Skip to content

“Goldman Sachs Rules the World” – Jesse Ventura Calls for NFL Boycott Over TSA Groping – Military Commissions: Erosion of Constitutional Liberties

September 28, 2011

Goldman Sachs Rules The World: Nightly News Report

Comment: Enough of the dramatization that Obama is against the bankers or Israel.  As I have been saying, Zionist bankers control the Obama Administration and previous administrations  (see article below).  Neoconservative propagandists get us worked up over the 1967 border issue (we should not even interfere) while the whole narrative is theater.  You might ask, but to what end?  It’s for misdirection and to lay a smokescreen.

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

In a news blitz, Alex discusses the blunt statements of trader Alessio Rastani, who told the BBC that a larger collapse is coming, adding that Goldman Sachs ‘rules the world’ and cares nothing about the interests of ordinary people.

Here’s the full clip of the trader’s interview:

Here is an older but important report showing Goldman ties to the Obama Administration:

Obama Administration: Goldman Sachs from Top to Bottom

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Kurt Nimmo
May 15, 2010

Two articles on the FDL website detail the intimate and incestuous relationship between the Barry Obama administration and Goldman Sachs. FDL names names and provides expansive detail on the Goldie administration.

Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO: the man who may as well be president.

“At a time when Congressional hearings are set to call testimony from some Goldman Sachs employees, it is vital to understand how widespread that institution’s ties are to the Obama administration. This diary shows the pervasive influence of Goldman Sachs and Goldman created institutions (like the Hamilton Project embedded in the Brookings Institution), employees and influence peddlers in the Obama administration,” FDL wrote on April 27.

It is not simply Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Rahm Emanuel, Gary Gensler and Mark Patterson who are Goldies, but a long list of others. “But that’s just the tip of the Goldman Sachs iceberg. Here you will find, I believe, the most comprehensive list of people-groups yet available to show how Obama’s administration has really become the Goldman Sachs administration.”

Elena Kagan is merely the latest addition, although her ties to Goldman are downplayed if not completely ignored by the corporate media.

FDL notes that the “Obama administration is not the first administration that Goldman has infiltrated, although it is perhaps the one that has been most completely co-opted from top to bottom. Recall that former Secretary of the Treasury Paulson in the George W. Bush era came from — Goldman Sachs where he was its chief. Recall too that the brilliant, late economist John K. Galbraith has written an entire chapter of a book devoted to the Great Depression and the economic collapse of Wall St. that accompanied it to the role of Goldman Sachs.”

Goldman had sponsored trusts such as Blue Ridge and Shenandoah, speculative Ponzi schemes that made the market collapse of October 1929 possible. Goldman and others “whip(ped) up a speculative fever in shares, reaping (highly leveraged) capital gains with other people’s money.” They were fraudulent pyramid schemes, a “Charles Ponzi-Bernie Madoff scam,” writes L. Randall Wray.

It was not mere greed and short sightedness that created the Great Depression. “To think that the scientifically engineered Crash of ’29 was an accident or the result of stupidity defies all logic. The international bankers who promoted the inflationary policies and pushed the propaganda which pumped up the stock market represented too many generations of accumulated expertise to have blundered into ‘the great depression,’” writes the late Gary Allen.

“The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as the rulers of us all,” lamented Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee at the time.

Goldman is now strategically placed in the White House as the Greatest Depression inexplicably unfolds all around us. McFadden was on the right track — the banksters are positioned to emerge as rulers of us all… and most of us, thanks to the corporate media, are completely unaware.

Here are the FDL articles: A List of Goldman Sachs People in the Obama Government: Names Attached to the Giant Squid’s Tentacles and An Updated List of Goldman Sachs Ties to the Obama Government Including Elena Kagan.


Jesse Ventura Calls For NFL Boycott Over TSA-Style Groping

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Former Governor also selects July 4th 2012 as national no fly day

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has called for a nationwide boycott of the NFL in response to its announcement that attendees to all football games will be groped TSA-style, while Ventura also launched a campaign for a national no fly day set to take place on July 4th 2012.

Ventura responded to the news about the NFL announcing they would carry out TSA-style pat downs by telling the Alex Jones Show that such measures are already commonplace at many sports venues.

“I’m a season ticket holder with the Minnesota Lynx, the women’s basketball team, and two times they’ve stopped me to wand me. The first one the guy stopped me because I had my wallet and my keys in my front pocket, and he stopped me and said ‘excuse me what’s in your front pocket’ – and I looked at the kid and I said ‘I’m the damn Governor’ – I said ‘don’t make me have to sue you like I’m suing TSA’. I said ‘what difference does it make I used to be the Governor here, use some common sense young man’, and I chewed his ass out,” said Ventura

“I advocate a boycott of the National Football League and leave their stadiums empty,” said Ventura, adding, “That’s what this country needs to do to rise up – we the people have to start speaking back….how about a day of the year where nobody flies, I would love to see that happen.”

Ventura then went on to select July 4th 2012 as the date for a national campaign when Americans would refuse to fly in protest against the TSA.

“We’re supposed to be a country of the people, by the people and for the people, not them, right now we’re subservient to the government – our forefathers did not have that in mind, that’s not what this country was supposed to be, the government was supposed to be subservient to us,” he stated.

“Why is it the government’s job to provide security for the airlines when the airlines are a private sector business?” asked Ventura. “Why not have the airlines provide their own security?”

Ventura also echoed similar concerns made public by Ron Paul, that the federal government was preparing to use the problem of illegal immigration to erect checkpoints on all major highways and force Americans to accept a national ID card.

Ventura is currently engaged in a legal battle in a bid to sue the TSA for groping him during an incident last November. Ventura’s stance has put his career under threat – he has considered abandoning travel by air altogether if TSA pat-down policies are not amended.

Ventura is constantly subjected to harassment by TSA workers when he travels as a result of his hip replacement which routinely sets off metal detectors.

A federal judge is currently deliberating on whether the case will go to trial, a long delay that Ventura and his lawyer suspect may mean that the trial will proceed.

“Any case like this has been ruled upon faster than this one, this is the longest any judge has held on to a case, I can state that unequivocally,” said Ventura, adding that it has been over two months since he last appeared in court over the issue.

Ventura has vowed to call a press conference if his case is thrown out and he is denied a jury trial.


Military Commissions: Rights of Accused Terrorists Under Bush, Obama

| Print |  
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem   –   New American
Wednesday, 28 September 2011 00:00
Obama and BushPresidents Bush and Obama have created a vigorous public debate since the September 11 attacks over whether suspects in the “war on terror” are entitled to a regular criminal trial, court-martial (the regular military justice system), or a “military commission” trial, or whether they are entitled to a trial at all. A “military commission” is traditionally an executive branch (or Article II) court, created to try war criminals in a time and place where there are no criminal or ordinary military courts to try suspects. But Congress has explicitly authorized them twice since the September 11 attacks.Bush’s and Obama’s actions since 2001 raise a number of fundamental constitutional questions: Can the President — as Bush tried to do — detain an American citizen indefinitely without trial? Can the President — as Obama claims — kill American citizens without trial? Are Bush’s and Obama’s efforts to detain foreigners indefinitely without trial constitutional? When, if ever, is a “military commission” constitutional? Can U.S. citizens be subject to a military commission? How about foreigners? Do the Bush/Obama military commissions follow the Constitution? And finally, putting aside constitutional principles, are military commissions more effective on a practical level in punishing suspected terrorists? The following are 11 constitutional principles about the trial rights of Americans and foreigners during the “war on terror.”
1. The U.S. Constitution, laws, and treaties signed by the United States guarantee everyone — even foreign terror suspects detained abroad — a trial.The Bush administration argued in the 2004 Supreme Court case Rasul v. Bush that foreigners detained abroad have no right to a hearing and can be detained indefinitely without any trial whatsoever. The claim goes against the traditional Anglo- American tradition of habeas corpus, which says that no one may be detained without a court hearing justifying the detention. The Bush administration argued that “U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over [habeas corpus] claims.” But the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration, 6-3, in the Rasul decision, granting Rasul habeas corpus relief and a trial.

And the Supreme Court was not exercising judicial activism; rather, it was following the clear dictates of the law. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution explicitly require a trial and full due process for any “person” the government arrests. The Fifth Amendment reads, “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The Sixth Amendment defines “due process” as follows: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” In short, while the Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not explicitly require a detainee to be read his rights (i.e., “Miranda rights,” which the Supreme Court invented in the 1960s as an add-on to the Fifth Amendment), all detainees are still “persons” within the meaning of the amendments and are entitled to all the due-process rights of American defendants.

The U.S. government is also a signatory of treaties that guarantee that foreign military fighters be given a trial. Article 43 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), of which the United States is a signatory, bans “the passing of sentences and the  carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” The U.S. government is bound to respect the Geneva Conventions under Article VI of the Constitution, which guarantees, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

The rights of foreigners abroad to trial in U.S. courts was most clearly established by the Supreme Court in the 1841 Amistad case. In the Amistad case, a number of Africans who had been kidnapped in Africa and traded to Spanish sailors revolted, taking over the ship La Amistad. They drifted near U.S. waters after the revolt. After some of the Africans had come ashore on Long Island to buy food, American sailors sailed out to the ship and seized it.

In the Amistad case, the Spanish government argued that foreigners captured in international waters (though in U.S. custody) have no rights in U.S. courts. The Spanish Minister to the United States, Chevalier d’Argaiz, argued: “They are morally and legally not in the United States…. They are under the cover of the Spanish flag; and, in that case, they are physically under the protection of a friendly government, but morally and legally out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States; and, so long as a doubt remains on this subject, no judge can admit the complaint.” The slaves-turned liberators of the Amistad were charged with piracy on the high seas and threatening a massive slave rebellion across the hemisphere, a contemporary equivalent to modern terrorism. The court ruled that the slaves had a right to a trial and that “there is no pretence to say the negroes of the Amistad are ‘pirates’ and ‘robbers;’ as they were kidnapped Africans, who, by the laws of Spain itself were entitled to their freedom,” and set the Africans free.

2. Trials are not given to defendants who “deserve” them; they are administered to everyone in order to sort the guilty from the innocent.

GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney told a South Carolina debate audience back on May 15, 2007 of terror detainees: “I’m glad they’re at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.”

More recently, in an August 11, 2011 presidential debate, Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) suggested that military tribunals would be better for terror suspects: “Terrorists who commit acts against United States citizens, people who come from foreign countries to do that, do not have any right under our Constitution to Miranda rights.”

Implicit in both statements is that foreign terrorists have not earned the right to a trial. But the question of whether alleged terrorists have not in some sense “earned” or “deserve” a trial is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of trials. Criminal suspects of any kind, foreign or citizen, are not given trials as a gift for something they merit. If they are guilty, they never earned them, and if they are innocent, they should never have been arrested. The purpose of trials is to sort the guilty from the innocent. Indeed, the guilty — like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who was tried, found guilty, and put to death — can hardly claim to benefit from a trial. Without a trial, however, the whim of the executive branch becomes law and the innocent get punished along with the guilty.

3. The President’s war powers during wartime do not allow him to abolish trials.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments limit even the prosecution of war decision-making by the President, as these categorical guarantees contain no exceptions for wartime: As “amendments” to the President’s powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, they must amend (which means change, and in this case “limit”) the President’s war powers or the entire purpose of amending the Constitution is pointless.

Even alleged “enemy combatants” who have not been charged with a crime are entitled to due process under the amendments. As the American Bar Association wrote in a memorandum about Bush-era detentions: “While the Sixth Amendment does not technically attach to uncharged ‘enemy combatants,’ there is no dispute that individuals who have been criminally charged do have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and it is both paradoxical and unsatisfactory that uncharged U.S. citizen detainees have fewer rights and protections than those who have been charged with serious criminal offenses.”
4. Everyone detained under the law of war is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

The President is bound to follow the law of war, which includes following the Geneva Convention treaties that the U.S. government has signed and ratified. Prisoners of war are “protected persons” under the Geneva Convention and are entitled to special protections and a presumption of innocence. They are not to be forcefully interrogated (beyond name, rank, and serial number). They have a right to retain their personal property, a right to exercise, socialize, and receive

Red Cross/Red Crescent packages, and many other privileges. This is because prisoners of war are deemed not to have committed any moral offenses; i.e., they are not criminals. POWs are simply presumed to be people who are patriotic citizens of the country they were born in (or emigrated to). In short, they are presumed to be innocent of wrongdoing.

The Bush/Obama position is to give terror detainees neither rights as military personnel nor rights as ordinary criminals. The Bush (now Obama) circular argument to detain terror suspects indefinitely can be summed up this way: Terror suspects are under military law, even though they are not military and we will not give them the legal protections of soldiers. We will treat them like criminals, but they are more than just criminals, so they won’t get the protections of criminals either. In short, they won’t have any rights because legally, they’re non-persons.

The U.S. Supreme Court called such a view inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution in the 1866 case Ex Parte Milligan. Milligan was an Indiana resident accused of trying to steal arms and liberate Confederate prisoner-of-war camps during the Civil War (and condemned to death by a military commission). The Milligan court observed that the President cannot take away a man’s rights and deny him both the rights as a soldier and as a criminal. The court concluded: “If he cannot enjoy
the immunities attaching to the character of a [lawful combatant] prisoner of war, how can he be subject to their pains and penalties?”

5. The President’s war powers during a time of conflict do not allow him to create “military commissions” to try terror suspects when real courts are available.

Military tribunals have traditionally been “Article II” courts, set up by the executive branch in cases where there is no functioning civilian or military court system. But nothing in the U.S. Constitution presumes that the President by himself can create a court within the executive branch — effectively making the President judge, jury, and executioner — if Article III (judicial branch) courts  are available. To the contrary, under the Constitution only Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to create a court: “The Congress shall have Power To … constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.”

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution also specifies, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” The U.S. Supreme Court also denied in Ex Parte Milligan that a President had the constitutional authority to create a military commission and usurp Congress’ power to create courts at a time when ordinary courts were holding trials: “By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers, or the clamor of an excited people. If there was law to justify this military trial, it is not our province to interfere; if there was not, it is our duty to declare the nullity of the whole proceedings.” Thus, Milligan was set free by the court.

6. Congress’ power to set up military commissions is limited by the Bill of Rights.

Congress has the power to set up courts under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, and there’s nothing in theory that says they can’t set up a military court to try foreign terrorists who have taken up arms in a military capacity against the United States and call it a “military commission.” In recent years, Congress has passed two such laws, the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009. But this power of Congress is limited by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which prohibit these trials from including forced confessions (“be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself) and which guarantee “due process of law” (Fifth Amendment). Again, the Sixth Amendment guarantees that due process consists of a jury trial, a defense attorney with subpoena power, and other procedural protections.

7. Military commissions established under Bush and Obama are neither fair nor constitutional.

President Bush initially set up military commissions solely under executive branch authority. This attempt was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2006 decision of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Congress responded to this decision by passing the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006, but the Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional. The second-generation Bush military commissions constructed under the MCA were struck down in the 2008 Boumediene v. Bush decision because the law did not conform with the requirements of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

After he was elected, President Obama, who opposed military commissions as a candidate, came out for new commissions  that were designed to lower the evidentiary bar for obtaining convictions — lower than would be the case in a normal trial. “It’s very hard to piece together a chain of evidence that would meet some of the evidentiary standards that would be required in an Article III court,” Obama stated at a September 10, 2010 press conference announcing the reasoning behind his military commissions.

Though the MCA of 2009 provided more protections for detainees than did the 2006 MCA, not surprisingly, the Obama era military commissions still have substantial constitutional shortcomings, such as admission of secret evidence, admission of hearsay evidence, and the fact that the courts were set up after the supposed offenses had taken place specifically to win convictions of specific prisoners. “What is particularly disappointing is the fact that the government is now openly stating the reason that it is reviving this commissions process is because it is going to be hard to obtain convictions in traditional courts,” Lt. Commander Brian Mizer, a defense attorney at Guantanamo Bay, told the Associated Press after Obama’s decision to revive military commissions. “This would be the first time in our republic that we have created a court system in order to obtain convictions, and that’s more than disappointing.” The Obama military commissions have yet to be appealed.

8. Military commissions have been less successful in convicting and punishing terror suspects.

Recent decisions of military commissions have been regularly overturned by appellate bodies, and the handful of convictions that have not been overturned were not overturned simply because they were not appealed. Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver, was sentenced only to time served and was set free. So he didn’t appeal the verdict. The two remaining military commission guilty verdicts were also not overturned solely because the defendants haven’t challenged their verdicts. Ali Hamza al Bahlul refused to mount a defense during his military commission, and has not appealed his verdict. And Australian David Hicks accepted a plea bargain that allowed him to get out of prison and move back to Australia.

On the other hand, hundreds of terrorists have been convicted in regular criminal courts and are serving long sentences or have received the death penalty. “Let me put this in perspective,” Vice President Joseph Biden told CBS’ Face the Nation February 14, 2010. “There have been three people tried and convicted by the last administration in military courts. Two are walking the street right now. There have been over 300 tried in federal courts by the last administration and by us. They’re all in jail now. None of them are out seeing the light of day.”

9. President Bush detained Americans as well as foreigners without trial.

Many Americans take solace in the belief that detentions without trial were conducted only against foreigners, and not against American citizens, during the Bush administration. But that solace is unfounded. Presidents don’t make such distinctions. U.S. Navy veteran Donald Vance and fellow American Nathan Ertel were detained without trial and subjected to “enhanced interrogation” torture by Bush administration officials for months in 2006.

The torture they endured included denial of food for days at a time, beatings called “walling,” and (alternately) sensory deprivation and sensory overload. The innocent Vance and Ertel were detained because they had become whistleblowers — FBI informants — against the private contractor for which they worked. (People in the company were selling government guns in exchange for liquor.) At least one other American citizen was also detained without trial and tortured, and is now suing the U.S. government anonymously.

Moreover, the Bush administration tried its best to detain two other American citizens without trial indefinitely, taking their cases all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Native-born U.S. citizen Jose Padilla was held without trial for three and a half years. He was only given a military commission trial because the Bush administration was about to lose Padilla v. Rumsfeld in the U.S. Supreme Court, a case in which lawyers for Padilla challenged his detention without trial. Likewise, naturalized U.S. citizen Yaser al-Hamdi was detained without trial until the Bush administration faced losing in the Supreme Court. The Bush administration subsequently cut a plea deal with Hamdi.

10. President Obama doesn’t respect the trial rights of foreigners.

Candidate Obama campaigned on behalf of due process for foreign terror detainees, arguing: The right of habeas corpus allows prisoners to ask a court to determine whether they are being lawfully imprisoned. Recently, this right has been denied to those deemed enemy combatants. Barack Obama strongly supports bipartisan efforts to restore habeas rights. But President Obama issued an executive order March 7, 2011 that allowed for “the executive branch’s continued, discretionary exercise of existing detention authority in individual cases” on an indefinite basis without a trial. Those facing detention without trial include some 50 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison that candidate Obama pledged to close, as well as several thousand detainees at bases in Afghanistan (such as at Bagram Air Base near Kabul) and Iraq.

11. President Obama doesn’t respect the trial rights of American citizens and thinks Americans may be killed without trial.

President Obama rode into office criticizing the Bush administration’s practices for handling suspected terrorists, but in many ways has actually become even more autocratic than Bush. President Bush claimed for himself the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial, even Americans. But according to the Washington Post, President Obama now believes he can kill without trial U.S. citizens he suspects are aiding terrorism. Obama’s “assassination list” supposedly contains dozens of U.S. citizens living abroad. Obama administration officials have publicly defended the assassination list.

“To me, terrorists should not be able to hide behind their passports and their citizenship, and that includes U.S. citizens, whether they are overseas or whether they are here in the United States,” Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John O. Brennan told the Washington Times in June 2010. Brennan said at that time that “dozens” of American citizens were on Obama’s assassination list. New Mexico native Anwar al-Awlaki is reportedly on the assassination list, but the list itself remains classified. Anwar al-Awlaki is thought to be hiding out from the United States in Yemen, and his chief alleged crime is the making of propaganda videos for al-Qaeda.

Photo: AP Images

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: