Como já vem sendo habitual, quer o Reino Unido, quer os EUA, estão numa corrida a ver quem consegue criar leis mais idiotas e castradoras dos direitos humanos, sim porque a liberdade é um direito alienável do ser humano.
Hoje surge a notícia que o Reino Unido aprova lei que aumenta de 28 dias para 42 sem que a pessoa detida seja acusada de crime, supostamente será aplicada só em casos de “suspeita” de terrorismo.
Mr Davis said he would fight the by-election campaigning against the
government’s plans to extend pre-charge detentions for terror suspects
to a maximum of 42 days.
He has led the opposition to Labour’s plans to extend the maximum limit
terror suspects can be held beyond the current 28-day maximum.
É só mais uma lei que se vem somar a muitas outras, especialmente o Terrorism Act.
O problema está mesmo na palavra, SUSPEITA, é que aqui dá para colocar qualquer situação, afinal de contas foi no Reino Unido que um cidadão brasileiro foi morto com mais de um tiro, quando estava a correr no metro e apenas por SUSPEITA de ser terrorista porque levava uma mochila às costas e um casaco mais grosso.
Mesmo tendo sido provado que o cidadão brasileiro não era terrorista, nada aconteceu aos policias que o assassinaram.
O mais grave é que testemunhas no local indicam que o cidadão terá sido executado, uma vez que já o tinham detido quando o balearam na cabeça.
But the Guardian says no individual police officers involved will face
prosecution and the CPS has ruled out murder or manslaughter charges
after a review of the circumstances surrounding the shooting on 22
Nos EUA, leis como o Patriot Act ou o fim do Habeas Corpus, estão a tornar o país num autêntico estado policial, havendo já a conversão de enormes espaços em campos de detenção, onde antes havia arame farpado que apontava para o exterior, agora existe arame farpado virado para o interior, ou seja para não deixar sair.
Enforcement on Steroids: Homeland Security’s Emerging Immigration Police State
Forced drugging. Abuse. Death. That’s what workplace-based mmigration enforcement without deeper reform looks like.Last week, hundreds of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, flanked by helicopters, a trail of SUVs and a convoy of buses, descended on the tiny town of Postville, Iowa. They set up a perimeter around the 60-acre kosher meat-processing plant operated by the global giant Agriprocessors, Inc. and conducted the largest workplace raid in
U.S. history. Around 400 people were arrested — most from Mexico,
Eastern Europe and Guatemala — representing 40 percent of the plant’s
workers and 17 percent of the town’s population. Warrants for another
300 were issued.
Pre-emptive War; Pre-emptive Arrests Bush’s Police State and Independence DayBy ELAINE CASSELAs a criminal defense attorney, I am often in the unenviable position of telling a first-time offender that the rights they thought they had under the Constitution don’t mean what they think they do. Recently, a well-educated, professional woman engaged me to defend her in charges of obstruction of justice. Her crime? She had tried to talk to a police officer (big mistake, there) about the circumstances that led to her friend, about to be arrested, walking on highway (absolutely nothing wrong with that, but that is beside the point).
She was arrested for obstruction of justice, but not until backup officers and dogs had been called. Her companion, who had exited her car over an argument they were having, was “arrested” for jaywalking. He was not “jaywalking,” and, if he were, he would have been issued a “summons,” not arrested and cuffed and taken to jail.
Se é verdade que estas leis poderão não nos afectar directamente, a realidade é que quer a Alemanha, quer a Suécia e Rússia também andam a implementar leis completamente idiotas, tudo por causa da mentira criada a partir do 11 Setembro 2001, a famosa “guerra ao terror”, não tardará muito que a própria UE comece a legislar de forma absurda e atentatória dos direitos dos seus cidadãos.
Ainda por cima a tal autêntica mentira da “guerra ao terror”, foi criada a partir de um acontecimento que ainda hoje está muito mal explicado e onde quer Tony Blair quer a Administração Bush mentiu com quantos dentes tem, quer nos atentados quer depois nas razões pelas quais invadiram ilegalmente quer o Afeganistão quer o Iraque.
New light on the putative value of intelligence dossiers issued by Tony Blair’s office in Number 10 Downing Street was not long in coming. In September 2002, Blair published amid great fanfare his dossier purporting to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq currently possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was entitled “Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception, and Intimidation,” and it was clearly crafted to provide a pretext for waging unprovoked and aggressive war against Iraq. This dossier was exposed as a fraud in two distinct waves of demystification. The first exposure took
place in February 2003, when it emerged that entire sections of this report, which had been billed as the most up-to-date evaluation that could be offered by the very formidable capabilities of MI-6 and the rest of the British intelligence machine, had simply been lifted, plagiarized without attribution, from older documents in the public domain. The Iraq dossier had been concocted by Blair and his media guru Alistair Campbell, a figure
who combined the worst of image-mongers like Michael Deaver and Karl Rove, using materials provided by British intelligence. Parts of Blair’s dossier had been stolen from articles written by Sean Boyne of Jane’s Intelligence Review, who was horrified by the
nefarious use to which his work had been put. “I don’t like to think that anything I wrote has been used as an argument for war. I am concerned because I am against the war,” complained Boyne. Another source from which Blair had lifted material verbatim was a thesis entitled “Iraq’s Security and Intelligence Network,” published in September 2002 by a graduate student, Ibrahim al-Marashi, a California resident. Al-Marashi was equally
indignant, commenting that “this is wholesale deception. How can the British public trust the government if it is up to this sort of tricks? People will treat any other information they publish now with a lot of skepticism from now on.” And not just from now on; it is our contention here that this disbelief in regard to Tony Blair’s work product should also be applied retrospectively. in 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Fourth Edition by Webster Griffin Tarpley
Relativamente aos atentados, ainda hoje o FBI não reconhce que tenha sido Bin Laden e a Al-Qaeda a ter levado a cabo os atentados.
USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE.
IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
Bem como no relatório apresentado por Tony Blair e o MI6, o que é afirmado relativamente aos ataques logo no início do relatório, faz-nos pensar, ainda para mais quando o relatório seguinte como mostro acima, é uma teia de mentiras.
With the US regime struggling, into the breach rushed Tony Blair, a glib and slippery apologist for war. On October 2, Blair’s office in Number 10 Downing Street released the first of his celebrated dossiers. It was entitled “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States.” Unfortunately, Blair’s dossier was obliged to begin on an uncertain note: “This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.” Why not, given what is at stake? Answer: “Intelligence often
cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document.” Of course, this means that since the proof may be insufficient, we are expected to believe
Blair & Co. on the basis of their general integrity and credibility. This is a controversial point, to which we will soon return.
Some indication of the problems being encountered by the US bureaucracy in trying to pin 9/11 on Bin Laden were reflected in a Wall Street Journal article entitled “Faint Trail: It’s Surprisingly Tough To Pin Terror Attacks on the ‘Prime Suspect.’” Here the paucity
of evidence was the dominant note. Such evidence as did exist was largely circumstantial, the Journal noted, such as ties of suspected hijacker Mohammed Atta to Egyptian Islamic
Jihad, which allegedly was part of bin Laden’s Al Qaeda; the presence of one hijacker in Malaysia in January 2000, meeting with someone linked to the bombing of the USS Cole,
which was in turn allegedly linked to bin Laden; communications intercepts showing Al-Qaeda operatives had some advanced knowledge of the strikes; or that two of the suspected hijackers were perhaps linked to a suspected bin Laden operative in Boston.
The Journal conceded that the issue of proof was a key component of the U.S.’s ability to enlist support of Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and
perhaps Syria. “The issue of proof is no small matter,” one Administration official was cited as observing. But the US case was plainly a lame one, with an unidentified intelligence official concluding weakly that “no information has come up that suggests that bin Laden wasn’t involved.” in 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Fourth Edition by Webster Griffin Tarpley
Com tanta mentida vinculada por pessoas que se encontram nos mais altos cargos das nações, como pode alguém esperar ou acreditar na bondade de semelhantes medidas?
Como pode alguém acreditar que estas medidas serão para nos proteger e não para nos destruir, nos retirar as liberdades e garantias que todo o ser humano tem pelo simples facto de ter nascido.
P.S. Também penso duas vezes agora quando uso o GOOGLE, é que o senhor “USA Schmidt, Eric Chairman of the Executive Committee and CEO, Google”, também esteve na reunião do grupinho fascista, Bilderberg.