Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, July 22, 2014


Afternoon, kids...

 Hot.... sticky... let's get some newsbites in the comments section so I can head to the pool later guilt-free!


Posted by at

2 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/july/20/what-the-media-won%E2%80%99t-report-about-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17.aspx

* BY THE ALWAYS HONORABLE RON PAUL:

Just days after the tragic crash of a Malaysian Airlines flight over eastern Ukraine, Western politicians and media joined together to gain the maximum propaganda value from the disaster. It had to be Russia; it had to be Putin, they said.

* IT WASN'T PUTIN.

President Obama held a press conference to claim – even before an investigation – that it was pro-Russian rebels in the region who were responsible.

* PERHAPS... BUT WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD PUTIN OK SUCH AN ATTACK? (HE WOULDN'T!)

Obama's ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, did the same at the UN Security Council – just one day after the crash!

* SAMANTHA POWERS... IDIOT.

While western media outlets rush to repeat government propaganda on the event, there are a few things they will not report:

They will not report that the crisis in Ukraine started late last year, when EU and US-supported protesters plotted the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych.

* DO SOME GOOGLING IN NECESSARY...

(*SHRUG*)

The media has reported that the plane must have been shot down by Russian forces or Russian-backed separatists, because the missile that reportedly brought down the plane was Russian made. But...

* BUT...???

But they will not report that the Ukrainian government also uses the exact same Russian-made weapons.

(*CHUCKLE*)

They will not report that the post-coup government in Kiev has, according to OSCE monitors, killed 250 people in the breakaway Lugansk region since June, including 20 killed as government forces bombed the city center the day after the plane crash! Most of these are civilians and together they roughly equal the number killed in the plane crash. By contrast, Russia has killed no one in Ukraine, and the separatists have struck largely military, not civilian, targets.

They will not report that the US has strongly backed the Ukrainian government in these attacks on civilians, which a State Department spokeswoman called “measured and moderate.”

They will not report that neither Russia nor the separatists in eastern Ukraine have anything to gain but everything to lose by shooting down a passenger liner full of civilians.

* DUH!

They will not report that the missile that apparently shot down the plane was from a sophisticated surface-to-air missile system that requires a good deal of training that the separatists do not have, now will they report that the Ukrainian government has much to gain by pinning the attack on Russia, and that the Ukrainian prime minister has already expressed his pleasure that Russia is being blamed for the attack.

(*SHRUG*)

They will not report that the separatists in eastern Ukraine have inflicted considerable losses on the Ukrainian government in the week before the plane was downed.

They will not report how similar this is to last summer’s US claim that the Assad government in Syria had used poison gas against civilians in Ghouta.

(*NOD*)

Assad was also gaining the upper hand in his struggle with US-backed rebels and the US claimed that the attack came from Syrian government positions. Then, US claims led us to the brink of another war in the Middle East. At the last minute public opposition forced Obama to back down – and we have learned since then that US claims about the gas attack were false.

* YEP...

Of course it is entirely possible that the Obama administration and the US media has it right this time, and Russia or the separatists in eastern Ukraine either purposely or inadvertently shot down this aircraft. The real point is, it's very difficult to get accurate information so everybody engages in propaganda.

* YES...!!! AMEN, BROTHER PAUL!

At this point it would be unwise to say the Russians did it, the Ukrainian government did it, or the rebels did it. Is it so hard to simply demand a real investigation?

July 22, 2014 at 12:36 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-new-york-judge-has-blocked-the-indefinite-detention-provision-in-the-ndaa-2012-5

Late last year Senate Armed Services Chairman senior member John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich) crafted a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) addendum that outraged Americans and put the president on the spot.

A New York judge ruled yesterday that the government may not lock up American citizens without due process as allowed by the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

A bit of background:

The bill, in part, called for allowing the indefinite detention of Americans with no due process whatsoever.

After Obama capitulated and signed the bill into law January 1, we identified the additions everyone was freaking out about:

Section 1021 of the NDAA allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without due process, any person engaged in "hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ... without trial until the end of hostilities."

* WITHOUT FIRST BOTHERING TO CONVICT THEM...!!!

Section 1022 expressly states that the military will imprison anyone who is a member of al-Qaeda or "an associated force" that acts like al-Qaeda; and anyone who planned or carried out an attack, or attempted attack, against the U.S.

* WHERE? OVERSEAS...? FINE. (AT LEAST IF WE'RE TALKING NON-AMERICAN CITIZENS.)

* I CAN EVEN ACCEPT THE MILITARY CAPTURING AMERICANS OVERSEAS WHO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN TERRORISM. FINE! TURN THEM OVER TO THE PROPER U.S. DOMESTIC AUTHORITIES AND TRY THEM! PUT THEM ON TRIAL! SPEEDY TRIAL!

Section 1022 continues that detaining American citizens is not required. "UNITED STATES CITIZENS — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

* BUT IT'S PERMITTED...!!! (NOT "REQUIRED" - BUT "PERMITTED" - RIGHT?)

The bottom line being that the government could have imprisoned anyone suspected of, or even associated with, terrorism.

But on February 28, Obama issued a Presidential Directive announcing section 1022 would not apply to Americans.

* BUT COULD IT...? THAT'S THE QUESTION!

Yesterday Judge Forrest said “The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs - or others - are not within Section 1021. It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on First Amendment rights as reasonable - and real.”

Forrest said in her opinion yesterday, “The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.”

July 22, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)