http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=immunity Thu, 23 May 2013 18:02:40 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=immunity Fri, 17 May 2013 16:37:36 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=82f_1368822899 10fold MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1. Arrest is presumed to be false; officer has the burden of proof The only thing the plaintiff needs to plead and to prove if alleging false arrest, is either (1) that the defendant made an arrest or imprisonment, or (2) that the defendant affirmatively instigated, encouraged, incited, or caused the arrest or imprisonment. Burlington v. Josephson , 153 Fed.2d 372,276 (1946). " When the plaintiff has shown that he was arrested, imprisoned or restrained of his liberty by the defendant, " the law presumes it to be unlawful ." People v. McGrew , 20 Pac. 92 (1888); Knight v. Baker , 133 P. 544(1926). " The burden is upon the defendant to show that the arrest was by authority of law. " McAleer v. Good , 65 Atl. 934, 935 (1907); Mackie v. Ambassador , 11 P.2d 6 (1932). " Any arrest made without a warrant, if challenged by the defendant, is presumptively invalid ...the burden is upon the state" to justify it as authorized by statute, and as not violative of constitutional provisions. State v. Mastrian , 171 N.W.2d 695 (1969); Butler v. State , 212 So.2d 577 (Miss 1968) " As in the case of illegal arrests, the officer ... must keep within the law at his peril ." Thiede v. Scandia , 217 Minn. 231, 14 N.W.2d 400 (1944). 2. Must show warrant upon request " He must show it to the accused, if requested to do so ." Smith v. State , 208 S.2d 747 (Miss., 1968). " If demanded, he must produce the warrant and read it to the accused, that he may know by what authority and for what cause he is deprived of his liberty ." S tate v. Shaw , 89 S.E. 322 (1916). " An accused person, if he demands it, is entitled to have the warrant for his arrest shown to him at the time of arrest ." 42 L.R.A. 682, 51 L.R.A. 211, Crosswhite v. Barnes , 124 S.E. 242, 245 (1924). " A special deputy is bound to show his warrant if requested to do so, and if he omit, the party against whom the warrant issues may resist an arrest, and the warrant under such circumstances is no protection against an action for an assault, battery and false imprisonment ." Frost v. Thomas , 24 Wendell's Rep. (N.Y.) 418, 419 (1840). " It is doubtless the duty of an officer who executes a warrant of arrest to state the nature and substance of the process which gives him the authority he professes to exercise, and, if it is demanded, to exhibit his warrant, that the party arrested may have no excuse for resistance ." Shovlon v. Com. , 106 Pa. 369, 5 Am. Crim. Rep. 41 (1884) " It was the duty of an officer who attempts to make an arrest to exhibit the warrant if he has one ." Jones v. State , 114 Ga. 79, 39 S.E. 861 (1901) 3. Warrant must be valid A constable justifying an imprisonment under a warrant must show that the warrant on its face is legal, and that the magistrate had jurisdiction of the subject-matter . 51 L.R.A. 197, Poulk v. Slocum , 3 Blackfords (Ind). 421. (Meaning, you should also demand a copy of the affidavit giving the judge probable cause to issue the warrant. All warrants must issue upon submission of an affidavit of probable cause.) " A warrant is regarded as insufficient and thus void if, on its face, it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a crime ." Wharton's Crim. Proc. , 12th Ed., vol. 1, p. 152 (1974). 4. No rubber-stamp "signature" " The United States Supreme Court ... stressed the need for 'individualized review' to avoid the issuance of 'rubber stamp' warrants ." State v. Paulick , 277 Minn. 140, 151 N.W.2d 596 (1967). 5. False arrest is assault and battery " An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery ." State v. Robinson , 72 Atl.2d 262 (1950). " An arrest without warrant is a trespass, an unlawful assault upon the person ... where one is about to be unlawfully deprived of his liberty he may resist the aggressions of the offender, whether of a private citizen or a public officer, to the extent of taking the life of the assailant, if that be necessary to preserve his own life, or prevent infliction upon him of some great bodily harm ." State v. Gum , 69 S.E. 464 (1910). " Every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest ... and, in preventing such illegal restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary ." Columbus v. Holmes , 152 N.E.2d 306 (1958). 6. No handcuffs (sorry, OSHA) "But a constable cannot justify handcuffing a prisoner unless he has attempted to escape, or unless it be necessary in order to prevent his doing so." 51 L.R.A. 216. " The handcuffing was utterly unlawful." Osborn v. Veitch 1 Foster & Fin Eng Rep 317. 7. Go immediately to a magistrate (no photographs, no fingerprinting) "The one arresting has "a duty to immediately seek a magistrate," and failure to do so "makes a case of false imprisonment ." Heath v. Boyd , 175 S.W.2d. 217 (1943); Brock v. Stimson , 108 Mass. 520 (1871). " To detain the person arrested in custody for any purpose other than that of taking him before a magistrate is illegal ." Kominsky v. Durand , 12 Atl.2d. 654 (1940). " Any undue delay is unlawful and wrongful, and renders the officer himself and all persons aiding and abetting therein wrongdoers from the beginning ." Ulvestad v. Dolphin , 278 Pac. 684 (1929). " The taking of the plaintiff's picture before conviction was an illegal act ." Hawkins v. Kuhne , 137 NY Supp 1090, 153 App Div 216 (1912). " The power to arrest does not confer upon the arresting officer the power to detain a prisoner for other purposes ." Geldon v. Finnegan , 252 N.W. 372 (1934). " Compulsory fingerprinting before conviction is an unlawful encroachment... involves prohibited compulsory self-incrimination ." People v. Helvern , 215 N.Y. Supp. 417 (1926) Summary A warrant must be issued and be signed (no rubber stamp) by a judge who has jurisdiction; must state the facts showing jurisdiction; must be based upon probable cause; must name the offense committed; must contain an affidavit (under oath) by the accuser, stating FIRST HAND facts constituting a crime; must name the party to be arrested, or describe him sufficiently to identify him; must offer the warrant and the affidavit for inspection upon request; No handcuffs; must take me immediately before a magistrate, and hold me for no other purpose (no photographs, no fingerprinting); You are responsible for everything that happens to me even if you relinquish custody to an assign; Unlawful arrest is assault, battery & trespass; There is no immunity in a false arrest case; Good faith is not a defense to sustain false arrest. Lastly . . . If the warrant states as cause to issue, a mere civil/statutory infraction not rising to the level of a capital crime . . . the officer must produce title to your biological property/body, before said officer can make the arrest and take possession of the biological property. You do not by accommodation, accept the offer of arrest for any statutory infraction unless the statute defines a capital crime and probable cause exists. NOTE: The arresting officer that this information has been presented to, has both a civil and legal duty to become informed with the material incorporated herein before an arrest is determined to have cause to be made. source: http://www.stopthepirates.blogspot.ca/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=82f_1368822899 10fold Arrest is presumed to be false if ... Arrest is presumed to be false if ... Fri, 17 May 2013 13:32:59 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5a4_1368811520 TheAnswer May 17th, 2013 - The Golden Dawn party is at the centre of another political row in Greece after one of its MPs was expelled from parliament amid cries of "Heil Hitler".The sitting president had already warned Panayiotis Iliopoulos for repeatedly violating parliamentary rules by insulting fellow deputies. After he had called them "goats", "scoundrels" and "wretched people", security guards were called to lead him away. The phrase "Heil Hitler " was clearly heard three times - although who shouted it is in dispute. Golden Dawn claims the cries came from left-wing deputies from the opposition Syriza party. However, Stavros Kontonis, an MP from Syriza, is having none of it. "For the second time this week we hear Hitler being glorified inside parliament by Golden Dawn MPs. It's strange the fact that in order to distance themselves from praising Hitler in a provocative way, they claimed it was me who uttered this phrase ironically. But this is refuted by their own evidence," he told euronews. Amid anger at the recession and resentment at immigration, Golden Dawn won 18 seats in last year's Greek elections. Several deputies have had their immunity from prosecution lifted pending criminal charges. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5a4_1368811520 TheAnswer Golden Dawn and Syriza clash over 'Heil Hitler' cries in Greek parliament Golden Dawn, Greece, Economic Collapse, Thrown Out of Parliament Fri, 17 May 2013 09:06:19 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23b_1368795857 omniradar By Daya Gamage May 16, 2013 "Information Clearing House " -" Asian Tribune"- There is a 'side story' going on in the American media - both the electronic and print about the Islamist jihadists lethal attack on the American 'post' in Benghazi, Libya last September 11 which killed American ambassador Christopher Steven and three others; The emphasis and the debate is on why the event was twisted by the Obama administration to conceal a terrorist attack on eve of the presidential election. With the killing of Osama bin Larden on May 2 last year the administration, which was approaching the re-election of Mr. Obama in November, wants to convince the American people that the al Qaeda was now annihilated for good. When the Islamist jihadist group affiliated to al Qaeda lethally attacked the American 'post' in Benghazi the Obama administration twisted the events to convince that a anti-Islamic video produced by someone in California was the cause of the attack. These days the highlights and debate is about why the 'talking points' were changed twelve times to give that different picture. As Obama rightfully said a couple of days ago about this debate, mostly spearheaded by the Republicans, was a 'side show.' The 'real show' is in fact buried. And the 'real show' is that the United States, Ambassador Steven playing a major role, was in the process of shipping arms to Syrian rebels to topple Basher el-Assad's regime. It was on October 25 last year that FoxNews.com broke the story that a mysterious Libyan ship was reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels would have had some link to the September 11 terror attack on the U.S. 'post' in Benghazi. Why do we use the term 'post' in this report? Because when changes were made to the Benghazi attack story by the Obama administration it changed from 'American Consulate' to 'American Post'. The reason: Benghazi operation was entirely a CIA operation. Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means "The Victory," was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun -- 35 miles from the Syrian border -- on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officers were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants. On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the 'posts' front gate one hour before the assault began. Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. When asked to comment, a State Department spokeswoman dismissed the idea, saying Stevens was there for diplomatic meetings, and to attend the opening of a cultural center. According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria's rebels on the frontlines. The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG's and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS. In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group-a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life. In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria. The Internet Media reported at that time that Ambassador Stevens had only one person-Belhadj-between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria. The Asian Tribune has also found that the Internet Media further reported that if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey-a deal brokered by Stevens' primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution-then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it. Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died." As noted earlier, the Obama administration has since described the American facility in Benghazi not as a 'Consulate' but as a 'Post'. The U.S. Republican Senator Rand Paul, who is expected to run for his party presidential nomination in the year 2016, was the only American lawmaker who disclosed about this 'arms deal' which he connects to Ambassador Steven's brutal muder in the hands of the Islamist Jihadists. In an interview aired on CNN May 9 evening, Sen. Paul said he hasn't ruled out the possibility that last year's attack unfolded as a result of a secret arms trade. The confusion in the immediate aftermath of the event - including unfounded admissions from America's United Nations envoy Susan Rice that contradicted what is known today about the attack - could actually be a cover-up, the senator said. The Obama administration sent its ambassador to UN Susan Rice on the following Sunday talk shows to say that the offending Islamic video was the cause of the attack in Benghazi. "I've actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria," he said. "Were they trying to obscure that there was an arms operation going on at the CIA annex?" Paul asked. "I'm not sure exactly what was going on, but I think questions ought to be asked and answered, and I'm a little curious when employees of the State Department are told by government officials they shouldn't testify - before the Senate or House committees - and then they are sort of sequestered and kept away from testimony, so I think there may be more to this." This is not the first time either that Senator Paul raised questions about possible arms supplies under the CIA umbrella. During her testimony in the Senate in January, Rand Paul asked then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whether the spy agency was sending weapons from Benghazi into other countries. Clinton replied that he would have to ask CIA officials about it. Sen. Rand Paul said on Aaron Klein Radio in mid April: "First of all with regard to Benghazi, I think it's important because it may have something to do with why the compound was attacked. If we were involved with shipping guns to Turkey, there was a report that a ship left from Libya towards Turkey and that there were arms on it in the week preceding this ; there were reports that our ambassador was meeting with the Turkish attach'e, so I think with regards to figuring out what happened at Benghazi, it's very important to know whether or not the CIA annex had anything to do with facilitating guns being sent to Turkey and ultimately to Syria. With regard to arming the rebels, just this week in the armed services committee, General Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that we were no longer able to distinguish who the good guys were from the bad guys and that sounds pretty worrisome if we are actually arming people who in the end may be enemies of America...enemies of Israel... enemies maybe of the Christians who live within Syria...sending arms to a rebel force to that may include Al-Nusra and other radical jihadists." In the eighties, the Iran-Contra Arms Affair shook the Regan administration the way the Benghazi affair is developing to shake the foundation of the Obama administration. Iran-contra affair, in U.S. history, secret arrangement in the 1980s to provide funds to the Nicaraguan contra rebels from profits gained by selling arms to Iran. The Iran-contra affair was the product of two separate initiatives during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. The first was a commitment to aid the contras who were conducting a guerrilla war against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The second was to placate "moderates" within the Iranian government in order to secure the release of American hostages held by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon and to influence Iranian foreign policy in a pro-Western direction. Despite the strong opposition of the Reagan administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted legislation that prohibited the Defense Dept., the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or any other government agency from providing military aid to the contras from Dec., 1983, to Sept., 1985. The Reagan administration circumvented these limitations by using the National Security Council (NSC), which was not explicitly covered by the law, to supervise covert military aid to the contras. Under Robert McFarlane (1983-85) and John Poindexter (1985-86) the NSC raised private and foreign funds for the contras. This operation was directed by NSC staffer Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North. McFarlane and North were also the central figures in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo. In early Nov., 1986, the scandal broke when reports in Lebanese newspapers forced the Reagan administration to disclose the arms deals. Poindexter resigned before the end of the month; North was fired. Select congressional committees held joint hearings, and in Dec., 1986, Lawrence E. Walsh was named as special prosecutor to investigate the affair. Higher administration officials, particularly Reagan, Vice President Bush, and William J. Casey (former director of the CIA, who died in May, 1987), were implicated in some testimony, but the extent of their involvement remained unclear. North said he believed Reagan was largely aware of the secret arrangement, and the independent prosecutor's report (1994) said that Reagan and Bush had some knowledge of the affair or its cover-up. Reagan and Bush both claimed to have been uninformed about the details of the affair, and no evidence was found to link them to any crime. A presidential commission was critical of the NSC, while congressional hearings uncovered a web of official deception, mismanagement, and illegality. A number of criminal convictions resulted, including those of McFarlane, North, and Poindexter, but North's and Poindexter's were vacated on appeal because of immunity agreements with the Senate concerning their testimony. Former State Dept. and CIA officials pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information about the contra aid from Congress, and Caspar Weinberger, defense secretary under Reagan, was charged (1992) with the same offense. In 1992 then-president Bush pardoned Weinberger and other officials who had been indicted or convicted for withholding information on or obstructing investigation of the affair. Will the Benghazi Affair leads that far? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23b_1368795857 omniradar The real Benghazi story US Smuggling Weapons to Syrian Rebels Thu, 16 May 2013 00:17:49 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bcd_1368676771 SvenVonErick Monsanto, an international corporation, owns court systems, government, and policing. Monsanto wants to own all the land, poison and sterilize populations and their elite will, and will bankrupt anyone who gets in their way in courts. Vermont is in Monsanto's sights to be taught a lesson. Serial poisoners like Monsanto against labels being put on food products and even on crops. GMO is untested and probably harmful. Monsanto wrote itself immunity from civil and prosecution. Monsanto hands US elected officials legislation, it is just passed. So, who is really in charge? If buyers of homes pay no or little taxes, eventually they will own all homes. The same goes for business. If one group is taxed heavily and others aren't, the lowly, on no taxed, groups thrive. So, outside, foreign corporations and bankers will own all land, all business, and even us as slaves as our "representatives" have sold us out. Small farmers and family farmers were the targets of police, the courts, child protective services, and the IRS. Corporations sicked their goons on the farmers from the early 1970s. Farmers were spied on, their phones tapped, and they were put under surveillance. How did it work out for them? How is it going to work out for us? If anyone can spy on you 24/7, they own you as a slave. I suggest watching the black and white film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" to understand the current corporate occupation of America. What is happening now in Vermont is a test. We have had enough of corporate radiation, poisons, genetic mutations, abuse, rape, robbery, torture, murder, and wars. It is time to have Nuremberg type trials for operatives of Monsanto and other world parasite corporations. Birds fall out of the sky and litter the land dead. Some all of a sudden. Where are the bees? Food is being genetically modified to poison bugs. What is this "food" doing to us. Why is there Autism in record numbers. Why is diabetes on the rise. Why are general populations so docile when so abused from the outside? The elite want to reduce population. That is you and I they want to sterilize, poison, confine, rob, and murder. Why are we funding them? This is my personal fight ] and is why I have a problem with the criminal occupation of America with likes of Monsanto, and others. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bcd_1368676771 SvenVonErick Vermont fights Satan Corporation, Monsanto, occupation? UN, Agenda 21, OWS, Corporatism, NDAA, Martial Law, Patriot Act, censorship, police, state, brutality, Connecticut, New York, NYC, city, gun, ban, confiscation, Sandyhook, Newtown, Schoolyard, shooting, Boston, Bombing, hoax, false flag, operation, black, Mon, 13 May 2013 15:12:40 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c2_1368472062 omniradar Guatemala Illuminates its Dark History With a Stunning Guilty Verdict for Rios Montt Monday, 13 May 2013 10:27 By Lauren Carasik , Truthout Op-Ed After years of tireless effort and weeks of proceedings in the trial of US-supported former Guatemalan dictator Jose Efrain Rios Montt for genocide and crimes against humanity, Judge Jazmin Barrios delivered a stunning victory for truth and justice. Though her voice quivered initially under the gravity of her charge, as she detailed the court's findings, Judge Barrios was eloquent, forceful and righteous, vindicating all those who toiled for years and risked their lives to shed light on the bloody past. Declaring Rios Montt guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity and sentencing him to 80 years in prison, Judge Barrios echoed the voices of the victims: "For there to be peace in Guatemala, first there must be justice." This historic verdict will reverberate from the packed courtroom to the highlands where the rivers ran red with blood, to the global community, to send an unmistakable message that justice can prevail over the most ardent efforts of those whose ruthless acts are cloaked by impunity. The process was fraught with delay, vitriol and unexpected turns, caused by relentless defense efforts to delegitimize the tribunal rather than present a substantive rebuttal to the charges. It was uncertain whether the Guatemala genocide trial would ever reach its dramatic conclusion many years after survivors first availed themselves of the legal system to find truth and justice for the unspeakable brutality that claimed over 200,000 lives and devastated countless others. Rios Montt and his chief of military intelligence, Jose Maurico Sanchez Rodriquez, who was ultimately acquitted, were charged were the deaths of 1,771 Maya Ixiles in the Department of Quiche from 1982 to 1983, along with a deliberate campaign of state-sponsored terror intended to destroy the Ixil culture. Weeks of trial included the haunting testimony of survivors, whose palpable grief flowed from newly reopened wounds and the methodical and exhaustive presentation of carefully orchestrated forensic, military and other experts. Even as the world waited expectantly for the trial to conclude, the legal maneuvering continued to plague the process. Judge Carol Patricia Flores, in charge of preliminary matters before she was recused - after a motion by the defense - and subsequently reinstated, sent the process careening into turmoil with her April decision annulling all trial proceedings that happened after she was removed from the case in November 2011. Amid multiple appeals that engendered confusion and uncertainty, a ruling from the Constitutional Court allowed the trial to move forward. The trial was convened briefly on Tuesday before being recessed, after defense attorney Garcia Guidel informed the tribunal that he was gravely ill. Guidel was photographed later that afternoon in the public ministry, apparently in fine health. When the defense failed, yet again, to produce witnesses, Judge Barrios put an end to the stalling tactics and moved the trial to its final phase. This announcement provoked another tirade from Garcia Guidel, who threatened that he would not rest until the judges were in jail. With unfailing grace and dignity, Judge Barrios neither reacted to the antagonism nor buckled under the unrelenting pressure of presiding over this contentious trial and calmly read the Code of Ethics provisions mandating respect for the tribunal and toward all human beings. Rios Montt, who declined opportunities to address the tribunal and remained silent and mostly impassive during the proceedings, demanded to address the court at the very end, despite the procedural irregularity of doing so. Determined to avoid accusations that she deprived the defendant of his voice, Barrios allowed Rios Montt to launch into a meandering statement. As Rios Montt's cadence varied, he declared his innocence, denied centralized control over the military and claimed that the behavior of soldiers was the responsibility of field commanders, attributing any atrocities committed in various regions to their local command. Rios Montt's denial was eviscerated in part by his own arrogant statement, preserved for perpetuity on videotape and played for the court earlier in the trial, in which he confidently affirmed his control over the army. It is noteworthy that President Perez Molina, accused in open court of complicity in war crimes, was a field commander in the Ixil region in 1982. The trial's completion was uncertain until the very end. On Friday, Judge Flores reaffirmed her April decision annulling the trial, claiming that the Constitutional Court ruling required her to simply reissue her decision, an order that defied logic. Judge Barrios refused to be intimidated or outmaneuvered and insisted that the tribunal would continue, scheduling the announcement of a verdict at 4 PM. Defense attorneys declared that any ruling from the court would be invalid, the last in a long series of obstructionist machinations designed to circumvent justice. Before the verdict was read, tension in the courtroom was palpable. As Judge Barrios began to speak, the court's findings seemed to lead inexorably to a guilty verdict. Clearly moved by the dignity of the survivors, the panel of judges found that the military employed a calculated strategy to destroy the Ixil for their historical recalcitrance and perceived ideological and logistical support for the guerrillas, through extrajudicial assassination, rape, forced displacement, intentional starvation and severing sacred ties to ancestral land. Judge Barrios summarized the irrefutable incrimination of the military's own documents, including Plan Sofia, which classified the Ixil as the internal enemy. Judge Barrios lamented the irreparable and intergenerational harm to these communities. The court found that intelligence evidence indicated constant communication between the field and the military command and that Rios Montt had the knowledge and authority to stop the atrocities. Rios Montt's house arrest was revoked, and he was ordered to jail. Chaos erupted after the verdict, and Judge Barrios for the first time raised her voice, appealing for calm and demanding that Rios Montt not be removed from the courtroom by anyone other than the police. As the tension eased, elated survivors who waged the long battle for historical justice and their supporters applauded the judges, before breaking out into song and cheers of "Justice, Justice." Despite this victory, the grief and incalculable loss will endure forever. Although the Peace Accords included a commitment to unearth historical memory, many were determined to ensure the truth in Guatemala remain buried with the remains of tens of thousands of the disappeared. The trial cracked wide open a festering schism in Guatemalan society about truth, memory and justice. Courageous survivors, judges, witnesses and lawyers proceeded in the face of threats and accusations. Many fear that the verdict will unleash violent reprisals, as the trial has inflamed the already polarized climate. In the past week, a man reportedly from the Foundation Against Terrorism was escorted from the courtroom for taking photos and videos of courtroom observers. Further heightening the tension, someone composed and circulated an ominous "faces of impunity" brochure, with names and color photographs of protagonists in the fight for justice, which many feared was a thinly veiled hit list. All the reasons that transitional justice is difficult to pursue in national courts plagued this trial. Though the conflict ended in 1996, Rios Montt enjoyed immunity from prosecution as a member of Congress until 2012. Yet survivors began their long, exhausting and improbable trek toward justice in 2000, a year after the UN-sponsored Truth Commission gave victims their voice, punctured the silence surrounding the conflict's unspeakable brutality and attributed blame for 93 percent of the deaths to the military. The survivors' efforts to bring the intellectual authors of the state-sponsored terror to justice were consistently impeded by interference in the judiciary and a lack of political will, compounding the structural inequality that gave rise to the conflict in the first place: endemic racism, desperate poverty, stratified socio-economics and political exclusion. Those aligned with the military and economic elites still retain much of their historical power, though components of the judiciary exhibited remarkable independence and integrity. Even in the spotlight of the international community, threats and intimidation have been intense and unrelenting. We cannot turn away now, content that justice has been done: We must continue to walk in solidarity with the survivors, lawyers, judges and experts who have displayed extraordinary courage and exceptional dedication to truth, memory and justice and are still at risk. This verdict is not the end of this sordid tale for Rios Montt, and subsequent legal maneuvering and its attendant rhetoric is all but certain to cast doubt on the proceedings and further inflame already simmering societal divisions. But the trial and the verdict represent an undeniable victory for the Ixil, for Guatemala and for our common humanity. This remarkable triumph of the human spirit confirms that the arc of Guatemalan history does indeed bend toward justic http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c2_1368472062 omniradar Guatemala Illuminates its Dark History With a Stunning Guilty Verdict for Rios Montt US Supported Guatemalan dictator Jose Efrain Rios Montt on trial for genocide and crimes against humanity !! Mon, 13 May 2013 09:54:37 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ae_1368452355 Mark-of-the-Beast My 2 cents to add. When our politicians travel, they have a security force labeled Blue Light Convoy. These guys have been responsible for MULTIPLE deaths, through sheer negligence of the rules of the road etc, and NOT ONE has ever been arrested. Instead, they get off without warning, and in most cases, the person who they injured, ends up being the one punished though our twisted and criminal loving justice system. actual story: Cape Town - A video clip has been posted to Youtube showing a Pretoria cyclist being manhandled in a roadside scuffle, apparently by a diplomat's security guards. Cyclist Hein van der Merwe explained to eNCA how a black Mercedes Benz failed to come to a halt at a stop on Roper Street in Pretoria on 8 May 2013, and proceeded to cut in front of him. "In my attempt to get the driver's attention by cycling next to the driver's side door/window repeatedly shouting and in a final attempt to get his attention, hitting down twice on his side wing mirror, the vehicle deliberately tried to run me over by swerving into me," he told eNCA. A scuffle ensued whereby one of the diplomatic aides pinned Van der Merwe to the ground and threatened him. Filmed A pupil at the scene filmed the entire incident. Van der Merwe told eNCA that the diplomatic police who arrived at the scene were unhelpful. "The diplomatic police on scene told me to delete photos and videos I took of the diplomat. The police also intimidating the school child who took the video." As yet it is unclear who the diplomat is and to which country the diplomatic motorcade belongs. Van der Merwe tried to open a case at the Brooklyn police station but was referred to the police headquarters as the case involved diplomatic police as well as foreign diplomats. According to 2 Oceans Vibe , diplomats in the country enjoy diplomatic immunity, which shields them from criminal charges in their host country, although they could face internal charges or embassy disciplinary processes. Spokesperson for the Brooklyn police station, Captain Colette Weilbach, could not confirm whether or not Van der Merwe tried to make a case. "Mr Van der Merwe has the right to lodge a formal complaint against the police who allegedly did not assist him in opening a case," she told News24. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ae_1368452355 Mark-of-the-Beast Diplomats Harass Cyclist (Vert Camera warning) cyclist, south Africa, bastards, politics Mon, 13 May 2013 03:24:17 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=441_1368429772 cathy winslow While Washington is pulling out its military might from Afghanistan next year, it is stepping up efforts to supply the war-torn state with plenty of military contractors, practically switching from national armed forces to mercenaries. According to the latest census on contractors accompanying US forces performed by the Professional Overseas Contractors industry group, the US employs 110,404 people in Afghanistan, 33,444 of which are Americans. Their job classifications include everything from base support to construction and from logistics to security. "There are already far more contractors or mercenaries in Afghanistan than there are troops," Middle East expert, Phyllis Bennis told RT. Once US troops withdraw, it will be up to this private military to train the Afghan police and army. They will also take charge of the development and reconstruction effort. All of this is stipulated in the Afghan-American strategic partnership agreement which allows a small number of US forces to remain in the country until 2024. Under this strategic partnership agreement the remaining troops -- the number of which has not yet been made public -- will remain "until the future government in Afghanistan says that they can't," Bennis says. But since only a small number of US military personnel will stay, these "would likely be mainly special forces" whose only job "will be largely to kill Afghans, not to do anything else," Bennis believes. "We don't know either the final number, if that's been agreed to yet it's being held privately, and we also don't know the critical question of whether the Afghan government will allow those US troops to serve with immunity. That was the reason they were all pulled out of Iraq," she added. The military troops however may have to leave all together if the Afghan government refuses to grant them immunity, leaving US soldiers prone to prosecution. "The Obama administration was not prepared to have US troops who might be accused of war crimes and might indeed be guilty of war crimes be sent to trial in Iraqi courts," Bennis explained. "They may face the same decision in Afghanistan." In any case, experts agree, the US paid contractors will stay in Afghanistan for many years to come. http://on.rt.com/u250zb http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=441_1368429772 cathy winslow US troops 'handing power to mercenaries' ahead of 2014 withdrawal Afghanistan,war,mercenaries,Withdrawl,US,Military Sun, 12 May 2013 17:40:18 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=606_1368393929 SvenVonErick Have you seen the dramatic series on Fox TV network called "The Following"? Kevin Bacon stars as an armed FBI contractor who can execute police officers, the general public, killing at will with immunity. He can torture, spy on civilians and government, and can do as he pleases, when he pleases. Bacon is the hero of the new international corporate organized crime and banker occupation of America. You, the public need to support torture, murder, rape, indefinite detention, wars without end, the elite ripping off average people, being sterilized, slowing being killed, poisoned, and abused. You need to get with the program. Watch tv and accept your fate. The US Government is broke by design ] This is US Policing ] http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=606_1368393929 SvenVonErick Serial Killers & Tortures wanted as Contractors for FBI? UN, US, conspiracy, theory, gun, confiscation, ban, Connecticut, State, Police, brutality, New York, City, OWS, Martial Law, Patriot Act, NDAA, Boston, bombing, Sandyhook, Newtown, Schoolyard, shooting, hoax, Anthrax, attack, 9/11 Sun, 05 May 2013 01:59:44 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15a_1367733474 cathy winslow Afghan President Hamid Karzai has come back home from Europe. But, the visit was not the main topic of his press conference in his palace. It was the future of the US military presence in the war-torn country. Karzai publicly announced that the United States can keep its bases in Afghanistan beyond the 2014 withdrawal deadline. Other politicians strongly reacted. Fatana Ishaq Gailani is from a very well-known political family here. She is strongly opposed to the US war in her country. Fatana is calling for an immediate end to the conflict. And to her, the US future military involvement means more chaos. She says, no one can build this country, but Afghans themselves. The conflict in Afghanistan is considered as the longest war in the US history. Washington has reportedly spent over 517 billion dollars so far, with scores of American forces killed in the war. But 12 years on, attacks by Taliban militants still take heavy toll. Corruption is rampant. Over 50 percent of Afghans live below the poverty line. Unemployment is also forcing young people to leave their country. President Karzai expects the US to tackle all these problems in his country, if it wants long-term military bases here. Endurable peace is his number-one condition. Washington is also seeking legal immunity for American forces. So, talks are ongoing between the two sides. And if they reach a consensus, a security deal will be signed. However, they have not specified any deadline for signing it as of yet. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has come back home from Europe. But, the visit was not the main topic of his press conference in his palace. It was the future of the US military presence in the war-torn country. Karzai publicly announced that the United States can keep its bases in Afghanistan beyond the 2014 withdrawal deadline. Other politicians strongly reacted. Fatana Ishaq Gailani is from a very well-known political family here. She is strongly opposed to the US war in her country. Fatana is calling for an immediate end to the conflict. And to her, the US future military involvement means more chaos. She says, no one can build this country, but Afghans themselves. The conflict in Afghanistan is considered as the longest war in the US history. Washington has reportedly spent over 517 billion dollars so far, with scores of American forces killed in the war. But 12 years on, attacks by Taliban militants still take heavy toll. Corruption is rampant. Over 50 percent of Afghans live below the poverty line. Unemployment is also forcing young people to leave their country. President Karzai expects the US to tackle all these problems in his country, if it wants long-term military bases here. Endurable peace is his number-one condition. Washington is also seeking legal immunity for American forces. So, talks are ongoing between the two sides. And if they reach a consensus, a security deal will be signed. However, they have not specified any deadline for signing it as of yet. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/04/301828/us-to-have-military-bases-in-afghanistan-after-2014/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15a_1367733474 cathy winslow US to Stay in Afghanistan after 2014 Afghanistan,Kabul,Karzai,US,Military Sat, 04 May 2013 13:35:35 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=32f_1367688724 BekasKhan Seven US service members were killed on Saturday by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan, the latest deadly attack against international troops since the Taliban announced the start of their spring offensive this week. The coalition did not disclose the location of the blast, but Javeed Faisal, a spokesman for the governor of Kandahar province, said the coalition patrol hit the roadside bomb in Maiwand district of the province, the spiritual birthplace of the Taliban. Captain Luca Carniel, a public affairs official for the US-led coalition in Kabul, confirmed that all five were Americans. With the deaths, 47 members of the coalition have been killed so far this year including 32 Americans. The renewed violence came as Afghan president Hamid Karzai acknowledged that his government has been receiving funds from CIA for more than a decade as part of regular monthly assistance from the US government. Karzai told reporters at a news conference that the CIA's station chief in Kabul has assured him that regular funding the US intelligence agency gives his government will not be cut off. Karzai had earlier confirmed that his government had received such payments following a story published in The New York Times that said the CIA had given the Afghan National Security Council tens of millions of dollars in monthly payments delivered in suitcases, backpacks and plastic shopping bags. "The help and assistance from the US is for our National Directorate of Security. That is state-to-state, government-to-government regular assistance," Karzai said. "So that is a government institution helping another government institution, and we appreciate all this assistance and help, all this assistance is very useful for us. We have spent it in different areas (and) solved lots of our problems." Karzai would not say how much assistance his government had received because it was being used for intelligence work, but acknowledged it was in cash and that "all the money which we have spent, receipts have been sent back to the intelligence service of the United States monthly." He claimed that much of the money was used to care for wounded employees of the NDS, Afghanistan's intelligence service, and operational expenses. "It is an official government deal between the two governments. This is happening all over the world such deals between governments and in Afghanistan, which is a needy country, these sorts of deals are very important and useful," he said. Karzai confirmed the payments during a news conference earlier this week in Helsinki, Finland. After Karzai's confirmation in Europe, White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to comment on the newspaper report, referring questions to the CIA, which also declined comment. In his gathering with reporters at the presidential palace, Karzai said he had met earlier in the day with the Kabul station chief of the CIA. "I told him because of all these rumors in the media, please do not cut all this money because we really need it," Karzai said. "We want to continue this sort of assistance and he promised that they are not going to cut this money." He added that negotiations for a new bilateral security agreement with the United States had been delayed because of conditions that Afghanistan had placed on such a deal. The security agreement is to govern a US military presence after 2014 when nearly all foreign combat troops are to have finished their withdrawal from Afghanistan. The talks, which started in late 2012, are set to last up to a year. President Barack Obama has not said how many troops will remain, although there have been estimates ranging from 8,000 to 12,000. It is unlikely such an announcement will be made until the security agreement is signed. Those troops would help train Afghan forces and also carry out operations against al-Qaida and other militant groups. Karzai said Afghanistan was ready to sign a deal as long as the American government in exchange for being able to stay on bases in the country agrees to terms of Afghan security, funding assistance and help with training and equipping Afghan security forces. It is thought that the contentious issue of providing U.S. troops immunity from Afghan law is a low priority for the Afghan government in the negotiations. The Afghan government has not said how much rent it would want for three or four US bases, but it is believed to be in the billions. Afghanistan is also thought to be seeking security guarantees to protect its porous borders, including the frontier with Pakistan that is the main infiltration route for insurgents who retain sanctuary in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas. "The position of the United States about the security of Afghanistan and relations with neighboring countries, or whatever attacks are happening from the neighboring countries to Afghanistan, should be very clear," Karzai said. "So we are trying our best that the security of Afghanistan should be guaranteed, peace in Afghanistan should be guaranteed, a strengthening of the Afghan security forces should be guaranteed, as well the economy of Afghanistan should be guaranteed." It was unclear how Karzai expected the United States or any of its allies to guarantee Afghanistan's borders against attack. Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have been severely strained in recent months, especially over the delicate issue of the demarcation of their border. Afghan and Pakistani forces engaged in a nearly five-hour exchange of fire last Tuesday along Afghanistan's eastern border. One Afghan border policeman was killed and two Pakistani soldiers were wounded in the fighting in eastern Nangarhar province. The main problem is that Afghanistan does not recognize the disputed Durand Line, the 19th century demarcation between present-day Afghanistan and Pakistan, while Pakistan does. "Since the Durand line has been imposed on Afghanistan, it was not acceptable to the Afghans and we cannot accept the Durand line," Karzai said. "No government in Afghanistan will accept the Durand Line." Violence has spiked in recent weeks as temperatures have risen. The death of the five Americans on Saturday was the second deadly attack since the insurgency announced their new offensive on April 27. Three British soldiers were killed on April 30 when their armored vehicle hit a bomb in southern Helmand province. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=32f_1367688724 BekasKhan Seven US soldiers killed in Maiwand Kandahar Afghanistan bomb blast Afghanistan Occupation by US NATO Taliban Pakistan terrorist Punjabi ISI Al Qaeda Iran Intel India Haqqani China to Occupy Afghanistan Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:49:28 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5db_1367246821 Marcux Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Thursday criticized US tactics in Afghanistan, accusing American and NATO forces of contributing to the violence and corruption in his country. In an interview with NBC at the presidential palace, Karzai, who is serving his second five-year term, voiced his concerns with the US presence in Afghanistan at a time when tensions are high and the Obama administration is preparing to withdraw US troops in 2014. "Part of the insecurity is coming to us from the structures that NATO and America created in Afghanistan," Karzai said. The Taliban has regained some of the land and power it lost after the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and many US officials have begun to view Karzai as a president who leads a corrupt government. However Karzai has his own take on the issue. "The bigger corruption is the corruption in contracts. The contracts are not issued by the Afghan government. The contracts are issued by the international community, mainly by the United States," he said. "Now whether this corruption in Afghanistan is an accident, a byproduct of the situation in the past 10 years or is it perpetrated also on purpose is today my main question." The Afghan president, disappointed with America's refusal to hand over Afghan prisoners held at the Parwan detention facility, also said he wrote a letter to US President Barack Obama about his concern on what he previously called "a serious breach of the Memorandum of Understanding". A US-Afghan deal signed in March gave the US six months to transfer control of captured Afghans to the Karzai government, but Karzai spokesman Aimal Faizi told reports that US troops are illegally holding more than 70 detainees whose release was ordered by Afghan courts. "I have written to President Obama that the Afghan people will not allow its government to enter into a security agreement while the United States continues to violate Afghan sovereignty," Karzai told NBC on Thursday. "We signed the strategic partnership agreement with the expectation and the hope... the nature of the United States' activities in Afghanistan will change," Karzai said, adding that American behavior has not changed. The Afghan president also noted that US uses ineffective methods of fighting terrorism. "By attacking Afghan villages and Afghan homes," terrorism will not be defeated, he said. Additionally, Karzai believes al-Qaeda does not have a presence in Afghanistan. "I don't even know if al-Qaeda exists as an organizations as it is being spoken about. So all we know is that we have insecurity," he said. US officials believe al-Qaeda has strong links with the Taliban and other Afghan insurgents. Karzai's criticism of the US comes after the start of bilateral talks on the role of the US after its troops are withdrawn in 2014. The Obama administration is in the midst of negotiations with the Kabul government to establish a security pact to allow some US troops to remain in the country past 2014. These troops would train Afghan security forces and conduct counterterrorism missions. Afghanistan has not yet made a decision on whether these Americans would receive immunity. "We can consider that question. I can go to the Afghan people and argue for it," Karzai said. "But before I do that, the United States of America must make absolutely sure that they respect Afghan's sovereignty, that they respect Afghanistan's laws, that no Afghan is hurt or his or her rights violated by US soldiers." While Karzai referred to US-Afghan tensions as "businesslike" and "not based on sentiments", his further criticism of the Obama administration and US tactics in Afghanistan are sure to bring more uncomfortable feelings to the table of negotiation. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5db_1367246821 Marcux WAKE-UP IDIOTS WHERE YOUR MONEY GOES Karzai blames the US for Afghan corruption Karzai blames the US for Afghan corruption Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:45:37 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37c_1367206227 ConspiracyTardLL Report: Obama Officials Authorized New 'Cybersecurity' Warrantless Surveillance Program, Fresh Immunity Given to ISPs Yesterday, in a disturbing report published on CNET, new documents obtained by EPIC reveal that Obama administration officials have authorized a new government National Security Agency Warrantless Watchdogprogram involving the interception of communications on Internet service providers, including AT&T-one of the key players in the NSA warrantless wiretapping program . Under long-standing federal law, the government needs to use legal process to compel service providers to hand over customer communications, yet reportedly, the government is promising these companies they will not to prosecute them for violating US wiretapping laws if they hand over the information voluntarily. And the secret surveillance authorization seems quite broad, touching on huge swaths of private, domestic activity: The secret legal authorization from the Justice Department originally applied to a cybersecurity pilot project in which the military monitored defense contractors' Internet links. Since then, however, the program has been expanded by President Obama to cover all critical infrastructure sectors including energy, healthcare, and finance starting June 12. CNET reported also that the National Security Agency (NSA) and Department of Defense were "deeply involved in press for the secret legal authorization" further underscoring widespread worries that the military may be given access to Americans' personal information through cybersecurity operations. The report comes as Congress is debating CISPA , a dangerous bill that carves a "cybersecurity" loophole in all our privacy laws. While we are still sifting through the more than thousand pages of documents-obtained by EPIC Privacy through the Freedom of Information Act and posted to their website-the most controversial aspect of this program seems to be that the government has not used legal process to obtain Internet traffic from AT&T and other ISPs involved in the program. Instead, the Justice Department has handed them what the Justice Department calls a "2511 letter"-named after a section of the Wiretap Act -which purports to immunize them from prosecution. Section 2511 makes it a crime to wiretap-intercept electronic communications-with some exceptions, like a properly issued warranted. It provides no exception for a letter from the Justice Department. CNET reported an industry representative told them "the 2511 letters provided legal immunity to the providers by agreeing not to prosecute for criminal violations of the Wiretap Act. It's not clear how many 2511 letters were issued by the Justice Department." Beyond what CNET reported, we still need to analyze these new documents to determine how pervasive this surveillance is and its impact on the American public. We are currently reading them over and will have a more detailed analysis soon. SOURCE 1: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-secret-push-to-internet-surveillance/ SOURCE 2: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying SOURCE 3: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37c_1367206227 ConspiracyTardLL Obama Officials Authorized New 'Cybersecurity' Warrantless Surveillance Program barack obama, cispa, wiretapping