te na was te lezen dat Irak deze wapens in het geheel niet had….. Tegenwoordig presenteert deze schoft een buitenlandprogramma op BNR, samen met collega leugenaar, oorlogshitser, lobbyist voor het militair-industrieel complex en propagandist van VS agressie over de wereld, Rob de Wijk van het Haags Centrum voor Strategische Studies (HCSS, of is het HC SS?)
Laten we
de komende dodenherdenking ook denken aan het enorme aantal Iraakse
slachtoffers die werden en worden vermoord door westerse troepen die geen bliksem te maken hadden en hebben in Irak…….
Zie de
video die bestaat uit een interview van Mike Papantonio met
Nation Magazine journalist George Zornick, gemaakt door Ring of Fire Radio (zie de tekst hieronder voor het internetadres van deze zender):
The
NSA Lied Us Into Iraq
The
story you never heard
Produced by
RingofFireRadio.com
On this day in 2003 the US invaded
Iraq.
How did this “little” point get
lost in the NSA story?
The NSA’s JOB is to spy on the
communications of our enemies, not to listen to and record your phone
calls.
Here’s a case where they not only
got it massively wrong, it also looks like they remained silent while
their “evidence” was used to drive the US into a ruinous war.
Did they present false information
to the Bush criminals or did they merely sit back and do nothing when
that evidence was grossly misrepresented.
It hardly matters, does it.
Massively wrong in either case.
===================================
* Toch
fijn dat de VS in feite toegeeft dat de oorlog in Irak nog steeds gaande is, door te
weigeren het land te verlaten, terwijl de overgrote meerderheid van
de Iraakse bevolking de buitenlandse NAVO-troepen (inclusief de
Nederlandse militairen) o.l.v. terreurentiteit VS het land moeten
verlaten….. Met het meer dan maffe argument dat IS nog niet is
verslagen denkt men legaal in Irak te kunnen blijven, vorig jaar
kostte de VS aanwezigheid in Irak nog 300 Irakezen het leven, mensen
die demonstreerden tegen de aanwezigheid van de coalitietroepen….
Voor meer berichten over de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, K. Gun, Hennis-Plasschaert, de Hoop Scheffer en/of G. Zornick, klik op het betreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.
Nederlands
English
Русский
Español
简体中文
Français
Deutsch
हिन्दी
Italiano
Português