‘Truther’ radio jock stirs outrage with shocking proclamation Pete Santilli also said he believes President Obama should be shot over Benghazi scandal.

After reading this article that was sent to us by one of our faithful members and supporters sent me this article

  • Today!  
  •  12:10pm 
  • Jan Johnson
  • I happen to agree that something has to be done with those who commit  Treason It is not Sedition to want those in power who have commited Treason Against the United States to have to pay for the high crimes they have committed.  It is not a crime to want justice for the American people or for Seal team Six, if in fact it turns out to be true what this talk show host is saying about any of these allegations against the President and Hillary Clinton.  The punishment should fit the crime according to our Laws of the Constitution.  

  • The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
  • According to the Constitution, punishment can be set by Congress, but not to include corruption of blood or forfeiture extending beyond the offender’s life. Quite apart from this limitation, Justice Joseph Story notes the explicit grant of congressional power over punishment was intended as a leniency, to preclude the assumption of the common-law punishment’s harshest elements. The First Congress used its constitutional power of declaring the punishment for treason by establishing the penalty of death, with seven years’ imprisonment for misprision of treason.
  • The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
    Sedition is inciting civil unrest or insurrection, or undermining the government.
    In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one’s sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a master by his servant or slave. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.   Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].” In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.what the guy has to say 
  •  

By Section 110 of Article III. of the Constitution of the United States, it is declared that:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason.”

In 1790, the Congress of the United States enacted that:

“If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH; and that if any person or persons, having knowledge of the commission of any of the treasons aforesaid, shall conceal, and not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President of the United States, or some one of the Judges thereof, or to the President or Governor of a particular State, or some one of the Judges or Justices thereof, such person or persons, on conviction, shall be adjudged guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars.”

JAMES MADISON in the 43d number of the Federalist says:

“As treason may be committed against the United States the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it: but as new tangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the Convention has with great judgment opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger by inserting a Constitutional definition of the crime.”

The Constitution confines the crime of treason to two species; First, the levying of war against the United States; and Secondly, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. In so doing the very words of the Statute of Treason of EDWARD the THIRD were adopted; and thus the framers of the Constitution recognized the well settled interpretation of these phrases in the administration of criminal law which has prevailed for centuries in England.

Treason, according to Lord COKK, is derived from trahir, signifying to betray; and trahison, by contraction, treason, is the betraying itself.

In England, high treason can only be committed against the KING, for the oath of allegiance is to the KING alone, as the only supreme Governor — he has no partners in the supremacy.

‘I want to shoot Hillary Clinton in the genitals’: Right wing radio jock stirs outrage with shocking proclamation

  • Self-proclaimed ‘truther’ Pete Santilli also said he believes President Obama should be shot over Benghazi scandal

PUBLISHED: 20:33 EST, 18 May 2013 | UPDATED: 21:12 EST, 18 May 2013

The host of a right wing radio show with a dislike for Hillary Clinton wants to take out his grudge by shooting her in the vagina.

Pete Santilli isn’t extremely well known, nor are his ideas mainstream, but he’s managed to get some rather big names on his radio show of late. Recent guests on the internet-based show including NRA board member Ted Nugent and Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt and have lent some heightened visibility to Santilli’s homespun show.

Now the conspiracy theorist has really doubled down on increasing his name recognition, though it may not be in the wisest way.

Low blow: Conspiracy theorist and host of a right wing internet broadcast Pete Santilli said last week he wants to ‘shoot Hillary Clinton in the vagina.’

While discussing the Benghazi scandal, an enraged Santilli said he wanted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to pay for ‘all the Americans [she’s] killed.’

‘I want to shoot her right in the vagina,’ Santilli said last week. ‘On behalf of all of those people, I’m supporting our troops by saying we need to try, convict, and shoot Hillary Clinton in the vagina.’

The shocking comment apparently stems from the host’s belief that the Obama administration faked the Osama bin Laden capture.

‘On behalf of all Americans that you’ve killed,’ he said, ‘on behalf of the Navy SEALS, the families of Navy SEAL Team Six who were involved in the fake hunt down of this Obama, Obama bin Laden thing, that whole fake scenario, because these Navy SEALS know the truth, they killed them all.’

Shock jock: Santilli believes Clinton, along with Obama, allowed Americans to die and deserve to be shot for treason–in the genitals in Clinton’s case

But Santilli didn’t reserve his wraith for Clinton. He also had words for the president himself and warned listeners that those who disagreed shall be deemed un-American.

‘Barack Obama needs to be tried, convicted, and shot for crimes against the United States of America,’ he said. ‘And if anybody has a problem with that, then you are an enemy of our state.’

The host’s rants aren’t reserved for Democrats, though. On the same show, he called for the Bush family to be shot for treason.

Though his recent words are decidedly uncouth, they are a far cry from the most unbelievable comments he’s made.

Bold: Santilli’s show is available only online, but he says he is willing to go national if the FCC ‘can handle my truth & honesty’

Santilli posted an article on his website in December that mapped out his belief the Sandy Hook massacre was a Satanic human sacrifice that was based on rituals seen in the most recent Batman film and further proven by the elementary school’s central location between Stonehenge and the Aztec Pyramid of the Sun.

Santilli also espouses beliefs that high tech energy beams are what took down the Twin Towers on 9/11 and that George H.W. Bush and ‘his cronies’ orchestrated the JFK assassination, among other theories.

On his site, Santilli says he’s prepared to take his truther message and unusual ideas to a national audience, if the audience is ready for him.

‘I am a radio talkshow host ready to take my show to national syndication,’ he writes. ‘That is, of course, if the FCC regulated AM/FM radio stations can handle my truth & honesty.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326847/I-want-shoot-Hillary-Clinton-genitals-Right-wing-radio-jock-stirs-outrage-shocking-proclamation.html#ixzz2TmIcBNxy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Inc., located in Washington, DC, or Denver, CO?

Recently John McGuire and I went to the monthly liberty-oriented Movie Nite that the Hope For Rochester Ministry organizes, and as is tradition I streamed the presentation Which You Are You? (a.k.a. Who Are You?, a.k.a. What the Frequently Unanswered Questions?) onto our YouTube Channel, which you can find together with Bernie Wheater‘s presentation that followed in which he showed a short PowerPointed lesson on how the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Inc.” corporate fake shadow-government hides inside our original and legitimate Government and has been used incrementally to strip you of all your rights (I exaggerate not) by making you legally someone other than who you think you are (if common law were in force), namely making you a corporate slave. So John, healthy skeptic that he is, started doing his own research (as Bernie had encouraged us all to do) and found out some really interesting data that we thought you should all probably know about. I have know for years about the Sovereign Citizen Movement (that John is just starting to find out about) and the Shadow Corporate De Facto Government. De facto is Latin for in fact, and in political terms it indicates a government that may have seized power unlawfully. They may not be constitutionally appointed, but are in fact. De jure is the opposite. A de facto government is supported by the people of the state and not by a constitution. A de jure governing body, on the other hand, is supported by a constitution currently in force. Or a de jure government is officially recognized by the constitution and other (neighboring) states, and sometimes even supranational and inter-governmental institutions. De facto governments are not recognized. De facto governments are caused, for example, by a revolution within (i.e. incited by the people of the state). This is what John wrote:

“I can’t believe no one is talking about this. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Inc., is in Evergreen, CO, a mere half-hour drive from the Denver Mint, the single largest producer of coins in the world! Does it get any shadier than this?”

Published on Jun 27, 2012

EXECUTIVE ORDER, NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS in Words http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-o… Obama Executive Order Seizes U.S. Infrastructure & Citizens for Military Preparedness & Slavery Details Explained Video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myPEND… The Defense Production Act of 1950. The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act that effortlessly passed the House and the Senate is a law that most Americans don’t know about but could put them behind bars for up to 10 years. The law states it is a prosecutable offense to without lawful authority enter a building or grounds of a special event of national significance or enter a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting. Your Employers “Gov’t Servants “can kill you legally for no reason “or if you know the TRUTH”. If you don’t fire them your DEAD ! Legalizing Holocaust. Under National Defense Authorization Act S 1867 U.S. military can (1) arrest U.S. Citizens without any charges (or evidence) (2) Can do it secretly (Just disappear you) (3) Can hold you indefinitely (4) With No Right to a Trial. (5) Can torture. (6) Can assassinate U.S. Citizens. Stop them NOW or DIE ! Your All Terrorists(TRUTHERS), going to take Gov’t Word No DUE Process ! National Defense Authorization Act S 1867 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National… S 1867 NDAA End of Human Rights Petition http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-…… FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. Martial Law Bill Passes Congress Allows Military to Arrest, Permanently Detain, Torture, Kill American Citizens without Trial. The National Defense Authorization Act. America is a War Zone. Romney Ron Paul http://www.campaignforliberty.org/ .Know who runs the World the Federal Reserve system was fraudulently created & it’s Counterfeiting Notes “the Dollar” is illegal & Unconstitutional. Become a Freeman on the Land & know the Deceptions of the Law. Statues & Acts are not law & need your consent (like stating your name or showing ID) Don’t enter the Law Society. lawyer society unalienable rights commerce maritime admiralty common ucc uniform commercial code contract consent civil corruption central bank karma reincarnation enlightenment united states passport legal fiction register court judge property imf wto foreclosure social security Medicaid Medicare debt consent blacks law society sovereignty Osama bin laden death Al Qaeda terrorist haarp chemtrails fema coast to coast am gas oil price middle east 2012 conspiracy terror food crisis gold silver revolution inflation Ron Paul Obama zeitgeist disaster riots protests jobs alex jones prison planet info wars nature corporation wikileaks climate change police state meditation constitutional Jesus Christ ufo’s aliens tea party rand paul Jesse Ventura David Icke max Kaiser Mayan spirituality free Tibet china tyranny terrorism consciousness world war 3 Buddhism Tao Zen god truth justice knowledge wise slavery history freedom fluoride peace love history terrorism occupation information deception paradigm matrix law America recession inflation economy stock market bush depression nwo space mac mind control Hinduism meditation Egypt Libya Jews Israel Mayan new York 911 lies conspiracy theory sovereign state imf wto world bank apply federal reserve slavery Islamic Yemen Pakistan Afghanistan Syria Saudi Arabia Persians Sunni Shiite Islam Iran Iraq Israel 9/11 maritime admiralty law Monsanto seeds farms fda fbi cia homeland security sovereignty graham Hancock Peter Shiff sovereignty earthquake tsunami nuclear japan radiation precession of the equinox prophecy revelation apocalypse rapture bible Christian Pakistan Fukushima default debt stock market crash Peter Schiff max Kaiser rt Oath Keepers tsar ion Occupy Wall Street End the Fed Alan Watts truth movement we are the 99% we are change anonymous marine soldier occupy marines a new alliance Tear Gas OWS Zuccotti park TSA

Ever Wonder why having that Birth Certificate was so important? Why a Certified Certificate of Live Birth from the Hospital wasn’t sufficient enough? I didn’t have a Birth Certificate until I was 12 years old, when suddenly it was required to play Bobbysocks, even after already joining the previous year. Some time in the 1980’s, it was required that you have a Social Security Number for your children in order to claim them on your taxes. Of course, a Birth Certificate is required to obtain an SSN. This video is posted for educational purposes only. No copyright infringement intended.

USC “law” is fictional law. It is 100% color of law no matter how the “government” put it. ALL, and I mean ALL of our judges and representative are not qualified by the constitution to even be in office remember that these people CHOOSE to take an OATH to those “laws” by their own recognition (see 18 USC 1918, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, 5 USC 7311, 18 USC 1621 and 5 USC 3333.)
<a>Gnarly Carly</a>
On March 28th, 1861 Congress adjourned sine die and never has reconvened de jure…

What you think is the Government of the United States of America is, in fact, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC., and the Congress and Senate are STOCKHOLDERS or CORPORATE OFFICERS. The real United States of America Government died (sine die) and never returned.

The original 13th Amendment prohibits “Esquires” (Attorneys) from holding positions of public office. Read the only one I could find,inside Texas, and look at the date!!!!! ..1819 not recognized by the CORPORATE (defacto) UNITED STATES.

U.S. Citizens were declared enemies of the U.S. CORPORATION by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified by Congress on March 9th, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, resulting in use of the Rules of Land Warfare being part and party to their Constitution. ‘FOR THEIR PROTECTION’

F.D.R. changed the meaning of The Trading with the Enemy Act of December 6th, 1917 by changing the word “without” to CITIZENS “within” the United States. The multi-nation Bankruptcy and Great Depression changed our world. The Bankers and Attornies of England took over completely. Thank you F.D.R. …you are hereby assigned 2nd in line to the burn pile…ain’t enough duck tape for that guy!!

Today, almost all mothers unknowingly inform on their own babies. Take a look at the so-called “Birth Certificate” CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH where the mother signs and you’ll see the title of the box stating in small print: “MOTHER OR OTHER INFORMANT.”

The word “OTHER” makes the mother an “informant.” By signing the “Birth Certificate” as an informer, she contracts with the government putting her child and her child’s future labor AND SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES as collateral for the national debt (servitude-slavery.)

Bush, Cheney Knew Gitmo Prisoners Innocent Ex-Bush Official Willing to Testify

This is a story the main stream news is not going to tell you. This is a story you will not see on CNN, FOX or and other main stream Radio talk show they just simply will not even bring up this story as part of a conversation. That is why you come to our site we bring you the news that you would have to do hours of research to find and maybe if you did not know what to look for you may not find at all. So we are happy to present this Story to our subscribers. No it was not written by us but we found it important enough to share this story with you.

Copied from: truth-out.org

Ex-Bush Official Willing to Testify Bush, Cheney Knew Gitmo Prisoners Innocent
By Jason Leopold, Truthout | Report

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once declared that individuals captured by the US military in the aftermath of 9/11 and shipped off to the Guantanamo Bay prison facility represented the “worst of the worst.”
During a radio interview in June 2005, Rumsfeld said the detainees at Guantanamo, “all of whom were captured on a battlefield,” are “terrorists, trainers, bomb makers, recruiters, financiers, [Osama Bin Laden’s] body guards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th hijacker, 9/11 hijacker.”
Click here to listen to Truthout’s Jason Leopold discuss this story on The Peter B. Collins show (mp3).
But Rumsfeld knowingly lied, according to a former top Bush administration official.
And so did then Vice President Dick Cheney when he said, also in 2002 and in dozens of public statements thereafter, that Guantanamo prisoners “are the worst of a very bad lot” and “dangerous” and “devoted to killing millions of Americans, innocent Americans, if they can, and they are perfectly prepared to die in the effort.”
Now, in a sworn declaration obtained exclusively by Truthout, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell during George W. Bush’s first term in office, said Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld knew the “vast majority” of prisoners captured in the so-called War on Terror were innocent and the administration refused to set them free once those facts were established because of the political repercussions that would have ensued.
“By late August 2002, I found that of the initial 742 detainees that had arrived at Guantánamo, the majority of them had never seen a US soldier in the process of their initial detention and their captivity had not been subjected to any meaningful review,” Wilkerson’s declaration says. “Secretary Powell was also trying to bring pressure to bear regarding a number of specific detentions because children as young as 12 and 13 and elderly as old as 92 or 93 had been shipped to Guantánamo. By that time, I also understood that the deliberate choice to send detainees to Guantánamo was an attempt to place them outside the jurisdiction of the US legal system.”
He added that it became “more and more clear many of the men were innocent, or at a minimum their guilt was impossible to determine let alone prove in any court of law, civilian or military.”
For Cheney and Rumsfeld, and “others,” Wilkerson said, “the primary issue was to gain more intelligence as quickly as possible, both on Al Qaeda and its current and future plans and operations but increasingly also, in 2002-2003, on contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s intelligence and secret police forces in Iraq.”
“Their view was that innocent people languishing in Guantánamo for years was justified by the broader war on terror and the capture of the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks, or other acts of terrorism,” Wilkerson added. “Moreover, their detention was deemed acceptable if it led to a more complete and satisfactory intelligence picture with regard to Iraq, thus justifying the Administration’s plans for war with that country.”
Documents have been released over the past year that showed how in 2002 several high-value detainees were tortured and forced to make statements that linked Iraq to al-Qaeda and 9/11, which the Bush administration cited as intelligence to support its invasion of the country in March 2003. But the confessions were utterly false.
Wilkerson’s declaration was made in support of a lawsuit filed by Adel Hassan Hamad, a 52-year-old former Guantanamo detainee who is suing Defense Secretary Robert Gates, former Joint Chief of Staff Richard Myers, and a slew of other Bush administration officials for wrongfully imprisoning and torturing him.
Hamad was arrested in his apartment in Pakistan in July 2002, rendered to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan for three months, where he says he was tortured, and then transferred to Guantanamo, where he was interrogated daily and subjected to even more torture by US military personnel.
At Bagram, according to Hamad’s lawsuit, “dogs were set upon [him] while watching United States military personnel laughed and mocked him.” Moreover, he was forced to stand for three days without “sleep or food” and eventually collapsed. He was then sent to a hospital where it took him two weeks to recover.
“Mr. Hamad was not given notice of the basis for his detention until more than two years after first being detained, when a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) was convened in November 2004,” according to the lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle earlier this week. “Not until March 2005, nearly three full years after initially being detained, was Mr. Hamad officially labeled an ‘enemy Combatant’ by the flawed CSRT process,” according to the lawsuit.
“However, this determination drew a rare dissenting opinion that acknowledged his enemy combatant status determination was unwarranted and, as such, would have ‘unconscionable results,'” the lawsuit states. “The basis for Mr. Hamad’s enemy combatant determination was simply because of his association as an employee of two organizations for whom he had done humanitarian and charity work (one of which he had left years before), and nothing more.
“In fact, a second CSRT was ordered for Mr. Hamad in November of 2007, one month before he was ultimately released to the Sudan. This was unusual, and indicates that the government recognized that the initial CSRT determination of Mr. Hamad was not accurate.”
While Hamad was detained, his wife gave birth to a daughter who died some time later because the family did not have any money to pay for medical care. He has five other children.
Since he has been released, Hamad says he suffers from emotional, physical and psychological injuries and he is seeking undisclosed compensatory and punitive damages. Similar lawsuits against former Bush administration officials, however, have been dismissed in other jurisidictions.
Wilkerson said he “made a personal choice to come forward and discuss the abuses that occurred because knowledge that I served in an Administration that tortured and abused those it detained at the facilities at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere and indefinitely detained the innocent for political reasons has marked a low point in my professional career and I wish to make the record clear on what occurred.”
“I am also extremely concerned that the Armed Forces of the United States, where I spent 31 years of my professional life, were deeply involved in these tragic mistakes. I am willing to testify in person regarding the content of this declaration, should that be necessary,” he added.
Gwynne Skinner, an assistant professor of clinical law at Willamette University College of Law in Salem, Oregon and a member of Hamad’s legal team, said Wilkerson’s declaration was originally intended to be filed in support of Hamad’s habeas corpus case, which was still pending in federal court in Washington, DC, along with more than 100 others, even though Hamad and the other former Guantanamo prisoners have already been released.
But US District Court Judge Thomas Hogan dismissed the cases, stating the former prisoners’ transfers rendered their habeas lawsuits moot. Attorneys for the detainees were upset because they had hoped the court would make a decision that would ultimately clear the peitioners’ names, lift travel restrictions, and the stigma that comes from being detained at Guantanamo.
Still, Skinner said Wilkerson’s declaration is signficant because it marks the first time a Bush administration official is willing to state, under oath, that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others knew many of the prisoners were innocent when they were sent to Guantanamo.
Wilkerson said detainees like Hamad were of little concern to Cheney.
The Office of Vice President Dick Cheney “had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees were innocent, or that there was a lack of any useable evidence for the great majority of them,” Wilkerson said in the 9-page declaration. Cheney’s position, Wilkerson asserted, “could be summed up as ‘the end justifies the means.'”
Cheney, and his daughter Liz, have been vocal critics of President Obama’s efforts to shut down Guantanamo. Obama signed an executive order immediately after he was sworn into office and set a one-year deadline to close the facility. But he missed the date, due in part, to Congress’ refusal to earmark funds that would have allowed the administration to close the prison and move some detainees to a supermax prison in Illinois.
Cheney said last year that the only alternative the Bush administration had to setting up Guantanamo was to kill the prisoners detained there.
“If you don’t have a place where you can hold these people, the only other option is to kill them, and we don’t operate that way,” Cheney said.
It is not news that the majority of the initial 742 prisoners who were detained at Guantanamo were innocent of the crimes that they were accused of.
Indeed, in February of 2006, the National Journal reviewed the case files of 132 prisoners who filed habeas corpus petitions and the redacted CSRT transcripts of 314 others and concluded that “most of the ‘enemy combatants’ held at Guantanamo… are simply not the worst of the worst of the terrorist world” as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush had claimed.
“Many of them are not accused of hostilities against the United States or its allies,” according to an investigative report published by the National Journal. “Most, when captured, were innocent of any terrorist activity, were Taliban foot soldiers at worst, and were often far less than that. And some, perhaps many, are guilty only of being foreigners in Afghanistan or Pakistan at the wrong time. And much of the evidence — even the classified evidence — gathered by the Defense Department against these men is flimsy, second-, third-, fourth- or 12th-hand. It’s based largely on admissions by the detainees themselves or on coerced, or worse, interrogations of their fellow inmates, some of whom have been proved to be liars.”
The Journal noted that a common thread among many of the detainees is that a majority of them “were not caught by American soldiers on the battlefield. They came into American custody from third parties, mostly from Pakistan, some after targeted raids there, most after a dragnet for Arabs after 9/11.”
That’s a point Wilkerson made in his declaration and said it likely applied to Hamad’s case as well.
“With respect to the assertions by Mr. Hamad that he was wrongfully seized and detained, it became apparent to me as early as August 2002, and probably earlier to other State Department personnel who were focused on these issues, that many of the prisoners detained at Guantanamo had been taken into custody without regard to whether they were truly enemy combatants, or in fact whether many of them were enemies at all,” Wilkerson said in his declaration. “I soon realized from my conversations with military colleagues as well as foreign service officers in the field that many of the detainees were, in fact, victims of incompetent battlefield vetting.
“There was no meaningful way to determine whether they were terrorists, Taliban, or simply innocent civilians picked up on a very confused battlefield or in the territory of another state such as Pakistan. The vetting problem, in my opinion, was directly related to the initial decision not to send sufficient regular army troops at the outset of the war in Afghanistan, and instead, to rely on the forces of the Northern Alliance and the extremely few US Special Operations Forces (SOF) who did not have the necessary training or personnel to deal with battlefield detention questions or even the inclination to want to deal with the issue.
“A related problem with the initial detention was that predominantly US forces were not the ones who were taking the prisoners in the first place. Instead, we relied upon Afghans, such as General [Abdul Rashid] Dostums forces, and upon Pakistanis, to hand over prisoners whom they had apprehended, or who had been turned over to them for bounties, sometimes as much as $5,000 per head.
“Such practices meant that the likelihood was high that some of the Guantanamo detainees had been turned in to US forces in order to settle local scores, for tribal reasons, or just as a method of making money. I recall conversations with serving military officers at the time, who told me that many detainees were turned over for the wrong reasons, particularly for bounties and other incentives.”
In Hamad’s case, Wilkerson said that he has “no reason to believe that any more thorough process was used to determine whether his seizure or transfer to Guantanamo was justified.”
Wilkerson said that he discussed the Guantanamo detainees issue regularly with Powell and, based on those discussions, Wilkerson discovered that “President Bush was involved in all of the Guantanamo decision-making.”
“My own view is that it was easy for Vice President Cheney to run circles around President Bush bureaucratically because Cheney had the network within the government to do so,” Wilkerson said. “Moreover, by exploiting what Secretary Powell called the president’s ‘cowboy instincts,’ Vice President Cheney could more often than not gain the President’s acquiescence.”
Wilkerson said issues revolving around efforts to repatriate individuals wrongfully detained at Guantanamo came up during the morning briefings chaired by Powell that he and about 50 to 55 senior State Department officials attended beginning in August 2002 after the prison facility was opened.
“At the briefing, Secretary Powell would question Ambassador Pierre Prosper (Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes), Cofer Black (Coordinator for Counter Terrorism), and Beth Jones (Assistant Secretary for Eurasia), or other senior personnel for information about specific progress in negotiating detainee releases,” Wilkerson said. “A number of these conversations arose because Secretary Powell received frequent phone calls from British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who had consulted with Secretary Powell frequently about repatriating the British Guantánamo detainees …
“I also know that several other foreign ministers spoke with Secretary Powell urging him to repatriate their countries’ citizens. During these morning briefings, Secretary Powell would express frustration that more progress had not been made with detainee releases.”
During one particular meeting, Wilkerson said, Ambassador Prosper, the point person on negotiating the transfer of detainees to other countries, “would discuss the difficulty he encountered in dealing with the Department of Defense, and specifically Donald Rumsfeld, who just refused to let detainees go.”
Wilkerson said it was “politically impossible” to release detainees, even the ones Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other senior officials knew were innocent.
“The concern expressed was that if they were released to another country, even an ally such as the United Kingdom, the leadership of the Defense Department would be left without any plausible explanation to the American people, whether the released detainee was subsequently found to be innocent by the receiving country, or whether the detainee was truly a terrorist and, upon release were it to then occur, would return to the war against the US,” he said. “Another concern was that the detention efforts at Guantánamo would be revealed as the incredibly confused operation that they were. Such results were not acceptable to the

Administration and would have been severely detrimental to the leadership at DOD.”
A spokesman for Rumsfeld said Wilkerson’s claims are untrue. Peggy Cifrino, Powell’s spokeswoman, said the former Secretary of State, “has not seen Colonel Wilkerson’s declaration and, therefore, cannot provide a comment.”
Still, what Wilkerson described may have very well been an issue in Hamad’s case, although as Jim White pointed out in a blog post, the Pentagon appears to have had a policy in place to “justify the long-term detention and interrogation of innocent civilians.”
According to Hamad’s lawsuit, the Pentagon had cleared him for release in November 2005, according to a redacted copy of his clearance decision his attorneys cited in their complaint.
But he was not freed from Guantanamo until December 2007. His attorneys said they were notified via email in March 2007 that Hamad was eligible to be sent back home to Sudan and it was during negotiations with the Sudanese government that they discovered he was eligible for release a full two years earlier.
About 183 detainees, many of whom have already been cleared for release, remain at Guantanamo. A majority of them have never been charged with a crime.

JASON LEOPOLD
Jason Leopold is lead investigative reporter of Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit jasonleopold.com for a preview. His most recent investigative report, “From Hopeful Immigrant to FBI Informant: The Inside Story of the Other Abu Zubaidah,” is now available as an ebook. Follow Jason on Twitter: @JasonLeopold.

Ohio judge says Elmwood Place’s automated speed-traffic cameras are “a scam”

Judge: Town’s speeding cameras are ‘3 Card Monty’ scam
AP Photo: Rick Bowmer. Traffic cameras: A pair of traffic cameras in Elmwood Place, Ohio. IMAGE 2 days ago |By James Eng
share
0tweet
0emailAn Ohio judge says Elmwood Place’s automated speed-traffic cameras are “a scam” that cheats drivers out of $105 a pop.

If you happen to drive too fast through Elmwood Place, Ohio, the cards are stacked against you, according to a judge who calls the village’s automated speeding camera “a scam that motorists can’t win.”

Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman on Thursday ruled that the village’s ordinance violated due process. He issued an injunction barring its enforcement.

There have been numerous legal challenges across the U.S. to red-light camera laws but observers said this is the first ruling they know of striking down a municipality’s speeding-camera law.

“Speed-camera cases have been litigated but we have not come across one where a judge has said, ‘Stop this,'” attorney Mike Allen, whose firm brought the case, told MSN News on Friday. “I think it’s going to touch off a firestorm around the country. I really do.”

Calls and emails by MSN News to Elmwood Place village officials and police Chief William Peskin were not immediately returned on Friday. Allen said he expects the village to appeal.

Ruehlman sprinkled colorful language in his ruling striking down Elmwood’s “automated speed enforcement program,” which is carried out by Optotraffic, a Lanham, Md.-based company, under a contract with the village. Optotraffic gets a 40 percent cut of the revenues from fines it collects.

The two cameras installed in town reportedly resulted in 6,600 speeding citations — three times the village’s population -— at $105 a pop in the first month after enforcement began in September.

The judge, who heard arguments in January, found that the ordinance fails to provide due process to people receiving a notice of fines in the mail. He said the village doesn’t have a sign warning motorists that traffic cameras are in operation, as required by state law.

To challenge the $105 fine, a motorist has to pay $25 for a hearing that is “nothing more than a sham!” the judge wrote. At the hearing, he said, the “witness” for the village testifies from a report produced by the company that owns the speed-monitoring unit. Since the “witness” was not present when the alleged violation occurred, he or she can’t be cross-examined, Ruehlman wrote.

Judge: Village’s traffic cameras ‘high-tech game of 3-card Monte’ 2 days ago Duration: 2:39 Views: 15k Moreover, he said, the device was not calibrated by a certified police officer.

“Remember, Optotraffic has a financial stake in this game. I use the term ‘game’ because Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech game of 3 CARD MONTY,” the judge wrote emphatically. “It is a scam that motorists can’t win.”

He noted that individuals and businesses in Elmwood Place have suffered as a result of the traffic cameras. “Churches have lost members who are frightened to come to Elmwood and individuals who have received notices were harmed because they were unable to defend themselves against the charges brought against them,” he said.

The judge’s decision did not address what happens to the fines already collected.

The controversy over the cameras has also spawned petition drives, demands for the mayor to step down and calls to boycott the village.

Thirteen states have speed cameras in operation, while 12 states have passed laws prohibiting them, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association. Many more states have red-light cameras in operation.

Judge hears arguments in speed camera lawsuit 1/24/13 Duration: 2:32 Views: 9k Critics of speed and red-light cameras argue that the devices violate motorists’ rights. The say municipalities and law enforcement agencies are using automatic cameras mainly to raise revenue, not to boost traffic safety.

“It’s very rare you get a decision like this regardless of the size of the town,” said Barnet Fagel, a Chicago-area man known as “The Ticket Doctor,” who appears as a court expert for attorneys challenging traffic tickets. “Being there is so much money involved, it’s rare you get a judicial person who stands up” against such ordinances, he told MSN.

Jonathan Adkins, deputy executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, which supports automated traffic cameras, said he wasn’t aware of any previous rulings like the Ohio one.

“It’s a local legal decision, but it’s alarming to think that speed or red-light cameras cannot be part of a state’s traffic safety program,” Adkins told MSN News.

“They’re one of many tools in the toolbox. We’re not advocating for a camera on every corner, but there are places where cameras are needed and they’ve been proven over and over to save lives.”

BBC On Trail In Historic Court Hearings For Manipulating Evidence About September 11, 2001 Attacks

Historic Court Hearings: The BBC in the Dock for Manipulating Evidence and Providing Biased Coverage of the September 11, 2001 Attacks

Global Research, February 22, 2013

Deafening silence of the mainstream media. A historic law suit is in making. The BBC will be in the Dock in a British court accused of manipulating the news.

What is at stake is the BBC’s coverage of the 9/11 attacks.

On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’.

Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public.
This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST’s 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

Not a single mainstream media has acknowledged the court case. and it is highly unlikely that the proceeding will be the object of unbiased coverage.

Global Research will be covering this event alongside other alternative media.

We encourage people throughout the UK to attend these historic hearings.

9/11 Truth is fundamental in disarming “the war on terrorism” which is a fabrication.

And the BBC through its biased reporting, not to mention the manipulation of photographic evidence, has acted as an instrument of war propaganda. It is complicit in war crimes.

As a continuation of this process with the BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.

Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.

Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:

Tony Rooke has set the stage in the UK for not paying the TV Licence fee used to fund a media entity routinely involved in media disinformation and war propaganda.

The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.

The BBC has been on the defensive.

It has not made any statements in anticipation of the court hearings.

One expects that there will be attempts to block the presentation of evidence on procedural grounds.

Why is this important?
9/11 is the pretext to wage war and repeal civil liberties.

The BBC turn realties upside down. The Lie is portrayed as the Truth.

When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.

The Lie of the mainstream media including the BBC must be exposed for what it is and what it does.

September 11 has been used profusely by US and its allies as a justification for waging a preemptive war without borders.

The so-called “War on Terrorism” is a lie.

Acts of war are heralded by the main stream media as “humanitarian interventions” geared towards restoring democracy.

Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented by the BBC as “peace-keeping operations.”

This system relies on the manipulation of public opinion.

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of September 11.

Exposing the BBC is an important step in reversing the tide and dismantling war propaganda which sustains a criminal military agenda.

The date and location of the hearing are as follows:

February 25th at 10:00 am

Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3] The Law Courts Hurst Road

Horsham

West Sussex England RH12 2ET

Tel: 01444 417611
Fax: 01444 472639

MAP
Horsham Magistrates Court business location map

FORWARD THIS ARTICLE,

SPREAD THE WORD ON SOCIAL MEDIA,

“HORSHAM FEB 25, THE BBC IN THE DOCK FOR MANIPULATING THE NEWS”

How One Cop Became A Hero To His People!

I am supposed to protect the Constitution,” says Sheriff Lenic

Paul Joseph Watson – November 29, 2012

Sheriff Stan Lenic, the cop who stood up for the First Amendment by refusing to impede the free speech rights of activists at Albany International Airport, has become an Internet icon, with messages of support flooding in to the Albany County Sheriff’s Office and Lenic being honored with a commendation.

Full Video Here:

A video that has now gone viral on You Tube shows Lenic refusing to follow the demands of Albany Airport’s PR director Doug Myers in having activists Jason Bermas and Ashley Jessica identified, detained or removed for handing out flyers warning travelers about the dangers of airport body scanners as part of the Opt Out and Film campaign.

“Obviously this is your constitutional right, OK? As far as you’re concerned, you’re not breaking any laws. That’s what we want to get across to you guys,” Lenic told the activists, dismissing efforts by Myers to have the two kicked out of the airport.

When Myers attempted to have the activists identify themselves, winking at Sheriff Lenic as he demanded Lenic take their IDs, Lenic fired back, stating, “If I was to ask for his identification he does not have to give it to me because he’s not doing anything wrong.”

The Albany County Sheriff’s Office has since been bombarded with hundreds of positive emails and calls from liberty lovers championing Sheriff Lenic for his fine work in defending the First Amendment against petty enforcers like Doug Myers.

Comments on YouTube were also overwhelmingly supportive of Sheriff Lenic.

“Finally a cop that does his job properly. Makes a change from all of the bad cop films we’ve seen lately. Hats off to the man,” wrote one.

“This Sheriff is an absolute paragon for justice,” added another.

Lenic already has his own Facebook page where people are reposting the video and urging Lenic to run for Mayor.

“That’s a little overwhelming. I mean, I was doing my job I felt I was doing the right thing protecting people’s First Amendment rights,” Lenic told NewsChannel 13.

Lenic later emailed Jason Bermas the following message;

“I am overwhelmed by the support your viewers have given me. I hope other fellow officers will see this and not view the freedom of speech as a threat, but an opportunity to show the professionalism that law enforcement should be held to. I remember the day I was sworn in, and I remember that I am supposed to protect the constitution of the United States. I am proud to be a Deputy Sheriff, and try to do my job to the best of my ability so help me God.”

Lenic also told Bermas that his superiors were considering giving him an official commendation for his exemplary actions in defending the constitutional rights he swore to uphold.

Watch the full video of how Sheriff Lenic handled the opt out campaign event below.

‘First Amendment Cop’ Becomes Internet Icon

http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/playlist/17563/3849022“I am supposed to protect the Constitution,” says Sheriff

 Lenic

Paul Joseph Watson – November 29, 2012

Sheriff Stan Lenic, the cop who stood up for the First Amendment by refusing to impede the free speech rights of activists at Albany International Airport, has become an Internet icon, with messages of support flooding in to the Albany County Sheriff’s Office and Lenic being honored with a commendation.

Full Video Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G1CjZN2H5-8

A video that has now gone viral on You Tube shows Lenic refusing to follow the demands of Albany Airport’s PR director Doug Myers in having activists Jason Bermas and Ashley Jessica identified, detained or removed for handing out flyers warning travelers about the dangers of airport body scanners as part of the Opt Out and Film campaign.

“Obviously this is your constitutional right, OK? As far as you’re concerned, you’re not breaking any laws. That’s what we want to get across to you guys,” Lenic told the activists, dismissing efforts by Myers to have the two kicked out of the airport.

When Myers attempted to have the activists identify themselves, winking at Sheriff Lenic as he demanded Lenic take their IDs, Lenic fired back, stating, “If I was to ask for his identification he does not have to give it to me because he’s not doing anything wrong.”

The Albany County Sheriff’s Office has since been bombarded with hundreds of positive emails and calls from liberty lovers championing Sheriff Lenic for his fine work in defending the First Amendment against petty enforcers like Doug Myers.

Comments on YouTube were also overwhelmingly supportive of Sheriff Lenic.

“Finally a cop that does his job properly. Makes a change from all of the bad cop films we’ve seen lately. Hats off to the man,” wrote one.

“This Sheriff is an absolute paragon for justice,” added another.

Lenic already has his own Facebook page where people are reposting the video and urging Lenic to run for Mayor.

“That’s a little overwhelming. I mean, I was doing my job I felt I was doing the right thing protecting people’s First Amendment rights,” Lenic told NewsChannel 13.

Lenic later emailed Jason Bermas the following message;

“I am overwhelmed by the support your viewers have given me. I hope other fellow officers will see this and not view the freedom of speech as a threat, but an opportunity to show the professionalism that law enforcement should be held to. I remember the day I was sworn in, and I remember that I am supposed to protect the constitution of the United States. I am proud to be a Deputy Sheriff, and try to do my job to the best of my ability so help me God.”

Lenic also told Bermas that his superiors were considering giving him an official commendation for his exemplary actions in defending the constitutional rights he swore to uphold.

Watch the full video of how Sheriff Lenic handled the opt out campaign event below.

http://www.infowars.com/first-amendment-cop-becomes-internet-icon/

 

Juror removed after allegedly flashing Masonic hand signals to Freemason murder defendent

This is good new for truth and Justice.

pjwalker911's avatarAftermath News

Virgin Islands high court orders hearing on removal of suspected Mason from jury

virginislandsdailynews.com | Sep 19, 2011

By Michael Todd

ST. THOMAS – The V.I. Supreme Court has ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a Superior Court judge removed a juror improperly after prosecutors suspected that he flashed Masonic hand signals to convicted murderer and ex-cop Joel Dowdye during the trial.

Court records indicate that Dowdye’s chest bore a Masonic tattoo when he was arrested in connection with a Bunker Hill Guest House shooting in which two victims were shot on March 25, 2006.

In March 2007, a St. Thomas jury found Dowdye guilty of murdering his ex-girlfriend, 22-year-old Sherett James, and trying to murder her companion, 32-year-old Daren “Bogle” Stevens, in a downtown hotel room. Dowdye later was sentenced to life in prison without parole, plus 40 years.

Dowdye was charged with six of the eight original…

View original post 575 more words

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑