The source made it clear to us that a number of Bilderberg members, presumably the newer and younger attendees, are unhappy at the way the group has conducted its activities with total contempt for the democratic process, which has resulted in an increasing number of protesters being drawn to the event each year. … Read More
‘No proof’ that Manning leaks ‘were dangerous to US security’
RT: Kevin, it looks like Manning has got supporters all over the world, do you think it has the potential of growing, this support for him, if he does get a heavy sentence? Kevin Gosztola: Well, we don’t know what he’s going to be sentenced yet, so I wouldn’t put it in that way. I would suggest that as people follow the trial over the course of this entire summer as its going to last, that there will be more exposure of his story that more around the world will be introduced to what he did, his act, and it will resonate with people. RT: The prosecution is playing on the dangers of leaked information getting into Al Qaeda’s hands, what he did was leak sensitive information, highly classified information. How dangerous was that leak to US security? KG: I haven’t seen any proof that it was dangerous to US security yet, nor do I expect to see it. For two reasons, one if they do present any proof, it will be behind closed doors during the trail as it will be classified information, but also from listening to Bradley Manning’s lawyer David Coombs speak, he has said that what he been given shows that for the most part there wasn’t any sort of damage. He’s gotten evidence back that said there was something but they are not sure, their looking into it and there’s nothing conclusive that Bradley Manning did harm national security. RT: But never the less he did leak information and he signed up as a soldier not to do that, so he should be punished shouldn’t he? KG: Well, he signed up to be a soldier who followed the rule of law, who abided by the constitution, I don’t think he signed up to abandon his moral conscience and within the military what he saw in the collateral murder video deeply disturbed him, this Apache helicopter attack in 2007 in Baghdad in Iraq. He also was aware that opponents of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki were being turned over to Iraqi federal police and tortured and that deeply bothered him, his role in that. So I think nobody expected that this soldier would abandon that, so I think the question becomes how much punishment should he endure? There’s no question that he violated the law, but the larger question here with this trial is what sort of punishment does he deserve for violating the law, given that there has been such a great benefit because of the release of information. RT: As you say it’s going to be a lengthy trial so we’re going to find out about that punishment much later on. Briefly you’re the co-author of the book Truth and Consequences the US against Bradley Manning, did you face any hindrance from US authorities when doing your research? KG: I haven’t had any sort of persecution but what I would say is there is really little access to court records so that’s a limit on my ability to do reporting and then also I would share that because his audio statement was leaked, the statement he made on February 28th, there was a higher ranking military officer who did scold the press and said that if it happened again everyone in the media center would feel the heat. … Read More
‘Grieving’ reckless motorists to avoid prosecution in UK
Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer told UK state lawyers to look at the “greater emotional impact” of a sentence when charging motorists who have accidentally killed a family member or loved one in a car accident. Starmer argued such sentences would be “oppressive and insensitive” to people who have already suffered severe emotional trauma.Under the revised Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance, prosecutors are told to balance the seriousness of the incident with the fact that the driver is“likely to have suffered significant personal loss from the bereavement.”“Whilst there may be sufficient evidence to prosecute, we recognize that in some instances such prosecutions would be inappropriate and it would not be in the public interest to proceed because of the likely lifelong consequences of losing a loved one and being responsible for that loss,” the new guidelines said.“A driver who makes a genuine mistake that ends the life of a close friend or family member will bear a particularly heavy responsibility,” Starmer told reporters.This is the first time in the UK that emotional grief can be used as an argument to drop murder charges. Under the new rules, even those guilty of killing a passenger while driving and talking on their phone or tuning the radio may not end up being charged.For example, parents who cause road accidents while racing to a hospital with a sick child will avoid being charged, as they would fall under the same category as police and other emergency crews who are considered to be responding to an emergency.If the offense is more serious – such as drunk driving or prolonged dangerous driving – then the offender would still be prosecuted. However, the decision of whether to charge or not will be made by prosecutors behind closed doors, and not by a judge and jury in public.Last year, there were over 660 prosecutions involving deaths caused by a driving offenses in the UK. Prosecutors to have final say whether to bring charges? Road safety activists hailed the revised guidelines: “If a genuine mistake has been made by a driver which leads to the death of a family member, they will have to live with that guilt and remorse for the rest of their lives,” AA President Edmund King told The Telegraph. “If the guidance is managed with sensitivity it will result in a common-sense approach to crime and punishment.” The aftermath of losing a close family member “can be much more traumatic and longer-lasting than a prison sentence,” King added. Kevin Delaney, head of road safety at the Institute of Advanced Motorists and former senior traffic officer, agrees: “This is common sense and a sensible approach,” he said. “It should make sure only those responsible for grossly careless or obviously dangerous driving are prosecuted.” Road victim activist groups have criticized the revised guidelines, arguing that state lawyers should not be able to determine punishment for dangerous drivers. They say that the new guidelines are open to abuse by individuals who use cars as a murder weapon. “We are concerned this guidance gives an overriding bias against prosecution in the majority of nearest and dearest cases,” road safety charity Brake told the Daily Mail. Other activists also believe that prosecutors should not have the power to decide whether to charge an individual. “You cannot be sure everything is known at that stage. The decision should be for a jury and a judge who have heard all the evidence,” criminologist David Green said. “The Crown Prosecution Service may be looking in this case for ways to reduce their workload rather than ways to further the cause of justice.” The job of the prosecution is to “bring cases forward” and not “mitigate,” argued lawyer and author on family life Jill Kirby. “Mitigation is a matter for the courts in the last stage of a case.” … Read More
Inevitably biased? Russian, Chinese experts refused part in Syria chemical weapon probe
UN Security Council President and Russian envoy Vitaly Churkin has criticized the decision of the UN Secretariat to exclude Russian and Chinese experts from the team that will probe the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria on March 19.“We’ve been told that the P5 representatives should not be included,” Churkin said after a closed session on Monday. “We are not persuaded by this kind of logic.”Churkin pointed out that excluding the expertise from the Security Council permanent member states will not guarantee that these countries won’t be able to influence the probe.“I would recommend excluding all NATO countries too,” Churkin said, adding that he still hopes Russian and Chinese experts who can “provide a lot of expertise” would be included in the commission.Beirut-based political analyst, Kamel Alwazne, told RT that Moscow is right to demand to be part of the investigation into the alleged chemical attackRT: Moscow wants experts from Russia and China to join the UN investigation. But seeing both countries were the ones that blocked the Security Council resolutions- will this actually happen?Kamel Al Wazne: I think they must assure their cooperation because the West and those Arab countries cannot be trusted. Today, the headline of the New York Times speaks very clearly-shipment of weapons helped by the CIA, Qatar, by Saudi Arabia. Over 165 cargos full of weapons has been shipped to the opposition in Syria.Somebody who is actually engaging in the war against the Syrian people cannot be trusted. I think, it’s the Russian, the Chinese rightly so, they should be involved if any investigation into the use of chemical weapons. Especially, there is a great indication that the opposition has been actually the one who used these chemical weapons.RT: Where would these chemical weapons come from?KW: If you hear about 165 cargos full of weapons coming into Syria from Qatar through Turkey, then you do not need to ask that question. These borders are open and the Turkish and the Qataris and the Saudi have been moving all kind of weapons into Syria. RT: We’ve seen several Western media reports claiming the rebels actually carried out the attack in Aleppo. The West, Washington in particular, was very quick to promise harsh consequences for Assad, can we expect the same if the rebels are actually proven guilty?KW: That is my exact point. The President of the United States has just one answer: if Assad uses the chemical weapons, what if the opposition uses the chemical weapons, what does the President of the United States has to do about that? Why doesn’t he mention the opposition- that they are the ones using chemical or could use chemical, and what he would do about the opposition?He knows very clearly those members of al-Qaeda, members of terrorist organizations have been attacking civilians in Syria, killed an Islamic brigadier like Buti, been involved in car explosion, and that is ok to the Obama administration because, because those al-Qaeda, now they are fighting on their side.So there is no problem but when it comes to the lives of the Americans-oh, it’s hell has to freeze over, then this is a double standard. The Americans are walking this road and the road has to be on their side and on their watch but the Syrian can die every day and nobody will question that. So, now it is time for the Americans to look carefully and be accountable to what is taking place in Syria. There is a lot of death. And the CIA, I think has indicated today in the New York Times, it is clearly shipping weapons to continue that war in rage in a country that deserves peace and stability. The American, the Arab sponsor cannot be trusted. I think we need the Chinese, we need the Russian and we need those independent, honest people to say who is using the chemical weapons and how it is used. … Read More
Rand Paul stops confirmation of CIA director due to drone killings of Americans
Lawmakers in Washington were gathered to finalize plans toconfirm John Brennan as the next head of the Central IntelligenceAgency on Wednesday, but Sen. Paul took the floor just shy of 12noon and told colleagues that he would speak out against thepresident’s pick for as long as he had to in order to prevent theappointment from being finalized.The son of former presidential contender and congressman RonPaul continued for hours, gaining support from members of bothmajor political parties in opposing the president’s nomination.“This is not about partisanship,” said the Republicansenator, who claimed to have affirmed other choices made by thedemocratic president. Rather, Sen. Paul said that the matter athand — the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to execute US citizenswithout a trial — was one that was so polarizing that lawmakersfrom both sides of the aisle couldn’t help but align on histeam.“It’s not partisan against partisan; it’s bipartisan workingfor the power of the checks and balances to try to ensure aleveling,” tweeted a member of the senator’s social media teamduring his address as it stretched into the evening.Sen. Paul has sent two letters to Mr. Brennan’s office askingfor answers about the drone program operated overseas duringBrennan’s tenure as a White House counterterrorism official, askingspecifically for information about how the aircraft are used toexecute US citizens suspected of terrorism overseas and whetherthat justification can be used domestically.On Tuesday, US Attorney General Eric Holder responded to asimilar letter sent by Sen. Paul, confirming in part that Americancitizens residing within the US mainland could be subjected toextrajudicial executions approved by the Obama administrationbehind closed doors and not a court of law.“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinarycircumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate underthe Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for thePresident to authorize the military to use lethal force within theterritory of the United States,” wrote Holder.In a response from Mr. Brennan, the nominated CIA chiefconfirmed to Sen. Paul that drones were not being used on US soil,but did not say such an incident would be impossible. Dissatisfiedwith the reluctance of the White House to issue a formal answer tohis precisely line of questioning, Sen. Paul on Wednesday said hewould do everything in his power to stop the architect of the droneprogram from becoming the highest figure in the country’sintelligence community.“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’snomination for the CIA,” Sen. Paul began his attempt to hold upthe nomination. “I will speak until I can no longer speak. Iwill speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded fromcoast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rightsto trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed bya drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime,without first being found to be guilty by a court.”Sen. Paul told his colleagues that he did not have a beefdirectly with Mr. Brennan, but was intent on making a point aboutthe White House’s insistency on making closed-door decisions thataffect each and every American. It was like “pulling teeth toget any answer from the president,” the senator said, vowingthe he would continue to critique the Obama administration untilthey answered his questions in full.“In a democracy, you could someday elect someone who is veryevil,” said Paul. “That’s why we don’t give the power to thegovernment—and it’s not an accusation of this president or anybodyin this body. It’s a point to be made historically that,occasionally, even a democracy gets it wrong.”Paul also attacked the administration’s reluctance in sharingintelligence with not the American public but politicians likehimself who were elected to represent their constituents. Beingable to be killed by the government with no explanation, said Paul,was reason enough for every person in America to be concerned. Evenstill, though, he said the White House has refused to shareintelligence deemed relevant to his investigation.“They treat the US Senate with disdain,” said Paul.“They won’t respond to us, much less the Americanpeople.”Near hour five of his testimony, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)aligned himself with Paul and said, “Every person has a right toknow when their government is planning to kill them.”Paul said he had problems with not just the administration’sjustification to kill US citizens suspected of heinous crimesagainst the country, but the factors at hand in that decisionmaking process. To some members of the intelligence community, saidPaul, persons with pro-life bumper stickers and supporters ofthird-party candidates are deemed worthy of being investigated.Americans “who are in the Constitution Party” areconsidered threats to some, he said. “Isn’t there some ironythere?”“If the accusations are based on how many fingers you have ona hand, then I’ve got a problem,” he said. “No Americanshould ever be killed in America who is sitting in a café.”“Sometimes accusations are made because people politicallydon’t like your point of view,” he added.Sen. Paul said the administration is arguing otherwise, though,and that people singled out by Holder, Brennan or another WhiteHouse official as being a threat to the country could be brought todeath without ever being judged in court. That’s how the senatorinterpreted the White House’s lackluster response to his inquiry,at least, and during the filibuster he demanded that the presidentspeak honestly about when, where and who drones could attack.“I can’t understand the president’s unwillingness to say he’snot going to kill noncombatants. Think about that. He’s unwillingto say publicly that he’s not going to kill noncombatants,”said the senator.Four hours into the filibuster, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida)said in support of Paul’s attempt to stop the nomination,“Members of the senate have an important constitutional role togive advice and consent on these nominations.” Earlier in theafternoon, Sen. Paul said, “I withhold my consent today becauseI’m deeply concerned that the exec branch has not provided ananswer: that the president refuses to say that he won’t killnoncombatants.” … Read More
Zenit says NO to Anzhi banners
A banner on the Anzhi fans’ stand at the Russian Premiere Football League championship’s 18th round match between FC Anzhi Makhachkala and PFC CSKA Moscow. (RIA Novosti/Anton Denisov)There will be no Anzhi banners at the Petrovsky stadium during the crucial Premier League clash with reigning Russian champions Zenit, as the game will be played behind closed doors.The league ruled that Zenit should play two games in an empty stadium after an incident in which Dynamo keeper Anton Shunin was injured by a flare thrown from Zenit’s stands at Moscow’s Khimki Arena.During their first game without spectators, Zenit let CSKA Moscow fans put up two banners backing the Muscovites up for a 1-1 draw. This time, the St. Pete side decided otherwise.“When Zenit played CSKA, the supporters were permitted to hang their banners to support the team,” Anzhi’s fan organization spokesman Zagid Kebedgadzhiev said. “Our guys also wanted to make banners to support Anzhi, but it is unclear why they are not allowed into the stands.”Three weeks ago, over 70 Anzhi fans were detained by the Moscow police after a banner in support of Palestine appeared at the club’s home Europa League game. … Read More
The Alex Jones Show – Sunday, December 02, 2012 (Full Show) Blocked in the USA
http://www.youtube.com/v/T-s6AJsLmLA?version=3&f=videos&app=youtube_gdata See the article here - The Alex Jones Show – Sunday, December 02, 2012 (Full Show) Blocked in the USA
