Wednesday, September 19, 2012

12-09-20 Hello World!

Thursday, September 20 @ 02:57 : Alella, ES
Thursday, September 20 @ 02:01 : Emeryville, California, US
Thursday, September 20 @ 01:11 : Hernando, Florida, US
Thursday, September 20 @ 01:08 : Ridgefield, Connecticut, US
Thursday, September 20 @ 00:55 : London, GB
Thursday, September 20 @ 00:22 : Tbilisi, GE
Wednesday, September 19 @ 23:39 : Mountain View, California, US
Wednesday, September 19 @ 23:12 : Jefferson, Georgia, US
Wednesday, September 19 @ 23:01 : Islamabad, PK
Wednesday, September 19 @ 22:28 : Los Angeles, California, US

12-09-20 The United States - home of the free? Not even close...

The US Congress passed NDAA, which was signed into law by President Obama - a former "constitutional law professor".  The NDAA permitted the US government to indefinitely detain US citizens with no trial.

A US District Court judge more recently found the NDAA unconstitutional.

Now the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit overturned the decision of the US District Court and effectively reinstated NDAA.

Effectively, the NDAA brought back Human Rights in the United States to medieval standards - prior to the Magna Carta (1215 CE), which provided no deprivation of life, liberty or possessions without due process of law.


Appeals Court Judge Reinstates Indefinite Detention — for Now

Written by  

              Court Judge Reinstates Indefinite Detention — for Now
On Monday, September 17, on the 225th anniversary of the signing of the final draft of the Constitution, with a one-page order a lone appeals court judge effectively repealed many of that document’s fundamental protections of individual liberties.
Issued late Monday night, the order written by Judge Raymond Lohier of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily set aside a lower court’s injunction blocking indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The practical effect of Judge Lohier’s stay is the immediate reinstatement of the president’s authority to send the military to apprehend and indefinitely imprison a person suspected of colluding with a terrorist organization to threaten U.S. national security.
In the order, Judge Lohier offered no explanation for his decision, preferring to postpone publishing any opinion until the matter is thoroughly reviewed by the Second Circuit.
The injunction permanently (pending an appellate court’s review) preventing the president from exercising the extraordinary and extraordinarily unconstitutional powers granted him in the NDAA was issued on September 12 by Judge Katherine Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Obama administration filed an immediate appeal.
The due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment require that an individual understand what conduct might subject him or her to criminal or civil penalties. Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention — potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Constitution requires specificity — and that specificity is absent from § 1021(b)(2).
This is similar to the language she used in the 68-page opinion accompanying the temporary injunction order. In that order Judge Forrest disagreed with the federal government’s argument that the relevant provisions of the NDAA merely restate existing law. 
She wrote: “Section 1021 is not merely an ‘affirmation’ of the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force].”
Pointing out that were Section 1021 and the AUMF identical then the former would be redundant, Judge Forrest held:
Section 1021 lacks what are standard definitional aspects of similar legislation that define scope with specificity. It also lacks the critical component of requiring that one found to be in violation of its provisions must have acted with some amount of scienter — i.e., that an alleged violator’s conduct must have been, in some fashion, “knowing.” Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little — it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass Constitutional muster.
Scienter is defined as “a state of mind often required to hold a person legally accountable for his or her acts.” In other words, the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA are too vague and aren’t specific enough to permit a person to know whether he or she has violated the law.
While admitting that preventing the federal government from enforcing a congressional act is a sober matter that must be attended to with caution, Judge Forrest wrote that “it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.”
As readers will recall, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges is joined as a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the NDAA by a coterie of other prominent writers and commentators. Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, and Icelandic politician Birgitta Jonsdottir all signed on to add their witness to that of Hedges that the fear of indefinite detention lurked within the shadows of vagueness of key terms of the NDAA.
The principal allegation made by the plaintiffs against the NDAA was that the vagueness of critical terms in the NDAA could be interpreted by the federal government in a way that authorizes them to label journalists and political activists who interview or support outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s policies as “covered persons,” meaning that they have given “substantial support” to terrorists or other “associated groups.” 
According to the text of Section 1021 of the NDAA, the president may authorize the armed forces to indefinitely detain:
A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
Fearing that this section could be applied to journalists and that the specter of such a scenario would have a chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press in violation of the First Amendment, Hedges filed his lawsuit on January 12, 2012. (Naomi Wolf writes in her affidavit that she has refused to conduct many investigative interviews for fear that she could be detained under the auspices of applicable sections of the NDAA.)
Hedges’ complaint claims that his extensive work overseas, particularly in the Middle East covering terrorist (or suspected terrorist) organizations, could cause him to be categorized as a “covered person” who, by way of such writings, interviews and/or communications, “substantially supported” or “directly supported” “al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,... under §1031(b)(2) and the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force]."
Specifically, Hedges alleges in his complaint that it is precisely the existence of these “nebulous terms” — terms that are critical to the interpretation and execution of the immense authority granted to the president by the NDAA — that could allow him or someone in a substantially similar situation to be classified as an enemy combatant and sent away indefinitely to a military detainment center without access to an attorney or habeas corpus relief.
Despite the Second Circuit judge’s late-night defense of indefinite detention, Hedges is optimistic. In an article by Hedges published at, he remains cautiously optimistic for a favorable outcome given the repeated failures of the government’s lawyers to defend the indefensible. “The government has now lost four times in a litigation that has gone on almost nine months. It lost the preliminary injunction in May. It lost a motion for reconsideration shortly           thereafter. It lost the permanent injunction. It lost its request last week for a stay,” Hedges writes.
In Hedges’ article, co-lead counsel in the Hedges case, Bruce Afran, says the Obama administration’s dogged determination to restore the president’s NDAA authority raises a “disturbing question.” Speaking of the riots related to the Innocence of Muslims YouTube video that purportedly set off the anti-American violence in the Middle East, Afran said,
A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the U.S. and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots. It is my view that this is why the government wants to           reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.
A hearing before a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled for September 28.

12-09-19 Know who your tyrant is - the one you are not allowed to criticize

Certain postings on, unfavorable to the State of Israel, were blantly "rejected". The posting related to the UK Supreme Court was not.  But the views count shows some foul play. Censorship and control of public information in the Medieval-Digital Era can be subtle.
Barcelona, September 19 - the reads on the posting related fraud in the electronic record system of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is an all time precedent. Zero reads after three day (but 4 comments).  The next piece, posted only a day ago, shows by no over a thousand reads.  I have been posting on for about 3 years, with over a million reads combined on this site alone.
·   12-09-17 Middle Eastern Intrigues

12-09-17 Middle-eastern Intrigues 


Even nonexperts in Middle Eastern intrigues should find the Sequence of Events story incredible. It should not be assumed that any party had events follow its plans... or that the beneficiaries were

By: HumanRightsAlert  | Comments: 1  | Views: 1147 | Votes: 0 | Shared: 0
Leaked: 1 day ago in 


·   12-09-16 Preliminary Review of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

12-09-16 Preliminary Review of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 


The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a unique example, since it was established only in recent years, following a constitutional reform. It started its work in 2009, well after system security,

By: HumanRightsAlert  | Comments: 4  | Views: 0 | Votes: 0 | Shared: 0
Barcelona , Cataluna , Spain  | Leaked: 3 days ago in Conspiracy , Propaganda is based in the United Kingdom.  Its "Terms and Conditions" explicitly states:
7. Limitation of Liability
Wikipedia notes:
The site came to prominence in 2007 following the unauthorized filming and leaking of the execution of Saddam Hussein , and was referred to by White House Press Secretary  Tony Snow  and then-British Prime Minister  Tony Blair.
Perhaps the "Terms and Conditions" is not enough to make comfortable when it comes to the UK courts... 
Similar conduct was noted in Los Angeles a couple of years ago.  A Senior News Executive Producer of a "mainstream" TV outlet was knowledgable about corruption in the Los Angeles Superior Court and interested in my information on the same subject.  However, at the end of the conversation he informed me that it was "corporate policy" not to report on the matter...
On such matters Voltaire is famously quoted:
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
In short:
According to Voltaire's standards, we are now under Tyranny of the Courts - a form of government at times seen during the Middle Ages, now back in its digital form...
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Wednesday, September 19 @ 17:19 : Alella, ES
Wednesday, September 19 @ 16:43 : Hungary, HU
Wednesday, September 19 @ 16:31 : San Jose, California, US
Wednesday, September 19 @ 16:29 : Khopoli, IN
Wednesday, September 19 @ 05:36 : Mountain View, California, US
Wednesday, September 19 @ 04:52 : Montreal, CA
Wednesday, September 19 @ 04:39 : Paris, FR
Wednesday, September 19 @ 04:27 : Norrköping, SE
Wednesday, September 19 @ 03:58 : Chicago, Illinois, US

12-09-19 Dispatch de Barcelona - the passing away of Communist leader Santiago Carrillo is mourned by King Juan Carlos

The conservative El Pais daily gave it a large picture above the fold, and a full section inside with photos of the King and Queen on a condolences visit to the family. A statement released by the King says that Carrillo was a key person for democracy in Spain...

Veteran Spanish Communist leader Carrillo dies

File photo of historic Spanish Communist Party leader Carrillo arriving for a lunch at Madrid's Parliament to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Spanish failed coup attempt 
File photo of historic Spanish Communist Party leader Carrillo arriving for a lunch at Madrid's Parliament to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Spanish failed coup attempt (SERGIO PEREZ, REUTERS / September 18, 2012) 
Elisabeth O'LearyReuters
12:00 p.m. CDTSeptember 18, 2012

MADRID (Reuters) - Veteran Communist leader Santiago Carrillo, Spain's last surviving public figure to have taken an active part in the civil war, has died at age 97, sources close to the family said.

The sources did not know the cause of his death but said he had been suffering from illness.

Although he lived in exile for decades, mostly in France, Carrillo was a central figure in Spanish politics during much of the tumultuous 20th Century and a player in the difficult transition to democracy in the late 1970s after dictator Francisco Franco died.

Carrillo put his longevity down to continued active participation in Spanish political life, writing essays and making contributions to public seminars and a weekly nationwide radio debate well into his 90s.

"I am a politician with a sense of reality," he told Reuters in an interview, explaining his career.

"If you can say anything good about me, it's that I have lived many years and actively participated in many episodes of Spain's history," he said, presenting a documentary in 2009.

An image firmly embedded in the nation's memory is that of Carrillo and Adolfo Suarez, another of modern Spain's founders, refusing to take cover when Civil Guards opened fire in the Spanish parliament in 1981 as part of a thwarted coup.


The son of a union organizer, Carrillo's activism began in 1931, when, at the age of 15, he began reporting for the Socialist Party newspaper and joined crowds to cheer King Alfonso XIII fleeing to exile and the declaration of Spain's Second Republic.

In 1936 he joined the army to defend the Republic from a military revolt which turned into a bloody civil war lasting almost three years and ended up installing Franco as dictator.

Carrillo, by now a Communist, was named a public order official in a defense committee set up in Madrid in November that year just as rebel troops were approaching the capital and the Republican government had fled to safety in Valencia.

After Franco's forces won in 1939 with the help of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, Carrillo went into exile, from where he helped organize resistance to the dictatorship.

In 1960 he became general secretary of the Spanish Communist Party (PCE), and began to draw criticism from the Franco regime for his alleged role in the 1936 massacre of several thousand supporters of the military revolt, for which far-right Spaniards blame Carrillo to this day.

The supporters were evacuated from a city jail to Paracuellos, on the outskirts of Madrid, to prevent them from joining Franco's forces which came close to taking the capital, but were then killed en masse rather than incarcerated.

Carrillo always protested his innocence, saying he had little influence as a young and minor official and had no idea what was happening in a chaotic and lawless city under siege, whose people were enraged by bombings and atrocities.

British historian and Civil War specialist Paul Preston spent a year researching Paracuellos for his 2011 book "The Spanish Holocaust" and concluded that while the massacre itself was most likely the work of anarchists and soldiers assessed by Soviet military advisers, Carrillo did help organize the evacuation.

"Carrillo was an important part in the second phase (organization), and his many statements that he knew nothing and it was all the anarchists' fault are not truthful," Preston said at a conference in Madrid in 2011.

"This does not mean that Paracuellos is his work alone. He was one, and a very important one of many who did this terrible collective deed."

In all, Preston estimates 50,000 Spanish civilians were killed in the Republican rearguard, and another 150,000 behind Franco's lines.

Carrillo had to wait until after Franco's death in 1975 to return to Spain. In 1977 he became a member of parliament in the first elections held in Spain since 1936, but the PCE did poorly and he was expelled from the party in 1982.

(Editing by Fiona Ortiz)


"EL TONTO NO DESCANSA": S. M. El Rey de España el primero en acudir al domicilio de Santiago Carrillo.

S.M. El Rey de España entrando en el domicilio del genocida fallecido

Ha muerto el dirigente comunista Santiago Carrillo responsable de la matanza de Paracuellos del Jarama (Madrid) en otoño de 1936 (4.200 asesinados totalmente identificados)

Don Juan Carlos y Doña Sofía acudieron rápidamente al domicilio del finado para dar el pésame al la familia del antiguo secretario general del Partido Comunista: Click  
Las pruebas contra Carrillo en Paracuellos
Después de décadas de debate, el ensayo de César Vidal Paracuellos-Katyn arrojó luz sobre la responsabilidad de Carrillo en la matanza de Paracuellos.

Libertad Digital 2012-09-18
Santiago Carrillo no es el único que tuvo responsabilidad en la matanza de Paracuellos del Jarama (Madrid) en otoño de 1936 (4.200 asesinados totalmente identificados) pero la investigación histórica que realiza César Vidal en Paracuellos-Katyn (Libros Libres 2005) aporta datos esclarecedores sobre la implicación directa de Carrillo en estos horribles crímenes. En el momento de la matanza, Carrillo era responsable de seguridad de la Junta de Madrid.
Vidal explica que "ninguno de los que supieron, en noviembre de 1936 lo que estaba sucedieron" tuvieron dudas sobre "la responsabilidad ejecutora" de Carrillo en la matanza. Entre los textos que apuntan en esta dirección destaca el del nacionalista vasco Jesús de  Galínd