Right Side News
Satirist of Drones Arrested by NYPD
Written by The Daily Bell
Dominant Social Theme: This kind of agitation needs to cease.Free-Market Analysis: There are two problems with the arrest of Essam Attia. The first is that the police apparently went out of their way to arrest him. Thus the NYPD is applying the law unequally.
The second problem is that what Attia is doing is satire and is thus a legally protected activity.
Why is the NYPD in the business of intimidating artists who want to express legitimate concerns? Well, from the standpoint of dominant social themes, we can make an educated guess.
The larger dominant social theme is that authorities know best. The subdominant theme is that people ought not to mock authority.
3,000 Foreign Jihadis to Terrorize Egyptian Opposition?
The title of a recent Al Akhbar report declares: “Morsi summons 3,000 jihadis from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, Somalia and Iran to be an …
Immigration Reform News and Impact on US Homeland Security December 10, 2012
Right Side News reports from the Federation for American Immigration Reform on:
- Closed-Door Amnesty Negotiations Begin on Capitol Hill
- California AG: Honoring ICE Detainers Optional
- STEM Bill Stalls in Senate
- Open Borders Republicans Call for Amnesty, Increased Immigration
- Illinois Senate Approves Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens
- Maternity Mansions Highlight Issue of Birthright Citizenship
- President Obama's Illegal Alien Uncle Granted New Deportation Hearing
- Inspector General: Illegal Aliens Working in Capitol
North Korean Missile Launch Challenges U.S. Foreign Policy*
Pyongyang may seek to preempt South Korea’s announced intention to launch its own satellite. ....North Korean belligerence Wowsers. Who did they invade.
* Confidence that ìt is all about you. And Americans wonder foreigners consider them arrogant.
Pyongyang’s previous missile launch attempt in April 2012 was “strongly condemned” by the U.N. Security Council (UNSC), which made clear that in its judgment “any launch that uses ballistic missile technology, even if characterized as a satellite launch or space launch vehicle, is a serious violation of Security Council resolutions 1718 (2006) and 1874 (2009).”[3]
That`s the UN Security Council that is comprised of WMD armed nations.
1945 - 2003 Nuclear Tests Graphic
VIDEO: U.S. Strategic Nuclear Policy: A Video History, 1945-2004
Sandia Labs Historical Video Documents History of U.S. Strategic Nuclear Policy
Militarization and WMD, US NATO War Agenda
October 11, 2011 Twenty five years ago, when President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev met at Reykjavik, Iceland on 11-12-October 1986, their far-reaching discussions involved proposals to abolish nuclear weapons by first moving toward a zero ballistic missiles option. Weighed down by mistrust and competing objectives, the discussions on ending the nuclear arms race collapsed. That Ronald Reagan supported nuclear abolition at Reykjavik is a lacuna in an otherwise informative and highly professional video documentary on the history of U.S. nuclear policy produced by Sandia National Laboratories obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and published today for the first time by the National Security Archive.
One of the most distinctive productions of the Department of Energy, “U.S. Strategic Nuclear Policy,” is a four-part nearly four-hour long oral history/video documentary. Completed in 2005 by Sandia under the direction of staffer Dan Curry (scriptwriter and interviewer), this is an engrossing piece of work that that will be a significant resource for historians, social scientists, students, and the interested public. Starting with World War II and the atomic bombing of Japan, this policy-oriented documentary takes the story of U.S. nuclear policy, with a focus on the history of nuclear deterrence through the course of the Cold War, and then from the early post-Cold War period to the aftermath of 9/11.The coverage of nuclear war planning and targeting, from war plans during the early Cold War to the creation of the first SIOP are particularly arresting. Besides using film footage of nuclear tests, summit meetings, and the like, the producers use, to good effect, images of government documents produced during all the phases of U.S. nuclear history, from the Cold War into the 1990s. Viewers even see the cover pages of documents that remain classified, such as the SIOP of the 1980s, although sometimes blurring the text to preserve secrecy. Sandia director Thomas Hunter explains at the beginning of the film that one of the purposes of the documentary was to promote discussion of two questions: 1) what will be the role of nuclear weapons, and 2) what will be future requirements for nuclear weapons? The language on the film box, referring to the “timeless” relevance of nuclear deterrence, suggests that the producers of the film assumed that the answers would take for granted the necessity of nuclear weapons. This affirmative approach plainly fits Sandia’s objective of assuring the reliability, safety and security of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
The influential role of the RAND Corporation is spelled out clearly, from the debates over massive retaliation to Robert McNamara’s early tenure as Secretary of Defense. The late William Kaufmann, RAND consultant and MIT professor, explains why he thought Eisenhower-Dulles nuclear strategy was not only “horrendous” but incredible. The discussion of the RAND base vulnerability study demonstrates the close connection to Air Force interest in preemptive strategies. As Eden and James Schlesinger observe, the problem of survivability would raise pressure, during a crisis, to preempt and “get in the first blow.”
Global Research
- Syria: “Chemical Propaganda” and Fabricated Evidence
- Bahrain is a Closed Society and the West is on the Same Path
- Academic Dissent in America. The Political and Social Crisis in the U.S.
- Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood: Syria, Egypt, and Beyond
- Syria: Tightening the Noose
- Won’t Get Fooled Again? Hyping Syria’s WMD ‘Threat’
- Sanctions against the Russians: Obdurate Washington and the “Magnitsky Rule”
- A Brief History of Modern Superpowers
- Britain’s Parliament Investigates the Use of Armed Unmanned Drones
- More Than Thirty Top U.S. Officials Guilty of War Crimes
- “Japan Asian Basket Case”: 5th Recession in 15 Years
- Towards a “Bursting Financial Bubble”? “Federal Reserve largely Responsible for Destroying the Economy”
- Fabricating WMD “Evidence”: Israeli Covert Operation inside Syria to “Track Chemical Arsenal”
- The Normalization of Treason
- US Defense Contractors Training Syrian Rebels to Handle Chemical Weapons
A look at day two of Milwaukee’s series on the paper industry
world’s paper producers and how they’re all affected by the growing Chinese paper industry.The Chinese tree matures in just six years, as opposed to 60 years for the hardwood.
In addition, the Chinese industry is using updated technology to turn all that pulp into paper.
Find the Journal-Sentinel‘s “Paper Cuts” series home page here.
Behind the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s series on train safety
Ports to PlainsWestern states look to capitalize on energy boom
National Journal Transportation Experts Blog
There are a number of measures—such as a water resources development bill, a rail reauthorization bill, and reauthorization bills for a number of smaller programs—that are due for action in 2013.
Community Leaders throughout PTP Region Back KXL
Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 12:47PM
For Immediate Release(Lubbock, TX) – The Keystone XL Pipeline is important to our regional economy and national energy security more than 125 local elected officials and other local leaders from ten states in the Ports-to-Plains Alliance region said in a letter delivered to Nebraska officials who are holding a public hearing today in Albion, Nebraska.
DTU Space
Does corruption limit China’s growth, or pose a threat to its existence?
Glass houses, stones, etc.
Don't think you could be indefinitely detained by Barack Obama?
Think again.
Naomi Wolf reports: "The transcript from the hearing has some jaw-dropping exchanges between Judge Forrest and the US government attorney representing Obama. Repeatedly Judge Forrest asked Obama's lawyers to define "associated forces" and "material support" or "substantial support" and repeatedly they declined to do so
Think again.
Naomi Wolf reports: "The transcript from the hearing has some jaw-dropping exchanges between Judge Forrest and the US government attorney representing Obama. Repeatedly Judge Forrest asked Obama's lawyers to define "associated forces" and "material support" or "substantial support" and repeatedly they declined to do so
or were unwilling to do so, as you see below.
In my notes, Judge Forrest gave them six or seven chances to define the NDAA in a way that would not endanger peaceful US critics, activists, commentators or journalists, and they could not or would not take those opportunities she gave them to do so.
Specifically, the government's lawyers could not or would not rule out detaining reporter Chris Hedges under section 1021 or 1022 of the NDAA, and they did not rule out the example of a nonviolent book that simply showed support for the Taliban's worldview that the US was excessively imperialistic, falling under its aegis.
Most distressingly, the fact that the United States' lawyers confirmed on the record that NDAA could be used for those purposes, makes the many letters I have seen, sent from Congresspeople and Senators to their constituents -- in which these leaders directly asserted to their constituents the contrary of what the Government's lawyers confirmed last Thursday -- all the more distressing: either Congress' disinformation, sent from their offices to US citizens at a critical moment, emerged out of our leaders' serious ignorance about what this law does, or else the disinformation was disingenuous:
Judge Forrest was pushing to determine the boundaries of the NDAA law
Obama’s lawyer said that it would take a case of someone being detained under the NDAA, to find the parameters of the law.
Judge Forrest: “Is it really adequate to say you have to go to a DC court, in detention, to figure this out? Are you going to have to wait for courts other than this one to decide who ‘associated forces’ are? Is this the only way we can figure this out?”
She asked the government lawyer for an example of a boundary around “associated forces.”
Judge Forrest: “I don’t want precision. I want a boundary.”
Obama lawyer: “I don’t have specifics.”
Judge Forrest: “Associated forces”? What are they?”
Pause.
Judge Forrest: “If you can’t stand here and say, “1021 won’t touch Ms O’Brien …unless, if you did, we would be done — if you can’t do that, you leave us in a tough spot here.”"
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ commentisfree/cifamerica/ 2012/apr/02/ qanda-naomi-wolf-ndaa-free- speech
Read More of Naomi Wolf's #NDAA Hearing Notes: http://naomiwolf.org/2012/ 03/ndaa-hearing-notes/
Read Alexa O'Brien's Letter about the NDAA and her lawsuit: http:// www.alexaobrien.com/ secondsight/ndaa_hedges_et/ ndaa_letter_to_my_friends_a nd_family.html
Sign & Share the STOP NDAA Petition: www.STOPNDAA.Org
Learn More & Share Like You Care
www.PeopleOverPolitics.Org
1 Billion AGAINST Indefinite Detention without trial law: https://www.facebook.com/ Billion.against.Indefinite. detention
In my notes, Judge Forrest gave them six or seven chances to define the NDAA in a way that would not endanger peaceful US critics, activists, commentators or journalists, and they could not or would not take those opportunities she gave them to do so.
Specifically, the government's lawyers could not or would not rule out detaining reporter Chris Hedges under section 1021 or 1022 of the NDAA, and they did not rule out the example of a nonviolent book that simply showed support for the Taliban's worldview that the US was excessively imperialistic, falling under its aegis.
Most distressingly, the fact that the United States' lawyers confirmed on the record that NDAA could be used for those purposes, makes the many letters I have seen, sent from Congresspeople and Senators to their constituents -- in which these leaders directly asserted to their constituents the contrary of what the Government's lawyers confirmed last Thursday -- all the more distressing: either Congress' disinformation, sent from their offices to US citizens at a critical moment, emerged out of our leaders' serious ignorance about what this law does, or else the disinformation was disingenuous:
Judge Forrest was pushing to determine the boundaries of the NDAA law
Obama’s lawyer said that it would take a case of someone being detained under the NDAA, to find the parameters of the law.
Judge Forrest: “Is it really adequate to say you have to go to a DC court, in detention, to figure this out? Are you going to have to wait for courts other than this one to decide who ‘associated forces’ are? Is this the only way we can figure this out?”
She asked the government lawyer for an example of a boundary around “associated forces.”
Judge Forrest: “I don’t want precision. I want a boundary.”
Obama lawyer: “I don’t have specifics.”
Judge Forrest: “Associated forces”? What are they?”
Pause.
Judge Forrest: “If you can’t stand here and say, “1021 won’t touch Ms O’Brien …unless, if you did, we would be done — if you can’t do that, you leave us in a tough spot here.”"
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Read More of Naomi Wolf's #NDAA Hearing Notes: http://naomiwolf.org/2012/
Read Alexa O'Brien's Letter about the NDAA and her lawsuit: http://
Sign & Share the STOP NDAA Petition: www.STOPNDAA.Org
Learn More & Share Like You Care
www.PeopleOverPolitics.Org
1 Billion AGAINST Indefinite Detention without trial law: https://www.facebook.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment