Tuesday 30 July 2013

"Bradley Manning" Doesn't Exist




This is what "Bradley" and his defence team if lawyers are willing to concede in military court as established and irrefutable, uncontested fact.









His defence team is formally acknowledging as a statement of fact that during Operation Neptune Spear on 2 May 2011, the US acquired documents from UBL's computer establishing that UBL had requested and received DoD data disclosed by Manning to Assange and posted to Wikileaks, making them public domain.

That's one thing.

This may or may not be true - parts of it may be true, more than likely little or none of it is.

That's fine.

It's a fairly stupid and incriminating act for a lawyer and defendant to put their name to a signed document agreeing to the fact that all of these things are true and they accept them without having been there and witnessing the recovery firsthand, but that's fine.

That's point two of the statement of fact.

Manning is formally and legally acknowledging that from his point of view, this is true.

The problem is point one in the formal statement of fact.



The problem is this.

This isn't true, everyone knows it isn't true, no part of it is true and it's all clearly and completely proven to be untrue.

Here, Bradley Manning and his lawyers are signing a formal admission to the court, for public consumption, putting their names and endorsement in support of the assertion that it IS true, and is indeed an established and agreed upon matter of fact.

It really isn't.

It's a completely lie. 

And "Bradley Manning" is signing totally incriminating formal court declarations supportive of the quite ludicrous notion that not only is it true, it's indisputable and uncontroversial.

All of which is ludicrous if he's actually attempting to defend and justify his actions and avoid punishment.

Which he quite clearly isn't. He's doing the opposite.

But why? Let's deconstruct what he's actually accused of doing:-


People say this is like the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg. 

It isn't.

What Ellsberg leaked was a historical report, an internal, comprehensive history of the Vietnam war through to 1969.

It was old information, it was an archival research study intended for reference, he self-censored it before leaking it and all of it was classified below Top Secret.

The reason this is an important distinction to make is that Ellsberg DID have access to Top Secret material - and he didn't leak it. 

He still hasn't, and won't to this day. He leaked classified and sensitive materials, but nothing judged to be injurious to national security. 

No one has ever leaked and published such Top,Secret material because even in civilian court, that's an offence punishable by 30 years to Life.

There have been espionage cases where people have stolen Top Secret material and sold it or given it to a foreign power, but they have never published it in bulk. 

Ostensibly, what "Bradley Manning" did was this - he took mass amounts of the most privileged and sensitive material available and just gave it to a foreign national, without self-censoring it or even checking what he was handing over - there could have been nuclear launch codes in there.

"Manning" didn't self-censor or edit what he gave to Wikileaks to gauge its sensitivity and appropriateness to be made public - Wikileaks did, applying their own arbitrary measure of editorial control on the material.

But all the stuff they didn't publish - which is a lot more - they still have. They may have kept it, they may have sold it. But they still have it.

Manning allegedly (and neither he nor his advocates dispute this) just gave a bunch of Top Secret information to man from another country he had never met.


That's precisely what people in the armed forces are supposed never to do. Because its treason.

My thesis instead is this: if the Pentagon say he did this, if he says that he did this and if his defence counsel say he did this.... 

And yet he STILL isn't YET in the stockade at Fort Mead.... Now, years later after the fact...
Surely to most obvious explanation being overlooked for this glaring incongruity is: 



He Didn't Do This.

And None of This is True.
Hear me out here,

The first point is this : if what he and his defence are saying is true, and that is his defence, then he doesn't have a defence.

He goes to jail, and he goes today, end of story.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not have a whilstleblower defence for the disclosure of Top Secret material to foreign nationals.

The second point is this: we KNOW that Julian Assange is an intelligence front.
He's not a leaker and he's not an activist.
He's a fraud.
So, you have to ask the question : if Assange is a fraud, and they know he's a fraud as surely they must, the suspicion has to be raised - is the guy accused of leaking stuff to him also a fraud?

Look at it objectively - are they handling his military trial by the book or are they doing odd things and deviating conspicuously from established operating proceedures?


Answer: Yes, they are.
Is it really reasonable to believe that any serving member of the US Military would really disclose mass bulk Top Secret information to a silver-haired Aussie weirdo with questionable bedroom manners just on a whim?
And is it reasonable to accept that such a person is still not in jail for doing so?

He should have been jailed within days. 

Here we are years later, with no end in sight.

This is Theatre.



from Spike1138 on Vimeo.




Botwatching would appear to confirm I am on to something...


Go Quietly... Or Else... - by Vice-President Spiro T. Agnew


Agnew says: 

In Early October 1973, Kissingerite White House Chief of Staff, "General" Al Haig came to him and said (in effect) :

"If you do not resign - I will kill you."

Agnew resigned, plead No Contest to a trumped up charge and was finished in professional politics.

But he survived. And wrote a book.




"Go Quietly... Or Else...." is Copyright 1980 and dedicated to Frank Sinatra.


On March 30th 1981, during a Presidential Succession Drill, a sniper team and MK-Ultra murder puppet and most likely a pair of complicit Secret Service details attempted to kill both Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush.

Reagan's life was narrowly saved by Head of Presidential Detail, Jerry Parr, who was not supposed to be with the President that day and decided to accompany him to the Georgetown Hilton at the last minute.

George Bush was in Dallas, and in violation of all standard procedure, REFUSED to get on a plane, re-board Air Force 2 and be bundled by his detail into the bunker below the White House Sit Room and put immediately on the hotline to Brezhnev.

None of that was done.

The nuclear football was fumbled and out of play and for anywhere between 4-6 hours, the ability of the United States to respond to a pre-emptive thermonuclear first strike was rendered utterly inert - had this indeed been the feared and anticipated Decapitation Strike, it had succeeded - not Yankee birds would fly to taint Moscow or Kiev's skies with their rocket red glare.

But Secretary of State Haig wasn't worried. 

He was unconcerned.

He went down to the White House Press Room and declared,Generalissimo style 

"I am in control, here." 

Of course he was. He had another one of the footballs. And had Bush's plane mysteriously crashed, he would also have had a full, fresh set of uncompromised authentication launch codes.





























Monday 29 July 2013

McVeigh Lives


I apologise for the TERRIBLE quality. If anyone had it better, please contact me or upload.

But the information is sound.




A few days after Chandra Levy's disappearance, the FBI sheepishly admits on May 10, 2001, that they somehow "forgot" to give McVeigh's lawyers some three thousand documents. 

[Caused by details Ms Levy uncovered through the Bureau of Prisons?] 

So, the execution date is changed to June 11, 2001. 

There are ten media people selected to be at the death house window at the Terre Haute, Indiana, prison, to witness the execution of McVeigh. One of them, not contradicted by the others, says that 

"he appeared to be still breathing or what appeared to be shallow breathing, even after being pronounced dead and his eyes remained open". 

Video interview on MSNBC, (video streaming,6/11/01), of Susan Carlson, reporter for WLS-AM Radio, Chicago. 
[Story was suppressed by most other media, including all mass media in Chicago, including apparently her own radio station.] 

Some doctors ridiculed the way the prison people put the go-to-sleep sedative in McVeigh's leg, not a major upper body vein. In the leg, the sedative would take, some doctors claim, four hours to act. 

Hey, isn't a go-to-sleep sedative supposed to make you do that, that is, close your eyes and go to sleep?

Yes.

This is more indicative of someone in deep meditative trance.

Something Dr Jollyon West has extensively studied and documented in his capacity as the Director if the Neuropsychiatric Institute at UCLA.

Trayvon/Zimmerman






Christopher Hitchens: Trayvon/Zimmerman 
from Spike1138 on Vimeo.

Murder committed in the course of aggressively stalking a citizen by someone without a badge makes the case first, not second degree murder.

This is a premeditated criminal act.





Colon


On the morning of 9/11, almost every senior or notable Zionist on the face of the Earth was in either New York, Washington or London, within minutes of a TV Studio, making themselves available to be interviewed about what they thought the days events might auger and what they should do next.

(And none of them expressed surprise)

The most senior black and powerful black man in America wasn't.

He had been sent to Columbia at short notice and was far from the President and far from having his finger on the pulse of the National Security States of America






Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama won't swing many votes. It has come too late to an electorate too divided and in an atmosphere too poisoned to even be heard properly, let alone persuade anyone. (Though, were he to stump for Obama in Virginia's military towns, he might make some waves.)

Since Powell endorsed Obama in 2008, it is not a surprise. And the endorsement he gave this time this time around was sound but not soaring.

"I think, generally, we've come out of the dive and we're starting to gain altitude," he told CBS's Good Morning. "It doesn't mean all our problems are solved."

While it may not be decisive, it is nonetheless indicative. For Powell is a Republican without a party. The man who sold the Iraq war to the United Nations as George W Bush's secretary of state is no liberal. He has not yet left the party with which he has identified for much of his adult life, but clearly, he feels that it has left him:

"I think I'm a Republican of more moderate mould and that's something of a dying breed, I'm sorry to say. But, you know, the Republicans I worked for are President Reagan, President Bush, the Howard Bakers of the world, people who were conservative, people who were willing to push their conservative views, but people who recognize that, at the end of the day, you got to find a basis for compromise. Compromise is how this country runs."

Romney was once of a similar breed. It's actually the breed he's been trying to emulate most recently, and which has served him so well as he distances himself from the reactionary demagoguery of the primaries and seeks to present himself as more reasonable, considered candidate – who is not a "severe" conservative but a compassionate one.

Claims that Powell is only supporting Obama "because he is black" are as reductive as they are ridiculous. If race were the sole or even principal guide for his politics, Powell wouldn't have been among the handful of black Americans who supported the Ronald Reagan of "welfare queens" or the Bush senior of Willie Horton infamy.

Powell left the George W Bush administration disaffected at the impact of neoconservatives on foreign policy and the general drift towards the right on social and economic policy, saying also that his presentation in favour of the war at the UN had left "a painful blot" on his record. The Republicans have only got more rightwing since then, and many of those who advised Bush are now on Team Romney.

While Powell professed the "utmost respect" for Romney, he nevertheless sees him conflicted between the demands of his conservative base and the those of the real world, saying:

"The governor who was speaking on Monday night at the debate was saying things that were quite different from what he said earlier. I'm not quite sure which Governor Romney we would be getting with respect to foreign policy. I don't sense he's thought through these issues as thoroughly as he should have. He gets advice from his campaign staff that he then has to modify as he goes along."

The Romney who ran Massachusetts as governor might have chosen Powell as a running-mate. Powell might even have accepted. But that Romney only exists in its most fleeting, Etch-a-Sketchiest form.

The party Powell identifies with is the one Romney's father, George, tried to defend at the ultra-conservative convention that nominated Barry Goldwater. Back then, Gerald Ford symbolically nominated George from the floor, with the praise:

"He has never let the temporary glitter of expediency obscure the path which his integrity dictated he must follow."

No one could ever say that of Romney. The context may change but the notion that a candidate should stand for something other than office remains. Lacking a Sister Souljah moment during which he might have taken on his own side, Romney has shown himself to be a prisoner to his increasingly eccentric and extreme base. Whether it's GOP Senate candidates Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin disparaging rape survivors, Rush Limbaugh referring to Georgetown student Sandra Fluke as a "slut" and a "prostitute" after she spoke in support of mandating insurance coverage for contraception, or Donald Trump demanding Obama's college transcripts, Romney has chosen polite distance over forthright denunciation, preferring to cajole than confront.

Before he walked out of the 1964 convention, George Romney said:

"There is no place in either of our parties for the purveyors of hate."

Powell's endorsement of Obama signals that we are a step closer to seeing the extinction of a breed for which there is clearly a market, but which Republicans are no longer keen to produce.


Sharing Good Information


"He who speaks the truth will be chased out of nine villages"
- Turkish Proverb


"...in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; 
but what do they say?

 They say, 
‘It’s not so bad’ 
or ‘You’re seeing things’ 
or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

"And you are an alarmist. 

You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. 

These are the beginnings, yes; 
but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end?

On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you.

 On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. 

You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

"But your friends are fewer now...."



An excerpt from
They Thought They Were Free

The Germans, 1933-45

Milton Mayer
"...But Then It Was Too Late."

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany.  

And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. 

And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. 

And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

"You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires.  

And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. 

One had no time."

"Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. ‘One had no time to think. There was so much going on.’"

"Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above alldiverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. 

There was no need to.

 Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. 
Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. 

Who wants to think?

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop.  Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing.  One day it is over his head.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened 
I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? 

Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.

"Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. 

Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. 

Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something—but then it was too late."

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. 

Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse.

You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. 

You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ 

Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. 

And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows.

Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. 

You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. 

In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say?

 They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. 

These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end?

On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you.

 On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. 

You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

"But your friends are fewer now.

Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. 

You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. 

Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? 

It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty.  

If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you.  The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. 

The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. 
The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. 

But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed.

Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. 

Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God.

 The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

"You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. 

On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. 

You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

"Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood.  A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that.  You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

"What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame.  This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know."

I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.

"I can tell you," my colleague went on, "of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn’t an anti-Nazi. He was just—a judge. In ’42 or ’43, early ’43, I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an ‘Aryan’ woman.

This was ‘race injury,’ something the Party was especially anxious to punish. 
In the case at bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a ‘nonracial’ offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party ‘processing’ which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the ‘nonracial’ charge, in the judge’s opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. 

Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom."

"And the judge?"

"Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience—a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. 

He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? 

The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That’s how I heard about it.) After the ’44 Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don’t know."

I said nothing.

"Once the war began," my colleague continued, "resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure to show it in public, was ‘defeatism.’ 

You assumed that there were lists of those who would be ‘dealt with’ later, after the victory. Goebbels was very clever here, too. 

He continually promised a ‘victory orgy’ to ‘take care of’ those who thought that their ‘treasonable attitude’ had escaped notice. And he meant it; that was not just propaganda. And that was enough to put an end to all uncertainty.

"Once the war began, the government could do anything ‘necessary’ to win it; so it was with the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its ‘necessities’ gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. 

The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany’s losing the war. 

It was a long bet. Not many made it."