Trump, May, Macron Must Apologize To Syrians.

by Jerry Alatalo

n April 7, 2018 a video of an alleged chemical attack in Douma, a suburb of Syria’s capitol city Damascus, went viral on both corporate and independent media worldwide. Despite attempts by officials from Syria, Russia and other nations to point out the video presented a false scenario, and that no chemical attack whatsoever occurred, U.S. President Donald Trump, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May and France’s President Emmanuel Macron agreed on the launch of an illegal over 100-missile attack on Syria.

Fast forward to February 2019 … After the bombshell announcement by a producer at BBC, Riam Dalati, that the Douma hospital video depicted a White Helmets-enabled staged event, the question now becomes one of whether Trump, May and Macron will acknowledge this and issue an apology. It seems impossible to imagine that U.S. President Donald Trump was unaware of the staged event allegation before authorizing the air strikes. The same is to be said of Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron, respectively.

Keeping those sentiments in mind, people might pay close attention to the personal manner, wording and style of delivery of the President of the United States in Donald Trump’s world-publicized press announcement of the Syria bombing strikes.

Trump’s statement on Syria air strikes (April 2018):

(Thank you to ABC News (Australia) at YouTube)

*

Maria Zakharova identifies White Helmets (February 13, 2019)

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova noted the BBC chemical attack development in her February 14, 2019 news briefing, reiterating that Russian and Syrian officials had hoped – to no avail/unsuccessfully – to avoid the unnecessary, reckless U.S., U.K., France launch of bombs, by sharing the truth of the issue very shortly after the incident.

Ms. Zakharova noted: “The culmination of this theater of absurd may be a statement by a BBC producer, who confirmed based on his own research that the footage (Douma) had been staged with direct participation of (the) White Helmets.”

BBC Syria Producer Riam Dalati says Douma chemical incident was a staged event:

(Thank you to RT at YouTube)

*

Some believe the illegal April 2018 bombing of Syria by Trump, May and Macron, not authorized by either the U.S. Congress or the United Nations Security Council, had been pre-planned – actually meant to provoke a counter attack from Syria and escalation of offensive military actions to major war.

Fortunately there was no military response from Syria, and a more dangerous and destructive increase in warring, potentially breaking out of the regional to world war dimensions, became averted.

Future history books may record, teach and describe the 2-hour December 20, 2018 meeting at the United Nations as a pivotal, important, world-changing event

On December 19, 2018, Donald Trump went on Twitter and announced that the U.S. military under his orders as Commander-in-Chief were leaving Syria immediately. For whatever reasons, after close to (2) months since Trump’s surprise announcement, the idea of American soldiers leaving Syria has become abandoned, and reportedly – instead of complete withdrawal of forces – another 1,000 U.S. soldiers have moved/located into Syria.

Some believe Trump’s December 19 “announcement” was a form of psychological warfare operation to attract total world media attention toward his action – and away from the December 20, 2018 United Nations meeting which presented a shocking range of crimes committed by the so-called humanitarian group, the White Helmets.

Some might find it more than coincidental that the White Helmets were behind the staging and filming of the false April 2018 Douma chemical attack, and that Trump’s Syria announcement came within 24 hours of a United Nations meeting devastating to the Oscar-winning reputation of the White Helmets.

With the always highly anticipated Academy Awards just around the corner, – and given an Oscar became awarded to a documentary which positioned the White Helmets as heroes – it might be very interesting to see how these developments become received and/or responded to by top Hollywood officials running the yearly event … bigger than the Superbowl in viewership, seen by billions of people around the Earth.

In another equally troubling and directly related event, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted – then deleted within hours – a message on Twitter which included an admission or very strong implication that war against Iran has been planned.

Netanyahu deletes Twitter post on “war with Iran”:

It seems an eminent, perfectly reasonable expectation by the people of America, Britain and France of an imminent and sincere apology with regard to the April 2018 bombing of Syria coming from their highest elected officials: Trump, May and Macron. Their statements of apology, or, conversely, failure to adequately address the tremendously important matter, will assuredly go a long way towards defining the moral character of the leaders, – especially and precisely as perceived by their nations’ citizens now aware of these developments. As for Benjamin Netanyahu … The people of Israel are waiting for an honest explanation, as well.

Peace.

***

Advertisements

#Free Marzieh Hashemi.

(Cross-posted from American Herald Tribune)

*

Detention Of Marzieh Hashemi Pursuant To Material Witness Order Borders On Political Kidnapping

ny discussion of the detention of journalist Marzieh Hashemi must begin in the historical context that all presidents have used the Department of Justice for constitutionally prohibited personal ends. The calculated seizure and political intimidation of Mrs. Hashemi and her family in the United States is but the most recent flagrant instance.

Whether it’s the deportation of political enemies during the Palmer Raids of the early 1900’s, or the COINTELPRO attacks a half a century later upon dissidents of color through assassination, mock show trials and indefinite detention of political prisoners, or the post 9-11 hysteria that drove hundreds of thousands of Muslims from the United States, or the targeted attack on whistle blowers and construct of the surveillance state by the last president, all have seen their executive power as essentially boundless, and their thirst to use it . . .  largely unrestrained.

Yet none before has been so public, indeed brazen, as is the current one in his utter contempt for the settled rule of law and procedure. Indeed in Trump’s view the Department of Justice exists as but a mere extension of his own political thirst and agenda and may be employed as a tool to implement personal and political reprisal. In this light, the lawless seizure of Marzieh Hashemi was as predictable as it is ominous in both process and substance.

The history of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) has largely lain dormant with few prosecutions, if any, for violations and none before that have triggered the seizure of an American journalist pursuant to the subterfuge of a material witness order, here employed as little more than political handcuffs.

As of now there has been no official comment by the Department of Justice as to the nature of the grand jury dodge that served for the illegal and unnecessary seizure of Mrs. Hashemi when she recently de-boarded a flight in St. Louis, Missouri.

nitial grounds for the unprecedented seizure of the highly respected anchor for Press TV swung wildly, ranging from leverage to obtain the release of other Americans “held” in Iran to a US investigation into possible violations of the recently re-imposed political sanctions against Iran to OFAC violations (Office of Financial Assets Control) arising from her unlicensed work for a designated foreign state.

If, as it turns out, the seizure of Mrs. Hashemi finds its genesis in an unprecedented criminal investigation of a news outlet pursuant to FARA, to understand just how calculated and arbitrary a step it is, one need only look at its very different application against the Russian state-owned media outlets Sputnik and RT.

Cast in the light of the hysteria over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, Congress and various government agencies turned their attention to both outlets. Claiming the need to provide listeners with notice as to their partisan bent, in point of fact FARA was used against Sputnik and RT as so much a legislative bully-pulpit in a readily transparent effort to “purify” if not control the message of these two foreign-owned outlets.

Yet, if FARA triggered the stunning seizure of Marzieh Hashemi, that precipitous step bears no likeliness whatsoever to the procedural and substantive approach employed by the US government with regard to like violations by Sputnik and RT.

In neither case were journalists of the networks seized by the government for possible violation of FARA. In neither case were the networks targeted for grand jury investigation.  In fact, unlike here, both media outlets were given ample opportunity to raise objections to the applicability of FARA to their activity and when their arguments proved unavailing a chance to either register with it or to cease operations within the United States. Failing this, the government threatened but did not, at any time, undertake criminal prosecutions or arrests of employees, let alone journalists, who worked for the outlets.

hat is not what has apparently happened here with Press TV. In this regard, there is no evidence that Press TV was put on notice that it’s “presence” within the United States or acquiring and using information it received in and about controversial US issues for airing in Iran, and elsewhere, triggered FARA oversight let alone a criminal violation of its reach. Nor, does it appear, Press TV was given an opportunity to challenge a claim that its activity fell within the rubric of FARA. Finally, there is no evidence Press TV was given an option to either register with FARA or to cease its operation or a warning that failure to do so could result in the prosecution of the network or the arrest of its journalists.

In this light, it is palpably clear that the Department of Justice has employed a double standard between its approach to the application of FARA to Sputnik and RT and to that applied as against Press TV.

Given a grand jury investigation into Press TV for an alleged criminal violation of FARA and the arrest of one of its most respected journalists, it is beyond cavil that the US government has chosen to selectively enforce and punish it for political reasons driven, no doubt, by an Oval Office agenda.

Continue reading “#Free Marzieh Hashemi.”

Trump, May, Moreno Still Silent On Julian Assange.

by Jerry Alatalo

U.S., U.K., Ecuador leaders ignore U.N. international law judgment regarding Julian Assange

German Parliament members and Julian Assange’s father spoke to reporters after meeting with the long-time illegally detained and silenced publisher in London.

n many discussions over the past (8) months since  Ecuador’s government shut off Julian Assange’s ability to communicate from inside Ecuador’s embassy in London to the outside world via phone, internet, mail or during visitations with family and friends, people have wondered aloud how Julian Assange and WikiLeaks would have reported on important news events.

Had Mr. Assange never been framed for crimes he did not commit, or faced extradition to the United States as part of the plan which included the bogus charges, his need for seeking (and receiving) asylum of (now) over (6) years ago from then-President Rafael Correa of Ecuador would never have arisen, and he and WikiLeaks would have continued reporting on world affairs.

Muhammad Ali explains why he decided to refuse induction into the U.S. Army and oppose the Vietnam War.

One becomes reminded of the great heavyweight champion boxer Muhammad Ali, whose refusal to join the U.S. military during the Vietnam War led to his losing the ability to box professionally for years, personally devastating because he was in his physical prime, at the height of his athletic prowess. Ali’s morality-based stance – highlighted by the famous statement “I don’t have anything against those Vietnamese people” – became vindicated later on after it became clear the Vietnam War was initiated based on the false flag lies surrounding the now-infamous “Gulf of Tonkin” incident, which in fact never occurred. Millions of Vietnamese and near 60,000 U.S. servicemen died unnecessarily in what many describe as America’s worst foreign policy catastrophe ever.

Similar to the experiences of Muhammad Ali, Julian Assange has been unjustly persecuted for his antiwar actions. Ali came from the arena of professional sports, Assange from the arena of publishing, and both paid a very high price. Both men knew that their actions risked certain, serious backlash, personal risk and negative consequences from those pushing war agendas, but with conscious intent both Ali and Assange stood firm against the individuals, groups and/or governments who opposed them.

Muhammad Ali eventually regained his freedom and boxing career, going on to take part in some of the most memorable heavyweight fights in history. He boxed well into his 40’s, long after professional boxers retire from the ring, and suffered debilitating physical damages from the accumulated head punches received in matches conducted after  he passed his physical prime.

Boxing legend Muhammad Ali lit the symbolic torch to begin the 1996 Olympic Summer Games in Atlanta, Georgia.

Ali, – like Assange with his antiwar publishing actions – received both strong public criticism and support for his opposition to the Vietnam War, and eventually, as the years passed after the end of the war in Vietnam, became widely regarded as a hero in the public’s perceptions. Despite having lost much of his former ability to speak due to the head injuries from boxing, Ali’s popularity continued, highlighted by his symbolic lighting of the torch in the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. Muhammad Ali passed away in 2016 at the age of 74.

The fate of Julian Assange remains uncertain and perilous, however the millions around the world who support him and demand his freedom received encouraging news in the past few days. Supporters, many contributing their efforts as volunteers through the growing #Unity4J Movement, are hoping for a snowball effect to grow the level of public outcry globally calling for Assange’s release.

On December 20, two members of the German Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee – Heike Haensel and Sevim Dagdelen of the Die Linke or Left Party – met with illegally imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher/leader Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

At the end of their meeting they held a press conference outside the embassy and released a declaration signed by more than (30) members of European Parliament and the German Bundestag calling on the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May to take steps toward Assange’s “immediate release”, and that he be granted “safe passage to a safe country” as soon as possible.

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) accused Theresa May’s administration of violating international law over an issue of press freedom on December 21st. It is unknown whether Theresa May or anyone in her administration have officially responded to WGAD’s allegations.

To Mr. Trump of the United States, Ms. May of the United Kingdom, and Mr. Moreno of Ecuador:

The ball is now in your court(room). Do the right thing.

Free Julian Assange.

(Thank you to Sputnik at YouTube)

 

9-11 Justice Legal Team Forces Special Grand Jury.

(Via: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is pleased to share the following announcement made by the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry on November 26, 2018:

United States Attorney Agrees to Comply with Federal Law Requiring Submission to Special Grand Jury of Report by Lawyers’ Committee and 9/11 Victim Family Members of Yet-To-Be-Prosecuted 9/11 Related Federal Crimes

The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, a nonprofit public interest organization, announces its receipt of a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in response to the Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10, 2018 Petition and July 30, 2018 Amended Petition demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7). The U.S. Attorney, in his November 7, 2018 letter to the Lawyers’ Committee, stated: “We have received and reviewed The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.’s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions” (emphasis added). (The U.S. Attorney’s letter is available here.)

The U.S. Attorney’s letter does not spell out the steps that will be taken to comply, but 18 U.S.C. § 3332 is clear as to what these steps must be. This law states: “[a]ny such [United States] attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the [Special] grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation.” This law also states that “(a) It shall be the duty of each such [special] grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district.”

This letter from the U.S. Attorney was signed by Michael Ferrara and Ilan Graff, Chiefs, Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. On November 24, 2018, the Lawyers’ Committee replied, thanking the U.S. Attorney and expressing support for a thorough inquiry into the crimes reported in the Lawyers’ Committee’s petitions.

The Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10th 52-page original Petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC buildings. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of explosions at the WTC on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition.

The Lawyers’ Committee’s July 30th Amended Petition addresses several additional federal crimes beyond the federal bombing crime addressed in the original Petition. The Lawyers’ Committee concluded in the petitions that explosive and incendiary devices preplaced at the WTC were detonated causing the complete collapse of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 and increasing the tragic loss of life.

Attorney Mick Harrison, Litigation Director, stated: “The failure of our government to diligently investigate this disturbing evidence has contributed to the erosion of trust in our institutions. The Lawyers’ Committee felt it was our duty as public citizens to submit this evidence to the U.S. Attorney for submission to the Special Grand Jury.”

Attorney David Meiswinkle, President of the Lawyers’ Committee’s Board of Directors, stated: “We have offered to assist the U.S. Attorney in the presentation of this evidence to a Special Grand Jury. We have also requested that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth provide us expert support in the hope that our organizations will be invited to make a joint presentation of relevant evidence to the Special Grand Jury.”

Attorney William Jacoby, Lawyers’ Committee Board Member, stated: “We call upon the public and legal community to contact us and support our efforts to contribute to this grand jury process and to monitor and ensure compliance by the Justice Department.”

Executive Director and Actor Ed Asner stated: “The U.S. Attorney’s decision to comply with the Special Grand Jury Statute regarding our petitions is an important step towards greater transparency and accountability regarding the tragic events of 9/11.”