#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.”

Advertisements

Donald Trump Silent On White Helmets Scandal.

by Jerry Alatalo

Among the participants and attendees of the December 20, 2018 United Nations meeting on the activities of the White Helmets were Syrian Ambassador Bashar Jaafari and Russian Federation Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia

eople who watch the DECEMBER 20, 2018 United Nations meeting, which presented evidence of horrific crimes committed inside Syria by the so-called “rescue” organization and Academy Award-winning “White Helmets”, will come to a full understanding of the true reason U.S. President Donald Trump went on Twitter (Date: DECEMBER 19, 2018).

President Trump announced a major, surprise change in his administration’s foreign policy 24 hours before the U.N. meeting exposing the White Helmets international scandal – and wrote that, essentially: “We (U.S. military forces) are leaving Syria … immediately!”. Is it possible, or even probable, that Mr. Trump was aware of the U.N. meeting scheduled for the 20th of December, and that his no-cost Twitter foreign policy statement was delivered to place a global media roadblock in front of the White Helmets bombshell, set to explode the next day?

We sense the answer is “yes”. However, the only way of knowing for certain is hearing from Donald Trump himself for his opinion of the “extremely inconvenient, taboo…” details presented at the December 20 event. Trump’s 12/19/2018 action, a military psychological operation if the described theory becomes proved true, was put forward to soak up all global media attention, which indeed was the result. In other words, – Mr. Trump took a calculated public relations action to protect the diminishing reputation of the White Helmets, or to bury any chance of any appreciable amount of people worldwide learning details of the White Helmets criminal scandal revealed on 12/20/2018.

Developments in the near (3) weeks since Trump’s announcement seem to confirm the theory. Donald Trump and members of his administration have not said anything about the White Helmets in those (3) weeks, – most especially relaying nothing publicly whatsoever about, or since, the damning December 20 U.N. meeting.

Trump’s Twitter action could be described using Trump terminology as “fantastic, and very successful”; very few people worldwide heard news of the White Helmets scandal revealed at the December 20 United Nations meeting; Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton has issued, as more than once in the past, a warning to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad about potential use of chemical weapons, and, once more, threatening the severest of military responses.

With the already-suffering reputation of the White Helmets terrorist group effectively “saved” thanks to Donald Trump’s Twitter psychological operation and public relations fix, the rising odds for another false flag chemical attack in Syria (possibly Israel due to growing Neocon desperation) becomes more plausible as a predictive. This creates legitimate worries that another deception-based military response from the United States (Trump), United Kingdom (May) and France (Macron) will bring much more unnecessary death,injury and harm than previous illegal bombing operations.

What public responses, if any, have the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron issued on this very serious matter?

Who will become the first courageous U.S. journalist submitting to the president of the United States of America the following question?

“With respect to extremely troubling revelations made on December 20 at the United Nations, President Trump, could you please share with Americans and people of the world your honest assessment of the White Helmets?”

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

***

(Thank you to Nizar Abboud at YouTube)

Featured

Humanity At Crossroad 2019: 9/11 Truth Or World War III?

by Jerry Alatalo

ravel around the Earth in the new year 2019, put the following assertion to people in various nations and regions, and responses will range from total confusion and befuddlement to full awareness and agreement. The assertion is that humanity faces in 2019 the simple yet immeasurably important choice of either embracing the effort to uncover the truth of 9/11 or experiencing the horror of World War III.

The choice of working to get at the brutal truth of what transpired on September 11, 2001, commonly spoken of as the “day that changed everything”, has emerged after the legal team comprising the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry took steps leading to the future implementation of a Special Grand Jury process – to assess evidence of explosives being used to crash New York’s World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 on 9/11.

For millions around the world already firmly convinced that 9/11 was what is increasingly recognized as a “false flag event”, the Lawyers’ Committee’s successful push for the Special Grand Jury represents metaphorically a legal document which has been written with all the necessary provisions and terms thought out and placed correctly, with the only remaining step (the Grand Jury process, presentation of evidence) being the signing of names and dating.

The top concern for many supporters of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry is that World War III becomes initiated before the 9/11 Special Grand Jury have the opportunity to do its immeasurably vital work: exposing the horrific-but-necessary truth that the world on September 11, 2001 witnessed the largest covert military false flag operation of the 21st century – arguably in all of human history.

Imagining the choice humanity faces in 2019 – between 9/11 truth and world war – as a minds-eye viewing of two gigantic dams filled to near-overflow might offer a way of fully appreciating the current sobering reality. Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry might be perceived as the water flowing into the dam of 9/11 truth, historically poised to overflow and destroy the wall of lies which have persisted for more than (17) years.

The other choice humanity faces, the other dam ready to burst, might be perceived as the water flowing into the rising-tension tide world war scenario, represented by those individuals responsible for directing the planning, logistics and carrying out of the massive crimes on 9/11, along with the criminal wars of aggression across (17) years the false flag psychological operation was precisely engineered to facilitate.

From that imagined perspective humanity now must choose which “dam” to destroy. Destroy the Big Lie of 9/11 and the result is destruction of the potential for world war. Observing that negative world events, circumstances and realities on the ground of a military nature have been criminally advocated based on false, devious foundations birthed or created on September 11, the simple truth is that factual science revealing what happened obliterates those false foundations and the co-existent immoral, continuing excuses for prolongation of “endless war”.

Therefore … the successful, continuing efforts of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry is our choice for Top International Story of 2018.

***

Continue reading “Humanity At Crossroad 2019: 9/11 Truth Or World War III?”

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)