All posts by alternativefreepress

Police Major Argues The Case Against Prohibition

The Case Against Prohibition

By Mjr. Neill Franklin (Ret.)
Law Officer: March 31, 2014

Before Nixon declared the war on drugs in the early 1970s, policing was a different creature altogether. Police were the “good guys” going after the “bad guys”–the rapists, the murderers, the child molesters–most people could agree society was better without. Since that time, the very nature of policing has changed.

Today enforcing drug laws not only occupies a huge portion of police time, it forms much of the identity of the profession and of individual officers who dedicate their lives to serving the public. That’s why, to me, the finding that more officers support the legalization of marijuana possession than support the status quo is remarkable. Who among us questions such things lightly?

But in other ways, this finding is unsurprising. I have always believed that those in the trenches were those most privy to the injustice and the illogic of the war on drugs, and, I hope, those most dedicated to righting this wrong. Who better to question its results? That so many officers were brave enough to challenge the prohibition of marijuana–one of the pillars upon which their professional identity is founded–is an act of honor for the love of the profession of which I am so proud to have been a part for more than three decades.

I commend Law Officer for conducting this study, but I find that the questions they didn’t ask are the ones most relevant to the average officer: Will the legalization of marijuana and other drugs lead to a reduction in the power of street gangs and cartels that terrorize our cities? Will it allow police officers to focus greater attention on violent crimes and restore good relations with the communities in which they operate? Ultimately, will it lead to less violence?

I believe that most officers brave enough to be honest with themselves about the answers can only answer in the affirmative to these questions. We are the ones who see–every day–that the prohibition of drugs, just like the prohibition of alcohol, is what provides the tremendous profits to the criminal organizations that provide the drugs on our streets. That picking up the petty drug dealer on the corner–the kinds of arrest that federal grants and asset forfeiture laws incentivize–does nothing to affect the long-term supply of drugs and only causes more violence as rival gangs battle to fill power vacuums. That all of this has caused society generally and our communities of color specifically to look upon us as people to be feared rather than as public servants advancing public safety, and that that distrust, far from being merely an abstract concept, makes our jobs infinitely more difficult as community members shy from cooperating in investigations.

The majority of the populace have the privilege of rarely having to think about these harsh realities of the drug war, but police are uniquely positioned to see the ravages caused by prohibition firsthand. That is why those who favor legalizing, decriminalizing or legalizing medical marijuana outnumber those who don’t two to one in this survey. Still, in the culture of the blue wall of silence, their willingness to dissent speaks volumes about their daring and fortitude.

I now ask that these officers brave enough to question the prohibition of marijuana one day cast the same critical eye on the prohibition of other drugs. Regulation and control doesn’t mean that heroin will be available at the neighborhood convenience store or even in stores dedicated to the purpose. It simply means that governments, rather than criminals, will decide who gets to buy what where and when.

That could mean only providing addicts with maintenance doses such as Switzerland has done. It could mean restricting all advertising. It could mean supervised injection sites. It could mean expanded prevention programs that show the real hazards of drug abuse and look less like rock stars “burning out” and more like the sad reality of addiction we as law enforcement officials see every day.

Think of the first person you think of when you think of addiction. Now imagine if every kid with too much to lose thought of that person rather than (who’s a cool drug user to kids these days?) when they thought of drug use. Think of if we were able to take away the mystique of the forbidden and replace it with a pity for the pathetic–not through misinformation and lies but through an honest look at addiction as a public health problem to be addressed, not as a criminal justice matter to be swept under the rug.

Now imagine we could also replace the dealer who would sell to kids with a regulated and licensed businessperson who would never dare. That we could separate the markets so that the person who buys marijuana isn’t encouraged to try cocaine. Legalization and regulation is not a radical argument. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. Its point is to make the exotic mundane.

Of course, it is a radical argument to the criminal syndicates who rely on drug profits to fund every other criminal enterprise. And, unfortunately, it’s a radical argument to those policing associations who make billions on asset forfeitures and federal grants designed to get them focused on drug crime rather than on the real work of policing. The only question is: Which is more important to you? The dictates of the drug war, or doing what is best for the community you’re sworn to serve and protect?

(Read the full article at Law Officer)

—-
Alternative Free Press

Stock Market Is Rigged, Explains Michael Lewis On ’60 Minutes’

The U.S. stock market is rigged, with elite traders buying access to a high-speed network that allows them to figure out what you’ve just ordered, order it first, then raise the price before your order is complete.

And according to Michael Lewis, author of a new book about high-frequency trading called “Flash Boys,” this form of “front running” is completely legal.

“The insiders are able to move faster than you,” Lewis said on “60 Minutes” on Sunday night…* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

(Source: The Young Turks)

—-
Alternative Free Press

End Of The Petrodollar: Iran & Russia’s $20 Billion Oil-For-Goods Deal

Iran, Russia working to seal $20 bln oil-for-goods deal – sources

By Jonathan Saul and Parisa Hafezi
Reuters: April 2, 2014

Iran and Russia have made progress towards an oil-for-goods deal sources said would be worth up to $20 billion, which would enable Tehran to boost vital energy exports in defiance of Western sanctions, people familiar with the negotiations told Reuters.

In January Reuters reported Moscow and Tehran were discussing a barter deal that would see Moscow buy up to 500,000 barrels a day of Iranian oil in exchange for Russian equipment and goods.

The White House has said such a deal would raise “serious concerns” and would be inconsistent with the nuclear talks between world powers and Iran.

A Russian source said Moscow had “prepared all documents from its side”, adding that completion of a deal was awaiting agreement on what oil price to lock in.

The source said the two sides were looking at a barter arrangement that would see Iranian oil being exchanged for industrial goods including metals and food, but said there was no military equipment involved. The source added that the deal was expected to reach $15 to $20 billion in total and would be done in stages with an initial $6 billion to $8 billion tranche.

The Iranian and Russian governments declined to comment.

Two separate Iranian officials also said the deal was valued at $20 billion. One of the Iranian officials said it would involve exports of around 500,000 barrels a day for two to three years.

“Iran can swap around 300,000 barrels per day via the Caspian Sea and the rest from the (Middle East) Gulf, possibly Bandar Abbas port,” one of the Iranian officials said, referring to one of Iran’s top oil terminals.

“The price (under negotiation) is lower than the international oil price, but not much, and there are few options. But in general, a few dollars lower than the market price.”

Oil is currently priced around $100 a barrel.

(Read the full article at Reuters)

—-
Alternative Free Press

EPA tested deadly pollutants on humans

Report: EPA tested deadly pollutants on humans to push Obama admin’s agenda

By Michael Bastasch
The Daily Caller: April 2, 2014

The Environmental Protection Agency has been conducting dangerous experiments on humans over the past few years in order to justify more onerous clean air regulations.

The agency conducted tests on people with health issues and the elderly, exposing them to high levels of potentially lethal pollutants, without disclosing the risks of cancer and death, according to a newly released government report.

These experiments exposed people, including those with asthma and heart problems, to dangerously high levels of toxic pollutants, including diesel fumes, reads a EPA inspector general report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The EPA also exposed people with health issues to levels of pollutants up to 50 times greater than the agency says is safe for humans.

The EPA conducted five experiments in 2010 and 2011 to look at the health effects of particulate matter, or PM, and diesel exhaust on humans. The IG’s report found that the EPA did get consent forms from 81 people in five studies. But the IG also found that “exposure risks were not always consistently represented.”

“Further, the EPA did not include information on long-term cancer risks in its diesel exhaust studies’ consent forms,” the IG’s report noted. “An EPA manager considered these long-term risks minimal for short-term study exposures” but “human subjects were not informed of this risk in the consent form.”

According to the IG’s report, “only one of five studies’ consent forms provided the subject with information on the upper range of the pollutant” they would be exposed to, but even more alarming is that only “two of five alerted study subjects to the risk of death for older individuals with cardiovascular disease.”

Three of the studies exposed people to high levels of PM and two of the studies exposed people to high levels of diesel exhaust and ozone. Diesel exhaust contains 40 toxic air contaminants, including 19 that are known carcinogens and PM. The EPA has publicly warned of the dangers of PM, but seemed to downplay them in their scientific studies on humans.

“This lack of warning about PM,” the IG’s report notes, “is also different from the EPA’s public image about PM.”

The EPA has been operating under the assumption that PM is deadly for years now. The IG’s report points to a 2003 EPA document that says short-term exposure to PM can result in heart attacks and arrhythmias for people with heart disease — and long-term exposure can result in reduced lung function and even death. A 2006 review by the EPA presents even further links between short-term PM exposure and “mortality and morbidity.”

“Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should,” former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson told Congress on Sept. 22, 2011.

“If we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country,” Jackson added.

PM is a “mixture of harmful solid and liquid particles” that the EPA regulates. PM that is 2.5 microns or less is known as PM2.5, which is about “1/30th the thickness of a human hair.” These small particles can get into people’s respiratory system and can harm human health and even lead to death after just short-term exposure.

The EPA set PM2.5 primary standards at 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air on an annual average basis, but the agency exposed test subjects to PM levels of 600 micrograms per cubic meter — 40 times what the EPA sets as an acceptable outdoor air standard.

But in five of the studies, people were subject to levels higher than what they signed on for. The EPA IG found that one person was hit with “pollutant concentrations that reached 751 [micrograms per cubic meter], which exceeded the IRB-approved concentration target of 600 [micrograms per cubic meter].”

(Read the full article at The Daily Caller

—-
Alternative Free Press

It’s Not Too Late to Try Bush, Cheney and Obama for War Crimes

Washington’s Blog: March 29, 2014

We Can Still Prosecute …

Many argue that the statute of limitations on Bush and Cheney’s crimes of lying us into the Iraq war and torture have all run … so it is too late to prosecute them.

However, the United States War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.

The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty.

18 U.S.C. § 2441 has no statute of limitations, which means that a war crimes complaint can be filed at any time.

The penalty may be life imprisonment or — if a single prisoner dies due to torture — death. Given that there are numerous, documented cases of prisoners being tortured to death by U.S. soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that means that the death penalty would be appropriate for anyone found guilty of carrying out, ordering, or sanctioning such conduct.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 limited the applicability of the War Crimes Act, but still made the following unlawful:  torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse.

War Crimes By the Bush Administration

Here’s an overview of war crimes by the Bush administration:

  • The use of depleted uranium, which can cause cancer and birth defects for decades (see thisthisthis,thisthis and this)

We’ll go into more detail on torture below.

Yes, It Was Torture

Yes, Waterboarding IS Torture

  • Everyone claiming waterboarding is not torture has changed their tune as soon as they were exposed to even a small dose of it themselves. See thisthis and this

Not Just Waterboarding

Children, Too

People Died While Being Tortured

The ACLU wrote in 2005:

The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated.  The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.

“”There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths,”” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU.  “”High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable.

***

The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and “”OGA”” (Other Governmental Agency) — a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.

According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides.   Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel.  The autopsy reports list deaths by “”strangulation,”” “”asphyxiation”” and “”blunt force injuries.””  An overwhelming majority of the so-called “”natural deaths”” were attributed to “”Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.””

While newspapers have recently reported deaths of detainees in CIA custody, today’s documents show that the problem is pervasive, involving Navy Seals and Military Intelligence too.

Spiegel reported in 2009:

At least two men died during imprisonment. One of them, a 22-year-old taxi driver named Dilawar, was suspended by his hands from the ceiling for four days, during which US military personnel repeatedly beat his legs. Dilawar died on Dec. 10, 2002. In the autopsy report, a military doctor wrote that the tissue on his legs had basically been “pulpified.” As it happens, his interrogators had already known — and later testified — that there was no evidence against Dilawar …

And see this.

Should We Prosecute?

But should we prosecute?  Yes:

  • Cheney Admits to Being War Criminal

    U.S. Officials Launched a Systematic Program of Torture Using Specialized Techniques Which Produce False Confessions … to Justify the Iraq War

    Let’s dig in a little deeper on the question of torture …

    Not only did Bush, Cheney and other top government officials lie about us into the Iraq war by making a false linkage between Iraq and 9/11, but they carried out a systematic program of torture in order tointentionally create false evidence of that allegation.

    Indeed, the entire purpose behind the U.S. torture program was to obtain false confessions.

    And the torture techniques used were Communist techniques specifically designed to produce falseconfessions.

    Senator Levin, in commenting on a Senate Armed Services Committee report on torture in 2009,dropped the following bombshell:

    With last week’s release of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions, it is now widely known that Bush administration officials distorted Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape “SERE” training – a legitimate program used by the military to train our troops to resist abusive enemy interrogations – by authorizing abusive techniques from SERE for use in detainee interrogations. Those decisions conveyed the message that abusive treatment was appropriate for detainees in U.S. custody. They were also an affront to the values articulated by General Petraeus.

    In SERE training, U.S. troops are briefly exposed, in a highly controlled setting, to abusive interrogation techniques used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions. The techniques are based on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean War for the purpose of eliciting false confessions for propaganda purposes. Techniques used in SERE training include stripping trainees of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, subjecting them to face and body slaps, depriving them of sleep, throwing them up against a wall, confining them in a small box, treating them like animals, subjecting them to loud music and flashing lights, and exposing them to extreme temperatures. Until recently, the Navy SERE school also used waterboarding. The purpose of the SERE program is to provide U.S. troops who might be captured a taste of the treatment they might face so that they might have a better chance of surviving captivity and resisting abusive and coercive interrogations.

    Senator Levin then documents that SERE techniques were deployed as part of an official policy on detainees, and that SERE instructors helped to implement the interrogation programs. He noted:

    The senior Army SERE psychologist warned in 2002 against using SERE training techniques during interrogations in an email to personnel at Guantanamo Bay, because:

    [T]he use of physical pressures brings with it a large number of potential negative side effects… When individuals are gradually exposed to increasing levels of discomfort, it is more common for them to resist harder… If individuals are put under enough discomfort, i.e. pain, they will eventually do whatever it takes to stop the pain. This will increase the amount of information they tell the interrogator, but it does not mean the information is accurate. In fact, it usually decreases the reliability of the information because the person will say whatever he believes will stop the pain… Bottom line: the likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low. The likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the level of resistance in a detainee is very high… (p. 53).

    McClatchy filled in some of the details:

    Former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration…

    For most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there.”

    It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document…

    When people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people to push harder,” he continued.”Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn’t any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam . . .

    A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under “pressure” to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

    “While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq,” Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. “The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.”

    “I think it’s obvious that the administration was scrambling then to try to find a connection, a link (between al Qaida and Iraq),” [Senator] Levin said in a conference call with reporters. “They made out links where they didn’t exist.”

    Levin recalled Cheney’s assertions that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, in the Czech Republic capital of Prague just months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

    The FBI and CIA found that no such meeting occurred.

    In other words, top Bush administration officials not only knowingly lied about a non-existent connection between Al Qaida and Iraq, but they pushed and insisted that interrogators use special torture methods aimed at extracting false confessions to attempt to create such a false linkage.

    The Washington Post reported the same year:

    Despite what you’ve seen on TV, torture is really only good at one thing: eliciting false confessions. Indeed, Bush-era torture techniques, we now know, were cold-bloodedly modeled after methods used by Chinese Communists to extract confessions from captured U.S. servicemen that they could then use for propaganda during the Korean War.

    So as shocking as the latest revelation in a new Senate Armed Services Committee report may be, it actually makes sense — in a nauseating way. The White House started pushing the use of torture not when faced with a “ticking time bomb” scenario from terrorists, but when officials in 2002 were desperately casting about for ways to tie Iraq to the 9/11 attacks — in order to strengthen their public case for invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 at all.

    ***

    Gordon Trowbridge writes for the Detroit News: “Senior Bush administration officials pushed for the use of abusive interrogations of terrorism detainees in part to seek evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq, according to newly declassified information discovered in a congressional probe.

    Indeed, one of the two senior instructors from the Air Force team which taught U.S. servicemen how to resist torture by foreign governments when used to extract false confessions has blown the whistle on the true purpose behind the U.S. torture program.

    As Truth Out reported:

    Jessen’s notes were provided to Truthout by retired Air Force Capt. Michael Kearns, a “master” SERE instructor and decorated veteran who has previously held high-ranking positions within the Air Force Headquarters Staff and Department of Defense (DoD).

    Kearns and his boss, Roger Aldrich, the head of the Air Force Intelligence’s Special Survial Training Program (SSTP), based out of Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, Washington, hired Jessen in May 1989. Kearns, who was head of operations at SSTP and trained thousands of service members, said Jessen was brought into the program due to an increase in the number of new SERE courses being taught and “the fact that it required psychological expertise on hand in a full-time basis.”

    Jessen, then the chief of Psychology Service at the US Air Force Survival School, immediately started to work directly with Kearns on “a new course for special mission units (SMUs), which had as its goal individual resistance to terrorist exploitation.”

    The course, known as SV-91, was developed for the Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) branch of the US Air Force Intelligence Agency, which acted as the Executive Agent Action Office for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Jessen’s notes formed the basis for one part of SV-91, “Psychological Aspects of Detention.”

    ***

    Kearns was one of only two officers within DoD qualified to teach all three SERE-related courses within SSTP on a worldwide basis, according to a copy of a 1989 letter written Aldrich, who nominated him officer of the year.

    ***

    The Jessen notes clearly state the totality of what was being reverse-engineered – not just ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ but an entire program of exploitation of prisoners using torture as a central pillar,” he said. “What I think is important to note, as an ex-SERE Resistance to Interrogation instructor, is the focus of Jessen’s instruction. It is exploitation, not specifically interrogation. And this is not a picayune issue, because if one were to ‘reverse-engineer’ a course on resistance to exploitation then what one would get is a plan to exploit prisoners, not interrogate them. The CIA/DoD torture program appears to have the same goals as the terrorist organizations or enemy governments for which SV-91 and other SERE courses were created to defend against: the full exploitation of the prisoner in his intelligence, propaganda, or other needs held by the detaining power, such as the recruitment of informers and double agents. Those aspects of the US detainee program have not generally been discussed as part of the torture story in the American press.”

    ***

    Jessen wrote that cooperation is the “end goal” of the detainer, who wants the detainee “to see that [the detainer] has ‘total’ control of you because you are completely dependent on him, and thus you must comply with his wishes. Therefore, it is absolutely inevitable that you must cooperate with him in some way (propaganda, special favors, confession, etc.).”

    ***

    Kearns said, based on what he has read in declassified government documents and news reports about the role SERE played in the Bush administration’s torture program, Jessen clearly “reverse-engineered” his lesson plan and used resistance methods to abuse “war on terror” detainees.

    So we have the two main Air Force insiders concerning the genesis of the torture program confirming – with original notes – that the whole purpose of the torture program was to extract false confessions.

    Indeed, the top interrogation experts from U.S. military and intelligence services say that all torture is lousy at producing actionable intelligence, the only things it is good for are (1) producing false confessions, (2) creating more terrorists, and (3) itself acting as a form of terrorism.

    And false confessions were, in fact, extracted.

    For example:

    A humanitarian aid worker said: torture only stopped when I pretended I was in Al Qaeda

    Under torture, Libyan Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi falsely claimed there was a link between Saddam Hussein, al-Qaida and WMD

    President Bush mentioned Abu Zubaydah as a success story, where torture saved lives. Zubaydah was suspected of being a high-ranking al-Qaida leader. Bush administration officials claimed Zubaydah told them that al-Qaida had links with Saddam Hussein. He also claimed there was a plot to attack Washington with a “dirty bomb”. Both claims are now recognized to be false, even by the CIA, which also admits he was never a member of al-Qaida.

    One of the Main Sources for the 9/11 Commission Report was Tortured Until He Agreed to Sign a Confession that He Was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ

    The so-called 9/11 mastermind said: “During … my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear” (the self-confessed 9/11 “mastermind” falsely confessed to crimes he didn’t commit)

    (Indeed, the 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on a third-hand account of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees. And the government went to great lengths to obstruct justice and hide unflattering facts from the Commission.)
    But Are They Guilty of War Crimes?

    The Nuremberg Tribunal which convicted and sentenced Nazis leaders to death conceived of wars of aggression – i.e. wars not launched in self-defense – defined the following as “crimes against peace”, or war crimes:

    (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
    (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i)

    The Tribunal considered wars of aggression to be the ultimate war crime, which encompassed all other crimes:

    To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

    Judgment of October 1, 1946, International Military Tribunal Judgment and Sentence, 22 IMTTRIALS, supra note 7, at 498, reprinted in 41 AM. J. INT’LL. 172, 186 (1947).

    Given that Iraq had no connection with 9/11 and possessed no weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq war was a crime of aggression and – under the standards by which Nazi leaders were convicted by the Nuremberg Tribunal – the American leaders who lied us into that war are guilty of war crimes.

    Benjamin Ferencz, a former chief prosecutor for the Nuremberg Trials, declared:

    A prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity — that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.

    See this, this, and this.

    The Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court – Luis Moreno-Ocampo – told the Sunday Telegraph in 2007:

    That he would be willing to launch an inquiry and could envisage a scenario in which the Prime Minister and American President George W Bush could one day face charges at The Hague. Luis Moreno-Ocampo urged Arab countries, particularly Iraq, to sign up to the court to enable allegations against the West to be pursued.

    As a Japan Times Op/Ed noted in 2009:

    In January 2003, a group of American law professors warned President George W. Bush that he and senior officials of his government could be prosecuted for war crimes if their military tactics violated international humanitarian law.

    Eminent legal scholars such as former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clarke and Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law and a professor of law Lawrence Velvel have since stated that high-level Bush administration officials did commit war crimes in relation to the Iraq war.

    Torture is – of course – a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which make it illegal to inflict mental or physical torture or inhuman treatment. It is clearly-established that waterboarding is torture. The torture was, in fact, systematic, and included widespread sexual humiliation, murder and otherunambiguous forms of torture.

    Velvel and many other legal experts say that the torture which was carried out after 9/11 is a war crime.

    Colin Powell’s former chief of staff stated that Dick Cheney is guilty of war crimes for overseeing torture policies.

    Matthew Alexander – a former top Air Force interrogator who led the team that tracked down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – notes that government officials knew they are vulnerable for war crime prosecution:

    They have, from the beginning, been trying to prevent an investigation into war crimes.

    A Malaysian war crimes commission also found Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and five administration attorneys guilty of war crimes (although but the commission has no power to enforce its judgment).

    (Read the full article including War Crimes By the Obama Administration at Washington’s Blog

    —-
    Alternative Free Press

CIA officer confirmed no protests before misleading Benghazi account given

By Guy Taylor
The Washington Times: March 31, 2014

Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred, documents and interviews with current and former intelligence officials show.

The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012 — a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.

That the talking points used by Mrs. Rice, who was then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, were written by a CIA that ignored the assessment by its own station chief inside Libya, has emerged as one of the major bones of contention in the more than two years of political fireworks and congressional investigations into the Benghazi attack.

What has never been made public is whether Mr. Morell and others at the CIA explicitly shared the station chief’s assessment with the White House or State Department.

Two former intelligence officials have told The Washington Times that this question likely will be answered at a Wednesday hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during which Mr. Morell is scheduled to give his public testimony.

Mr. Morell, who has since left the CIA, declined to comment on the matter Monday. He now works at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington insider strategic communications firm.

One former intelligence official close to Mr. Morell told The Times on the condition of anonymity that “the whole question of communication with the station chief will be addressed in his testimony.”

“We’re confident that it will clarify the situation in the minds of many who are asking,” the former official said.

Another former intelligence official told The Times that Mr. Morell did tell the White House and the State Department that the CIA station chief in Libya had concluded that there was no protest but senior Obama administration and CIA officials in Washington ignored the assessment.

Why they ignored it remains a topic of heated debate within the wider intelligence community.

(Read the full story at Washington Times)

—–
Alternative Free Press

Police “modify search warrant law” to aggressively raid homes

Police Housing Enforcement Unit will “modify search warrant law to eliminate prior notice, aggressively use warrants and housing sweeps on a regular basis.”

Cops to Inspect Homes Without Notice For Illegal Rentals

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars: March 30, 2014

Authorities in Long Island have launched a crackdown on homeowners who rent their house out to tenants who have not been registered under a “zero tolerance” program that will see police conduct home inspections without notice.

Landlords in the Long Island community of Westbury will be targeted by a newly created police “Housing Enforcement Unit” that will “modify search warrant law to eliminate prior notice, aggressively use warrants and housing sweeps on a regular basis.”

Residents are being encouraged to report their neighbors to authorities if they suspect they are housing tenants who have not been registered with the government. Local station News 12 also gave out an email address and phone number encouraging viewers to, “report a suspected illegal rental.”

Maintenance rules and violation fines will also be raised under the new program.

Mayor Peter Cavallaro told News 12 that permitting property owners to call the shots on rentals “victimizes the community as a whole.”

Although the crackdown was launched after complaints by residents, its primary purpose appears to be a way to target landlords and homeowners who rent out rooms in order to help pay the cost of exorbitant property taxes.

Respondents to the News 12 report decried the move as a selfish attempt to prop up house prices at the expense of property rights and personal freedom.

(Read the full article at Infowars)

Aid to Ukraine Is a Bad Deal For All

Ron Paul
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity: March 30, 2014

Last week Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill approving a billion dollars in aid to Ukraine and more sanctions on Russia. The bill will likely receive the president’s signature within days. If you think this is the last time US citizens will have their money sent to Ukraine, you should think again. This is only the beginning.

This $1 billion for Ukraine is a rip-off for the America taxpayer, but it is also a bad deal for Ukrainians. Not a single needy Ukrainian will see a penny of this money, as it will be used to bail out international banks who hold Ukrainian government debt. According to the terms of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)-designed plan for Ukraine, life is about to get much more difficult for average Ukrainians. The government will freeze some wage increases, significantly raise taxes, and increase energy prices by a considerable margin.

But the bankers will get paid and the IMF will get control over the Ukrainian economy.

The bill also authorizes more US taxpayer money for government-funded “democracy promotion” NGOs, and more money to broadcast US government propaganda into Ukraine via Radio Free Europe and Voice of America. It also includes some saber-rattling, directing the US Secretary of State to “provide enhanced security cooperation with Central and Eastern European NATO member states.”

The US has been “promoting democracy” in Ukraine for more than ten years now, but it doesn’t seem to have done much good. Recently a democratically-elected government was overthrown by violent protestors. That is the opposite of democracy, where governments are changed by free and fair elections. What is shocking is that the US government and its NGOs were on the side of the protestors! If we really cared about democracy we would not have taken either side, as it is none of our business.

Washington does not want to talk about its own actions that led to the coup, instead focusing on attacking the Russian reaction to US-instigated unrest next door to them. So the new bill passed by Congress will expand sanctions against Russia for its role in backing a referendum in Crimea, where most of the population voted to join Russia. The US, which has participated in the forced change of borders in Serbia and elsewhere, suddenly declares that international borders cannot be challenged in Ukraine.

Of course, those who disagree with me and others like me who are less than gung-ho about sanctions, manipulating elections, and sending our troops overseas are criticized as somehow being unpatriotic. It happened before when so many of us were opposed to the Iraq war, the US attack on Libya, and elsewhere. And it is happening again to those of us not eager to get in another cold — or hot — war with Russia over a small peninsula that means absolutely nothing to the US or its security.

I would argue that real patriotism is defending this country and making sure that our freedoms are not undermined here. Unfortunately, while so many are focused on freedoms in Crimea and Ukraine, the US Congress is set to pass an NSA “reform” bill that will force private companies to retain our personal data and make it even easier for the NSA to spy on the rest of us. We need to refocus our priorities toward promoting liberty in the United States!

This article originally published at Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity

Alternative Free Press – fair use –

Obama’s End Of NSA Data Collection, Will Actually Increase Collection

Congressman: President’s Push To End Data Collection, Will Actually Increase Collection

Ben Swann: March 28, 2014

Just by reading the name, the average American would believe that a new bill being crafted by the Obama administration to end NSA data collection, or a simultaneous effort being pushed through the House Intelligence Committee by Rep. Mike Rogers would lead to the end of data collection on hundreds of millions of Americans. After all, these bills with names like “End Bulk Collection Act” sound like they will free the American people from NSA spying.

Newspaper, television and internet story headlines read “ White House plan would end NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone data”. Sounds like the NSA spying program is coming to an end.

Not so, says Michigan Congressman Justin Amash who voted against the House version of the “End Bulk Collection” bill. Amash, a Republican two term Congressman, was a guest on the Ben Swann Radio Show Wednesday. He says the bill sounds like it will lead to the end of data collection but when you get into the details, the bill could actually expand collection.

“It actually expands the scope of collection, of unconstitutional collection. It is called the “End Bulk Collection Act.” It is like we are in some dystopian future where government calls a bill something that has the opposite affect of what title is.” says Rep. Amash.

The major point brought up by the Congressman is that despite the name “End Bulk Collection”, the bill does not to end collection of data, rather it shifts the responsibility of collection from the NSA to private phone companies.

“They are going to transfer where the phone data is collected so that it is not stored by the government but it is instead stored by the phone companies. Where it is stored is not really the main problem.”

Congressman Amash goes on to say that by correcting “who” is storing the information does not to resolve the constitutionality of bulk collection of data.

“The problem is the unconstitutional search and seizure of people’s information. Even if it is stored about the phone companies, the phone companies are now acting as agents of the government and provide the government even more information than they have today. That doesn’t put us in a better position, it puts us in a worse position.”

So how is it that the American public has no clue that the “End Bulk Collection Act” or the President’s new proposal would actually increase bulk collection? Rep. Amash says you can blame that, in part, on a complacent media.

(Read the full article at Ben Swann)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Cannabis Kills Cancer

AlternativeFreePress.com

Cancer hates marijuana. Here is definitive proof via peer-reviewed science that cannabis kills cancer, many different types of cancer.

Cannabis kills stomach cancer
These results indicate that a cannabinoid agonist may, indeed, be an alternative chemotherapeutic agent for 5-FU-resistant gastric cancer.
Anticancer Research. 2013 June. ‘Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23749906

Cannabis kills leukemia
We explored the activity of six cannabinoids, used both alone and in combination in leukaemic cells. Cannabinoids were cytostatic and caused a simultaneous arrest at all phases of the cell cycle. Re-culturing pre-treated cells in drug-free medium resulted in dramatic reductions in cell viability. Furthermore, combining cannabinoids was not antagonistic.
Anticancer Research October 2013 ‘Enhancing the Activity of Cannabidiol and Other Cannabinoids In Vitro Through Modifications to Drug Combinations and Treatment Schedules
http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/33/10/4373.abstract#corresp-1

Cannabis kills breast cancer
Here, we have shown CBD-induced cell death of breast cancer cells, independent of cannabinoid and vallinoid receptor activation. […] Our study revealed an intricate interplay between apoptosis and autophagy in CBD-treated breast cancer cells and highlighted the value of continued investigation into the potential use of CBD as an antineoplastic agent.
Mol Cancer Ther. 2011 July Cannabidiol induces programmed cell death in breast cancer cells by coordinating the cross-talk between apoptosis and autophagy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21566064

Cannabis kills colon cancer
CBD BDS attenuates colon carcinogenesis and inhibits colorectal cancer cell proliferation via CB1 and CB2 receptor activation. The results may have some clinical relevance for the use of Cannabis-based medicines in cancer patients.
Phytomedicine. 2013 December ‘Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardized Cannabis sativa extract with high content of cannabidiol.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24373545

Cannabis kills prostate cancer
several cannabinoids exert antitumoral properties against prostate cancer, reducing xenograft prostate tumor growth, prostate cancer cell proliferation and cell migration.
Nat Rev Urol. September 2011 ‘The endocannabinoid system in prostate cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21912423

Cannabis kills brain cancer
New research out of Spain suggests that THC — the active ingredient in marijuana — appears to prompt the death of brain cancer cells.
ABC News ‘Active Ingredient in Marijuana Kills Brain Cancer Cells
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=7235037&page=1

Dr. Confirms Cannabis Oil Cures Brain Tumor & Brain Cancer

Cannabis kills cancer & curbs MS
“The cannabinoids in cannabis prevent cancer cells from spreading, and they contribute to cancer cell death because they hit some receptors that are generally up-regulated in cancer cells,” says Professor Marja Jäättelä, who heads the Cell Death and Metabolism Research Unit at the Danish Cancer Society.
ScienceNordic: January 6, 2014 ‘Cannabis can kill cancer cells and curb MS
http://sciencenordic.com/cannabis-can-kill-cancer-cells-and-curb-ms

Dr. Christina Sanchez (a molecular biologist at Compultense University in Madrid, Spain) explains how THC kills cancer cells.

Endocannabinoid system can improve efficacy of colon cancer treatments
Our results partially elucidated the role of endocannabinoid system in the molecular mechanisms enrolled by steroids in the inhibition of colon cancer cell growth and strongly suggested that targeting the endocannabinoid system could represent a promising tool to improve the efficacy of colorectal cancer treatments.
Journal of Cellular Physiology January 2012 ‘Interaction of endocannabinoid system and steroid Hormones in the control of colon cancer cell growth
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcp.22727/abstract

Endocannabinoid system promising target to treat cancer
The antiproliferative and apoptotic effects produced by some of these pharmacological probes reveal that the endocannabinoid system is a promising new target for the development of novel chemotherapeutics to treat cancer.
Cancer Metastasis 2011 December Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids, and cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22038019

Cannabinoids are an anti-cancer
cannabinoids have shown some promise as anti-cancer therapies.
Critical Reviews in Oncology / Hematology October 2011 The intersection between cannabis and cancer in the United States.
http://www.croh-online.com/article/S1040-8428%2811%2900231-9/fulltext#sec0055

Cannabis kills skin cancer

Cannabis kills pancreatic cancer
Cannabinoids also reduced the growth of tumor cells in two animal models of pancreatic cancer.
Cancer Res July 2006 Cannabinoids Induce Apoptosis of Pancreatic Tumor Cells via Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress–Related Genes
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/13/6748.abstract

Cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN55212-2 target for melanoma treatment
WIN exerted antimitogenic effects […] Membrane lipid raft complex-mediated antimitogenic effect of WIN in melanoma could represents a potential targets for a melanoma treatment.
Cancer Lett. 2011 November The antimitogenic effect of the cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN55212-2 on human melanoma cells is mediated by the membrane lipid raft
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21807457

Cannabis kills oral cancer
These results show the cannabinoids are potent inhibitors of Tu183 cellular respiration and are toxic to this highly malignant tumor.
Pharmacology June 2010 Cannabinoids inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734

Smoking cannabis can prevent neck and head cancer
Our study suggests that moderate marijuana use is associated with reduced risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2009 August A population-based case-control study of marijuana use and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18312888

Can cannabis cure cancer? The big pharmaceutical companies & many governments say no. In fact, the US government ridiculously claims that cannabis has no medicinal value. This asinine government position has killed innocent people including 4 year old Cash Hyde.

PRweb reported about Cash Hyde’s death back in 2012:

The four-year-old Montana boy—whose malignant brain cancer had been in remission while he received consistent medical cannabis treatments—is the latest casualty in the federal government’s war on voter-approved medical marijuana […] Desperate to find anything to keep their young child Cash alive, after traditional treatments and medications failed to slow the growth of the malignant tumor in his brain, Mike and Kalli Hyde turned to high-CBD cannabis oil. Cash’s cancer immediately went into remission, and he started to live a more normal life. Cash was comfortable, started eating again, and recovered his desire to play. A news story about Cash can be viewed on YouTube.

Then, last summer, law enforcement officials in Montana came down hard on the medical marijuana industry. Rather than face the risk of being stormed by armed agents and subjected to steep fines or jail time, many legally-compliant medical cannabis dispensaries in Montana closed down.

The federal crackdown resulted in the closure of most of the medical marijuana dispensaries in Montana, and cut off the Hyde’s access to the therapeutic cannabis oil that was keeping Cash’s cancer at bay. Once Cash’s medication was cut off, his cancer came back out of remission.

Does prohibition kill children? Yes, definitely yes.

Does cannabis kill cancer? Yes, definitely yes.

Written by Alternative Free Press
Creative Commons License
Cannabis Kills Cancer by AlternativeFreePress.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.