Saturday, March 31, 2012

US Military And White House Cover-up Of Massacre in Kandahar And Court Challenges US Anti-Terrorists Law NDAA Which Brands Journalists and Dissidents As Enemies of The State

#JusticeForTrayvon UPDATE:

More evidence that Zimmerman's account of the shooting of Trayvon is not holding up.
Zimmerman had no signs of having been in a battle for his life
Funeral Director says no evidence on Trayvon's body that he was involved in a fight just before his death.
Zimmerman had a Jekyll and Hyde personality and had been in trouble at work and with the police over violent reactions.

Funeral director says Trayvon's body didn't look like he'd been fighting as video that shows Zimmerman unhurt on night he shot teen 'could be used as evidence' in trial By DAILY MAIL, 30 March 2012 |

New video shows no signs of trauma on George Zimmerman's face
This is despite claims that his nose was broken in 'sucker-punch'
Parents call surveillance footage 'the icing on the cake'
Zimmerman's father claims Trayvon told his son 'you're gonna die now'
Witness' mother says she doesn't believe Zimmerman acted in self-defence
Student newspaper sparks outrage with 'racist' cartoon about case

'When he snapped, he snapped': Former co-worker reveals how 'Jekyll and Hyde temper' cost Zimmerman his security guard job
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER , 30 March 2012

George Zimmerman’s 'Jekyll and Hyde' personality came to be such a problem that he was fired from his job as a security guard, years before the Trayvon Martin case, according to a former co-worker.
The co-worker who told the New York Daily News that he has since lost touch with Zimmerman, described Zimmerman as one of the guys, but with a dark side.
The unidentified man told the paper: 'Usually he was just a cool guy. He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us'.
He added: 'But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.'
It was that attitude that led to Zimmerman ultimately being fired.
The man told the Daily News: 'He had a temper and he became a liability. 'One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted'.
'It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out'.
That same year, Zimmerman, then 21-years old, was arrested at a university bar when he became involved in a scuffle with state alcohol agents.
As one of his friends was being arrested for serving underage drinkers, Zimmerman started becoming verbally abusive and pushed an agent.
He was arrested after a scuffle ensued but avoided conviction by entering a pretrial-diversion programme.
American War Crimes:

Massacre in Afghanistan just another cover up by US military and the the White House. The US government and its quisling Mainstream Media erroneously claim one American soldier committed the murder in Kandahar province in Afghanistan on March 11, 2012 when in fact eye witnesses report more than one soldier took part in the massacre. From Mi Li to Afghanistan
massacre the American military and white House tries to cover up the reality.
These cover-ups are just the routine response by the USA . Then Americans wonder why so many people and nations don't trust Americans. Even Obama is trapped in this defensive mind-set that American soldiers rarely do anything wrong even when it is obvious that US soldiers and CIA and Special Forces have been out of control since shortly after 9/11.
It is either a matter of poor leadership that such incidents occur or the killing of civilians is just another part of US government and US military's ongoing policy to terrorize the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan so they will eventually capitulate.
Even Obama refuses to come to terms with the fact that the US forces and NATO have killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and that these killing were not accidents but part of America's policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen etc.
In Iraq over 1 million civilians have been killed for which the US government and military should be held accountable . It is not a matter of a few bad apples or whatever excuses the Americans come up with but rather either policy or criminal negligence for which the US authorities should be forced to answer at the International Criminal Court. The US has committed a number of war crimes but the US and President Obama like the previous Bush Regime believe that these international laws and agreements ie Geneva Conventions do not apply to Americans.

Anatomy of a Massacre Dateline SBS Australia via Information Clearing House,March 30, 2012

What really happened on the night of March 11 when 17 Afghan civilians were massacred in Kandahar province?

Many Afghans, including some of the survivors that night, believe more than one U.S. soldier was present in the two villages where the killings took place.

With unprecedented access to Afghan military investigators, Yalda Hakim travels to the villages where the massacre took place and interviews survivors of the attack, as well as Afghan guards at the US military base that housed the alleged gunman.

US soldier Robert Bales is in custody, facing charges of mass murder, but Afghan investigators suspect there may have been at least one other killer involved.

INTERVIEW WITH YALDA - Yalda Hakim explains to SBS Radio's World News Australia how she was able to get such unprecedented access to the massacre investigation.

Posted March 30, 2012

Jornalists and activists challenge Obama's new anti-terrorism law which extends the definition of support for terrorism has been broadened to include Journaists and activists who are critical of US policy.

This is disturbing because once again Obama rather than ratchetting down the fear mongering about terroists threats has instead ratched it up.

US Anti-terrorism Law Curbs Free Speech and Activist Work, Court Toldby Paul Harris at Guardian via Information Clearing House, March 30, 2012

Controversy over NDAA centres on loose definition of key words, such as who are 'associated forces' of named terrorist groups

By Paul Harris in New York

March 30, 2012 "The Guardian" -- A group political activists and journalists has launched a legal challenge to stop an American law they say allows the US military to arrest civilians anywhere in the world and detain them without trial as accused supporters of terrorism.
The seven figures, who include ex-New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, professor Noam Chomsky and Icelandic politician and WikiLeaks campaigner Birgitta Jonsdottir, testified to a Manhattan judge that the law – dubbed the NDAA or Homeland Battlefield Bill – would cripple free speech around the world.

They said that various provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Bill, which was signed by President Barack Obama at the end of 2011, effectively broadened the definition of "supporter of terrorism" to include peaceful activists, authors, academics and even journalists interviewing members of radical groups.

Controversy centres on the loose definition of key words in the bill, in particular who might be "associated forces" of the law's named terrorist groups al-Qaida and the Taliban and what "substantial support" to those groups might get defined as. Whereas White House officials have denied the wording extends any sort of blanket coverage to civilians, rather than active enemy combatants, or actions involved in free speech, some civil rights experts have said the lack of precise definition leaves it open to massive potential abuse.

Hedges, who is a Pulitzer Prize-winner and longtime writer on the Middle East, told New York judge Katherine Forrest on Thursday that he feared he might be subject to arrest under the terms of NDAA if interviewing or meeting Islamic radicals could constitute giving them "substantial support" under the terms of the law.

"I could be detained by the US military, held in a military facility – including offshore – denied due process and incarcerated until 'the end of hostilities' whenever that is," Hedges said. He added that the law was already impacting his ability to work as he feared speaking to or meeting with sources who the US government could see as terrorists or advocates of violence.

"Any kind of language in my presence that countenances violence against the US … given the passage of the NDAA, really terrifies me," he said.

Testifying alongside Hedges was Kai Wargalla, a German organiser behind Occupy London, and a supporter of WikiLeaks, which has extensively published secret US government documents.

Wargalla said that since British police had included Occupy London alongside al-Qaida on a terrorism warning notice, she was afraid of the implications of NDAA. She said that after NDAA was signed she was no longer willing to invite an Islamic group like Hamas to speak on discussion panels for fear of being implicated a supporter of terrorism. "We are on a terrorism list just under al-Qaida and this is what the section of the NDAA is talking about under 'associated forces'," she said.

Author and campaigner Naomi Wolf read testimony in court from Jonsdottir, who has been a prominent supporter of WikiLeaks and a proponent of free speech laws. Jonsdottir's testimony said she was now afraid of arrest and detention because so many US political figures had labelled WikiLeaks as a terrorist group.

Despite receiving verbal assurance from US officials that she was not under threat, Jonsdottir testified she would not travel to the US despite being invited to give lectures in the country. "[The NDAA] provisions create a greater sense of fear since now the federal government will have a tool with which to incarcerate me outside of the normal requirements of the criminal law. Because of this change in the legal situation, I am now no longer able to travel to the US for fear of being taken into custody as as having 'substantially supported' groups that are considered as either terrorist groups or their associates," said Jonsdottir in the statement read by Wolf, who is also a Guardian commentator.

In an opening argument, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that they would try to show the definitions used in the NDAA provisions were so unclear that it would have a "chilling" effect on the work of journalists, activists and academics even if no one was actually detained.

No comments: