Huomaatteko kuinka kaikki Hohhoijaan aloittamat viestiketjut "retard-sperma-saatanan-hullu" ovat hävinneet. Aloitimme eilen kamppanjan Hohhoijaan kuriin saamiseksi ja ilmoitimme porukalla ylläpidolle Hohhoijaan toiminnasta. Tuloksena hänen viestinsä poistettiin. Loistavaa toimintaa kertakaikiaan!
Suomi24 ylläpito 10 pistettä!
Suomi24 ylläpito 10 pistettä!
Vastaukset 27
Vanhimmat
nyt sitten oli. Ei ne olis niitä poistanut vaan kun siellä oli juttu palmen murhasta niin kiire tuli poistaa. Kertaan sen vielä. Siinä kysyttiin miksei Palmen murhasta ole salaliittoa, joten sen voisi alkaa nyt. Ensin olisi vain katsottava Elia Kazanin filmi Boomerang. Ja sen jälkeen sitten ketkä olisivatkaan salaliittolaisia ja ketkä virkkareita. Eikö olekin MIELENKIIINtoista
Eilen palsta alkoi täyttymään Hohhoijaan sairailla posteilla (lääkitys ilmeisesti petti). Asiasta valitettiin ylläpidolle ja kaikki Hohhoijaan hörhöilyt on nyt poistettu.
Sinäkin kartat tosi lähellä olevia aiheita. Kun motiivit noihin false flag operaatioihin on tietoyhteiskunnan edistäminen niin tässä taas yksi todiste siihen.
http://www.piraattiliitto.org/uutiset
Siitä enemmän alla olevassa ketjussa. Niin ja liittykää siihen Suomen piraattiliittoon. Minä ainakin liityn ja ottakaa filmi Boomerang tunnukseksenne. Sen nähtyänne tajuatte paljon ja huomaatte kuinka läheltä Suomea liippaa samat tekijät kuin WTC:ssä.
"Sinäkin kartat tosi lähellä olevia aiheita."
Ei ole aihetta jota karttaisin. Onko sinulla jokin tietty aihe mielessä? Esimerkiksi piratismi?
Palmen murhasta.
Ettekö tosiaan näe sitä kusetusta, mikä siihen liittyy.
Te vain katselette valmiiksi jauhettuja youtuben juttuja ja olette samaa mieltä niiden kanssa, mutta kun pitäis muodostaa oma mielipide aiheesta Olof Palmen murha, niin sormi menee suuhun.
Ovatko NWOlaiset liian lähellä, ettei uskalleta puhua mitään mikä tapahtuu lähistöllä.
Äläkä sitten ala mussuttamaan ja heittämään leikiksi, sillä se on tyypillisin reaktio, kun pitäisi muodostaa mielipide jostakin, mistä ei tiedä hevon vittua.
Palmen murha kuten myös Estonia ovat molemman eliitin tekosia. Puhutaan nyt kuitenkin Palmesta.
Palme oli anti-eliitti ja vastusti kovin sanoin NWO:ta. Tämä ei käynyt päinsä ja ruodussaan pysymätön pääministeri voidaan teilata NWO:n toimesta ihan tuosta noin vain. Ei ole nähty pohjoismaissa sen jälkeen eliitille ryppyileviä pääministereitä.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Palme#Policies
* harsh and emotional criticism of the United States over the Vietnam War;
* vocal opposition to the crushing of the Prague Spring by the Soviet Union;
* campaigning against nuclear weapons proliferation;
* criticism of the Franco Regime in Spain;
* opposition to apartheid and support for economic sanctions against South Africa;
* support – both political and financial – for the African National Congress (ANC) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); and,
* meeting with Cuba's president Fidel Castro.
Siinä ote Palmen politiikasta. Tarviiko vielä lisää todisteita että eliitti otti hänet pois päiviltään? Palmesta ei mielestäni voi puhua mainitsematta NWO:ta ja hänen vastustusta sitä vastaan.
Otatko nyt varmaan huomioon, että tuo oli vain sinun mielipiteesi.
Sinulle taitaa olla tyypillistä tuo tietäminen.
Et ole vaivautunut katsomaan Kazanin filmiä Boomerang tai eihän sinun tarvitse kun 'tiedät' kaiken.
Onko se nyt niin vaikea hakea käsiisi tuo filmi ja katsoa se.Puhu sitten vasta murhan motiiveista.
Toisaalta alkaa ottamaan jo pannuun, kun sinä tiedät kaiken. Ei noilla Palmen puheilla ollut mitään tekoa Palmen poismenolle. Sanoin pois menolle jos tajuat mitä tarkoitan.
Ruotsissa oli myös lasermies hömppä ja Anna Lindh hömmppä. Miten siihen liittäisit NWO:n.
Olen sanonut joskus, kuinka helppoa on uskotella itselleen tuollaisia murhan motiiveja, kun se on niin helpoa.
Kävelikö NWO Palme pariskunnan takana ja NWO nosti aseen ja ampui. Toisen luodeista löysi eräs Ruotsissa asuva intialainen lehtimies vastakkaiselta puolelta katua roskakorista ja toinen luoti löytyi lähemmpää ja oli täysin ehjä, vaikka oli lävistänyt Palmen ja törmännyt tolppaan. Luodeista pääteltiin mikä ase oli käytössä.
Katso nyt se filmi niin tajuat jotain.
Pistä linkki niin katson videon heti.
Korjaa toki jos olen väärässä: olen varma, että Palme salamurhattiin eliitin toimesta. Lindh koki saman kohtalon.
Jos sinulla ei ole antaa linkkiä videoon, niin kerrotko hieman, että mitä video paljastaa?
Linkkiä varsinaiseen filmin katsomiseen tuskin löytyy netistä.
Voisit kysellä Ylestä tai MTV:stä uusintaa, sillä heillä se on.
Kerro mitä vastasivat.
Voit tietenkin tilata sen jenkeistä, mutta se maksaa aika paljon. Googlaa Boomerang by kazan.
Sanoin filmin paljastavan huijauksen. Huijauksessa mukana melkein kaikki kynnelle kykenevät.
Filmissä tapahtuu tai sanotaan Palmen 'murha' kulkee aikalailla täsmälleen samaa rataa kuin tapahtumat filmissä. Lehtiväki on juonessa mukana, kun lavastelivat tapahtumaa maksettuine mediapelleineen. Pettersson oli täys media pelle. Mutta edetään tästä.
Tutkittuani enempi noita muita poliittisia tapahtumia, on mulle tullut täysin selväksi, että mitä kaavaa nämä murhat melkein aina menevät. Mukana on todellakin iso joukko ja korruptoitunut media on myös poikkeuksetta mukana. Nyt joku sanoo, että ei media voi olla salajuonessa mukana. Kyllä voi, sillä ei sieltä kaikki ole mukana - ainoastaan ylin johto ja muutama luottotoimittaja.
Ja toisaalta se tarina jonka eliitti on meille sepittänyt Palmen murhasta, on niin naurettava, että ei mitään väliä. Vai että pääministerin murhaaja joku sosiaalijuoppo vailla kunnon motiivia... just joo. Mielestäni se on enempi niin, että jos uskoo eliitin virallisen stoorin niin täytyy kyllä olla melkoisen herkkäuskoinen.
Juu netistä tuota ei tuntunut löytyvän, mutta kokeilen p2p:tä kun pääsen himaan. Joku on saattanut ripata pätkän. Jos löydän sen niin laitan video.googleen.
Myönnän, että Palmen murhasta tietoni ovat vähäiset koska kunnon informaatiota on jostain syystä hankala saada. Jospa tuo dokkari korjaisi aukon tiedoissani. Pistetään samalla koko kansan pällisteltäväksi niin alkaa tieto levitä.
Jos pääset googlaamaan tänne.
Sat 5/11/2002 12:36 PM Boo, not boom-
Kazanin filmi siis perustui tosi tapahtumaan.
Löydät siitä juttua tuon sivun lopussa. Filmi sun on nähtävä vaikka en kerro miten se suoraan liittyy huijaukseen, sillä niin väitän, että koko murha oli huijaus. Palme poistui taka alalle. Sen motiivit ovat salaseuranta. Häntä oltiin seurattu hieman liian läheltä.
Tuossa sivussa boo, not boom on hyvä juttu muutenkin. Lue. Sen voi kääntää automaattisesti suomeksikin, jota sinä et varmaan tarvitse, mutta jos joku tarttee. Käännös on kuitenkin surkeaa kun kone sen tekee.
Medialla on kova valta kusetuksesta kun on kyse. Vain sinisilmäiset hohhoijaat uskovat kaiken hömpän mitä ne keksii. Taustalla hömpässä on kuitenkin vakavia seurauksia, kun saadaan mielet manipuloitua.
Olen ajatellut Tsernebylin sulamista. Mitähän sielläkin oikein tapahtui.
Laitan koko jutun tähän. Ei sitä voikkaan googlata.Transitional//EN">
Sat 5/11/2002 12:36 PM Boo, not boom
Fri 10/25/2002 9:54 PM A different
anniversary
I've been thinking a lot lately about a deadly act of
terror. I've been thinking of the citizens paralyzed with fear and the suspect
(apparently of Middle-Eastern heritage) positively identified by eyewitnesses
and linked to the act by forensic evidence. I've been thinking of the subsequent
trial and what the Attorney General of the United States did to defend America.
But that's not what I thought of in the wee hours of Monday morning when I awoke
to rapid-fire bangs.
The early hour at which New York's construction crews get to work never
ceases to amaze me -- especially when they use jackhammers, their venue of
employment is under our bedroom window, and it's still dark out. I'm also
astonished at how late they work and how they sometimes work on weekends,
too.
Last Saturday we went to a concert about 120 miles away. It took us less than
two hours get from our door to the performance and a similar amount of time to
return to the Henry Hudson Bridge, which connects the Bronx to Manhattan Island.
Then, due to construction work, it took almost as long to travel the last six
miles home.
Manhattan is not a car-friendly place. A popular book for natives, "Manhattan
Block by Block," is an atlas that lists (among other things) every park,
playground, police station, post office, school, and theater. It does not list
our few gas stations. The page called "Driving in New York" begins, "The best
advice to drivers is 'don't.'"
It would have been faster to abandon the car, walk to the nearest subway, and
zip home underground. Alas, that wasn't an option.
We New Yorkers LOVE our subways, and, thanks to our hard-working construction
crews, we have them all back now. The line that passed directly below the World
Trade Center, which was supposed to take years to repair, reopened in September.
That's good news for those of us who travel downtown, which, at some point,
includes just about every adult citizen of New York County (Manhattan Island and
a sliver of the mainland that was on our side of the water before a shipping
canal).
Like most adult citizens of New York County, we own neither a car nor a
house. And, like most adult citizens of New York County, we have served on jury
duty downtown.
These days, it's almost impossible to be exempted. Despite being our mayor at
the time and previous employment as a zealous prosecutor, Rudy Giuliani once
served on a New York County jury. It seems that every Manhattan jury pool has at
least one celebrity in it.
There are two types of juries in New York's criminal-justice system.
They are named for their sizes. The petit jury is the one with which most
people are familiar: one trial, open courtroom, prosecution and defense
attorneys, rules of evidence, 12 jurors, unanimity, reasonable doubt, etc.
A New York grand jury has 23 people. A simple majority of 12 is enough to
indict. All of the proceedings are secret. Leading questions and hearsay are
common. No witness is ever cross-examined. Reasonable doubt doesn't matter.
Over the course of a month-long term, a single Manhattan grand jury might
easily hear 150 cases. And it will never once hear from a defense attorney.
Whenever I serve on petit-jury duty, I am impressed by what appears to be the
fairness of our court system. It begins in the room where we hang out waiting to
be called for trials. A video presentation explains why juries are important. It
also lets us know that real trials are not necessarily like those we've seen in
movies and on TV. In every episode of "Perry Mason," for example, the master
defender got someone on the witness stand to confess to murder, exonerating
Mason's client.
Surprise! It doesn't work that way.
During jury selection, the prosecution and defense attorneys go out of their
way to ask us to be fair. A prosecutor will typically tell us, "If I have not
proved the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, I want to be
sure that you will be able to vote 'Not Guilty.'"
Similarly, the defense attorney will tell us that, if the prosecutor proves
the case, we are to vote "Guilty."
The judges all seem to bend over backwards to be fair, too. Once, when I was
on a jury, the judge gave us a mysterious day off. Only after we'd turned in our
verdict did he inform us that the day was holy in the defendant's religion, and
he didn't want that to influence us.
My fellow jurors seem to take their duty to be fair very seriously. We have
different opinions, of course, but we DO deliberate, count-by-count, before
agreeing on a unanimous verdict. The process may be tough (on all concerned),
and it may be long, but it is, to the best of our abilities, fair.
That's petit-jury duty. Grand-jury duty is something else entirely. I find
grand-jury duty very depressing. My first time, I went to a novelty wholesaler
and bought a gross of laugh bags to cackle hysterically at me each evening, in
an attempt to cheer myself up.
There's no difference in New York between grand-jury duty and being on a
grand jury. Once a fingerprint check allows you to serve, you're on.
There is no grand-jury selection process involving questions.
Normal grand juries hear case after case: robbery after robbery, murder after
murder -- burglary is about as light as it gets. A case might last all of five
minutes. And it's all one sided. The prosecution presents its view; there is
never any defense. There's not even a judge in the room.
Prosecutors are so sure of a New York grand jury indicting that they
liberally allow days off for grand jurors. It takes only 12 to indict; usually
they'll get all 23. After all, a grand jury delivers only an indictment; a trial
(or plea bargain) follows.
When he was New York's top judge, Sol Wachtler once famously quipped that any
reasonably competent prosecutor could get a New York grand jury to indict a ham
sandwich. That was in October 1985. A few years later, Wachtler, himself, was
indicted (and later convicted) of crimes related to harassment of his former
lover.
Some years ago, I briefly became the center of attention at a party in
Brooklyn. Had I told a group of astronomers that a meteorite shaped like
Galileo's head had crashed through the street and landed at my feet in a subway
car, it might not have created as much interest and disbelief as what I DID
say.
Many of the people at the party were public defenders. All I said was that I
had served on a grand jury that had chosen not to indict on a particular charge.
They were astonished.
We had decided there was insufficient reason even to indict, let alone
convict. The prosecutor wasn't happy with us.
The people who prosecute cases here are routinely called prosecutors.
They even refer to themselves that way. But that's not what their actual
titles are. They are, typically, assistant district attorneys.
When Rudy Giuliani (before he became mayor of New York) gave up the
third-highest post in the Justice Department so he could prosecute cases, his
title was United States Attorney.
District attorney or U.S. attorney doesn't sound like an adversarial title.
Prosecutor does. A government attorney might be interested simply in seeing that
justice is done. A prosecutor sounds like a person out to get someone.
Just this month, Giuliani was asked his feelings about the "perp walk."
It's the practice of parading an arrested suspect before members of the
press. Giuliani thought the deserved embarrassment was an important deterrent to
potential white-collar criminals. But there's a problem.
"Perp" is short for "perpetrator." A perpetrator (in the criminal
sense) is a person who commits a crime. But the person paraded in the perp
walk is the person arrested by the police -- a person properly called a suspect,
who may or may not be guilty of criminal activity.
Even master prosecutor Rudy Giuliani ended up with some famous post-perp-walk
acquittals, including former Miss America Bess Myerson and former Philippines
First Lady Imelda Marcos.
The suspect is supposed to be considered innocent UNLESS proven guilty.
Some prosecutors seem to believe the phrase is "innocent UNTIL proven
guilty." And to a few, perhaps, it's simply "innocent unless arrested."
Certainly, some media outlets seem to promote the last view, often going beyond
that to "innocent unless investigated."
The perp walk is just one small example of a symbiotic relationship between
the criminal-justice system and the media. That relationship was explored in Ben
Hecht's and Charles MacArthur's "The Front Page," a play so funny that it was
made into a hit movie -- four times.
What is at the core of the plot of that hilarious story? It's the impending
execution of a cop killer.
There are bumper stickers on seemingly all New York City police vehicles
offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of someone
who shoots a police officer. A toll-free number is offered, 1-800 COP SHOT.
I've never been able to understand such reward offers. At whom are they
aimed? Are they an introduction to the economics of the Information Age? Do not
divulge anything without being paid for it?
Are we trying to train people to ask for a reward for performing a civic
-- and moral -- duty? Is the idea that $10,000 will convince a criminal to
rat on an associate? Or might it provide an excuse for a criminal to frame
someone?
The median household income in New York City in 2000 was $38,293 (our
wealthiest borough in terms of household income was Staten Island). Our
per-capita income was $22,405. The CIA estimates the annual per-capita
purchasing power in Afghanistan in 2000 to have been $800. And the U.S. State
Department has been offering -- and informing Afghans of -- a $25,000,000 reward
for information leading to the capture of Osama bin Laden. That would be like a
$700,000,000 reward in New York City. To paraphrase former Senator Everett
Dirksen, that's pretty close to real money.
It's rare to hear a discussion of the pros and cons of reward offers.
The other criminal-justice issue at the core of "The Front Page," capital
punishment, is more often debated. Some people feel it is morally imperative for
the state to execute murderers. Others feel it is morally repugnant for the
state to take a life.
Illinois governor George Ryan is not among the latter group. He campaigned in
favor of capital punishment. But he has since called a halt to executions in his
state.
It's not that he has decided that it's immoral for the state to kill.
As best I know, he still believes executing a murderer is a good idea.
But he's opposed to executing innocent people. Governor Ryan noted that,
after capital punishment was reinstated in Illinois, more people sentenced to
death were later exonerated of their crimes than were executed. Sometimes
journalists found the exculpatory evidence; sometimes it was students. Open
trials provided the impetus.
"The Front Page" certainly isn't the only movie to have featured capital
punishment. In some the audience is led to believe a guilty person is being
executed, in others an innocent one. The latter are part of a genre called
"Wrong-Man" films, although in most of those the mistake is discovered and
rectified before the execution. Even that's pretty horrifying.
In Alfred Hitchcock's 1957 movie "The Wrong Man," there's not even the threat
of an execution. The charge is merely robbery, but the accused man's wife
nevertheless cracks under the strain.
"The Wrong Man" was based on a true story. So was Elia Kazan's 1947 movie
"Boomerang!" Actually, it was based on a story about a true story, and it was
embellished with a side plot about political corruption, which Kazan later said
he wished he'd played up more. In my opinion, the actual facts of the case are
more amazing than the fictionalization.
On the evening of February 4, 1924, Father Hubert Dahme was taking a walk
through Bridgeport, Connecticut. At about 7:45, he passed the New Lyric Theatre,
where Ethel Barrymore was about to perform in "The Laughing Lady." Someone shot
him behind the left ear at close range with a .32-caliber bullet.
The theater crowd was so stunned that no one even thought to call an
ambulance for ten minutes. Father Dahme was pronounced dead at St. Vincent's
Hospital two hours later.
The mayor immediately offered a $1000 reward (an ad at the time in one of the
local papers offered men's suits for less than $3 each). He said he'd guarantee
it with a personal check until he could get the common council to approve it. A
contractor offered another $500; so did one of the local newspapers. The church
committee came up with another $500 and hoped to get that up to $1000.
The police assigned 30 detectives full-time to the case. There were many
leads. None panned out.
The people of Bridgeport were terrified. They were accustomed to reading
about murders in their local papers, but those were always associated with some
obvious cause: robbery, love triangle, grudge, etc. What appeared to be a
senseless murder was an act of terror. And no one had been caught.
A week after the murder, in Norwalk, Connecticut, a police officer found
someone wandering the street at 1:20 in the morning, searched him, and found a
gun. It was a five-shot .32-caliber revolver with one chamber empty.
The man was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. He was sentenced to 90
days plus $50. He had no money, so the jail term was increased.
The jailer asked the man where he was from. The man said he'd lived recently
in Bridgeport. The jailer alerted the Bridgeport police.
Many witnesses positively identified the man as the perpetrator. The most
convincing was a woman who'd waited tables at a restaurant the man used to
frequent, so she had known him before the crime.
The man was interrogated. At first, he denied the murder. He gave the police
multiple stories. He said he was home alone. He also said he was at a movie
theater far away from the scene of the crime.
After two days, however, he confessed. He said he just had to kill someone,
and Father Dahme was conveniently located. His military record showed he'd been
imprisoned before and was considered something of an unstable nut.
The police asked him where they could find the missing shell. He told them it
would probably be in the bathroom of the place where he'd lived last in
Bridgeport. Sure enough, they found the shell there. He also took the police on
a tour of the path he said he'd used for his getaway, and it matched witness
descriptions.
Later, the man recanted his confession. A public defender was appointed for
him.
The coroner heard from the police, the eyewitnesses, and a ballistics expert
who testified that the bullet in Father Dahme's brain had come from the
suspect's gun. The case was sent to criminal court. The court date was May
27.
When the trial began, the state's attorney, Homer Cummings, asked if he could
make an opening statement. The judge told him to go ahead.
In roughly the first third of his statement, he laid out the facts of the
case essentially as I have done here. It seemed a perfect case. He even said so.
And then the universe changed.
Cummings -- the prosecutor -- proceeded to demolish every point in his own
case. He and his staff had gone to every location where an eyewitness had been
and proved that it would have been impossible for them to have seen what they
said they saw. People from the state's attorney's office who had worked with one
another for years couldn't identify their own colleagues under those conditions,
let alone a stranger.
The most believable witness, the one who'd known the suspect previously, had
applied for the rewards. Her viewing conditions were the worst -- like trying to
see through the reflective side of a one-way mirror.
As for the confession, Cummings -- the prosecutor -- had a team of doctors
check the transcripts of the interrogation and interview the suspect, and they
said the suspect would have confessed to anything. On the other hand, the
suspect's description of the movies he'd seen and when he saw them jibed
perfectly with the theater's records. In those days, projectors were hand
cranked, and schedules varied, so the suspect's knowledge was significant in
giving him an alibi.
Yes, the police had found a shell in the suspect's old bathroom; they'd
actually found two, but only one chamber of the revolver had been empty. The
landlady said the suspect liked to shoot at outdoor targets and empty the shells
in the bathroom. She'd picked up many. As for the getaway path the suspect had
shown the police, it revealed nothing they hadn't already told him.
That left the ballistics evidence. Cummings -- the prosecutor -- hired six
ballistics experts who testified that the fatal bullet could not possibly have
come from the suspect's gun. For one thing, the suspect's gun was rusty and
dulled the "lands and grooves" imparted to the bullet by the rifling of the
barrel; the bullet taken from the brain had sharp markings. For another, the
suspect's gun used ammunition with a "grease groove," something so apparent that
traces of it could be seen on any bullet it fired; the bullet taken from the
brain had no evidence of a grease groove.
Finally, the suspect's gun had a defect. The fatal bullet had been fired at
roughly a 45-degree angle upwards. The suspect's gun simply would not fire at
that angle.
Cummings -- the prosecutor -- said the man was innocent of the murder of
Father Dahme and recommended he be released after finishing his term for the
concealed-weapon charge. The judge agreed. The trial was over. A complete
transcript was published in the afternoon paper.
Why did Cummings make the extraordinary effort to destroy his own perfect
case? I guess he was honest. He was also prominent enough to be able to afford a
political risk. A young assistant district attorney might have viewed such a
move as a career-stopper.
It's even easier to understand why he went through the process of going to
trial, building his case, and then destroying it. If he hadn't, and simply said
he wasn't going to prosecute the case, people might still have thought the
suspect guilty and tried to take matters into their own hands. He needed to
prove the suspect's innocence to all.
Up to now, I've avoided mentioning the suspect's name. It was Harold
Israel.
One witness said the perpetrator had a "Jewish run." Another said the
perpetrator had a large, beaked nose. Israel didn't. In fact, he wasn't even
Jewish. He came from a Pennsylvania Dutch background.
Another item I discovered in researching the case has to do with the rewards.
Three people applied for them, each with legal representation. One was the woman
from the restaurant. One was the Norwalk police officer who'd arrested Israel on
the concealed-weapon charge. The third was the county jailer who'd notified the
Bridgeport police.
The jailer's legal representative in the matter of trying to collect the
reward was a lawyer named Robert G. DeForest. Clearly, DeForest had an interest
in the conviction of Harold Israel. The public defender appointed for Israel was
Robert G. DeForest.
The ballistics expert who incriminated Israel testified at the coroner's
inquest before completing his tests. As a matter of fact, the bullet taken from
the brain (an incomplete fragment) had not yet even been cleaned of blood and
tissue.
My research did not uncover any indication of improper conduct on the part of
the police. The interrogation seems to have been conducted properly. They
believed they had the guilty party. They publicly accepted the outcome of the
trial but grumbled about it privately. The case remains unsolved.
Homer Cummings went on to become Attorney General of the United States under
Franklin Roosevelt. And in 1937 the Government Printing Office issued the
transcript of "The State of Connecticut vs. Harold Israel" as something to be
read by all U.S. attorneys (it's now out of print). The preface says, "The
primary duty of a lawyer exercising the office of public prosecutor is not to
convict but to see that justice is done."
You may be wondering at this point why I've told you all of this. It's
because of today's date, the 26th of October.
One year ago today, George W. Bush signed into law the Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism Act. The ungainly title is more commonly abbreviated the USA
PATRIOT Act. It passed the House of Representatives 356-66; it passed the Senate
98-1.
Just as a young assistant district attorney might not have had the courage to
do what Cummings did in Connecticut v. Israel, few legislators, it seems, were
willing to vote against something called USA PATRIOT. I wonder how many of the
legislators voting for it even bothered to read it. It's quite a large act and
is not free of typographical error.
Section 412 (out of 1016), alone, allows the Attorney General, personally, to
decide whether a person may be placed in detention indefinitely (up to forever).
The person has to be an alien, and the Attorney General (or his deputy, if he
has delegated the authority, but no one else) must have "reasonable grounds to
believe that the alien is engaged in any... activity that endangers the national
security of the United States."
What constitutes "reasonable grounds"? The act doesn't say. The Fairfield
County coroner certainly had reasonable grounds to believe Harold Israel was
guilty, so he sent him to an open trial. Indefinite detention has no trial date,
and there's nothing open about it.
Section 501 authorizes the Attorney General to offer rewards, the funds
coming from any executive agency or even the military, with no judicial review.
Section 502 authorizes the Secretary of State to offer similar rewards and
removes a previous limit of $5,000,000 per reward.
One witness whose identification of Harold Israel implicated him in the
murder applied for the rewards. The identification was later proved false.
The USA PATRIOT Act is just one of many moves since September 11, 2001 that
seem to subvert the American justice system. Last year I wrote about the Bush
executive order of November 13 that authorized military commissions to try
suspected terrorists. They would operate in secret, allow evidence considered to
have "probative value" (such as hearsay), and be able to convict and sentence --
even to death -- with as few as 1/3 of the commission members voting in
favor.
It sounds a lot like a New York grand jury but for a few points:
- It takes a majority of a grand jury to indict, not just 1/3.
- A grand jury merely indicts; the military commission is authorized to
sentence to death.
- And the next step after a grand jury is an open trial; the ONLY step
authorized in the Bush order after the sentence of the military commission is
review by Bush himself (or the Secretary of Defense, if Bush chooses to delegate
that authority).
Who decides whether an individual (who is not a United States citizen) is
sent to the secret military commission in the first place? It is George W. Bush
himself, the same person who has to decide both he and the commission were
wrong, if he's ever to reverse a guilty verdict.
The common refrain from supporters of these moves is that they apply only to
terrorists. But how does anyone know before an open trial that someone is a
terrorist? There was a perfect case to be made that Harold Israel murdered
Father Dahme. The only flaw was that he hadn't.
I have one final item to report about the Dahme case, the performance of the
news media. It might be considered almost as astonishing as the actions of Homer
Cummings.
Certainly, the murder was front-page news for a long time (roughly three
weeks) in each of the four Bridgeport daily newspapers. But the coverage
never attempted to stir emotions. It was remarkably cool. All four of the
papers, for example, told their readers that Israel's confession was not
necessarily proof of guilt.
Here's an editorial from the Bridgeport Sunday Post the day the confession
became public. The headline, "Justice Must Be Done," was clearly not a call to
arms.
"If the man, Harold F. Israel, who has just made a belated confession to the
slaying on February 4th of Rev. Hubert Dahme, pastor of St. Joseph's R. C.
church, is the real slayer, it will be welcome news to know that this murder
mystery which came as a terrible shock to all Bridgeport has been cleared up.
The Rev. Fr. Dahme, during his many years in this city, had developed and
cemented many friendships, and it is difficult to understand how anyone could
have wished to take his life.
"Lack of a motive lends plausibility to the theory that the crime was the
work of someone mentally unbalanced and the Israel confession states that Father
Dahme was shot on an impulse, without reason. Again we must warn all persons
that such a confession does not settle the case.
Offhand it would seem incredible that anyone should confess to a murder he
did not commit, yet such confessions have been obtained repeatedly and the law
itself takes specific safeguards against them. It is right that there should be
a public demand for justice, but justice is a two-edged sword. It must defend
the innocent as well as punish the guilty. There should be no pressure of public
opinion to rush the state's attorney's office on this case but time should be
taken for a very thorough sifting of facts."
Today's journalists could learn from that editorial. And I wish "The State of
Connecticut vs. Harold Israel" were still required reading for prosecutors --
and legislators.
TTFN,
Ok, alkaa muuttua mielenkiintoiseksi kun hieman valaisit mistä on kyse. Ryhdyn tutkimaan asiaa. Tutkimuksissani menee aina päiviä ellei viikkoja. En halua muodostaa käsitystä asioista liian hätäisesti kuten tiedät. Se on kuitenkin selvää, että valtamedian versioita tapahtumista ja Palmen murhasta luen vain silloin kun kaipaan komediaa :)
Siellä on se koneen suomennos. Ellei yhtään osaa englantia niin parempi melkein kun ei lue sitä.
WELL WELL se on niin amerikan englantia.
Sanoja on käännetty ja se voi helpottaa ja nopeuttaa jos on sanoja joita ei tiedä niin ei tartte sanakirja kurassa tavata.
Täällä olijat ovat ihmeen kielitaitoisia, mikä kielii siitä, ettei sitä ihan taukkeja olla.
Mikähän niin siihen Tsernobyliin tuli??
Luin keskustelun vaikeudesta saada tämä filmi kotivideona. Poikkeuksellisesti sitä ei saa kopioida. Yrittävät estää kansaa näkemästä sitä. MIKSIKÖHÄN
As I've said, I don't know why "Boomerang" is proving so impossible to get to home video. Maybe it is an authorship issue; I've heard it may involve the estate of the DA depicted in the film by Dana Andrews (Homer Cummings); or that it's tied up due to issues over the actual legal case depicted; or other such speculation. None of these seems persuasive to me, and I don't know why it's so damned difficult to get a straight, clear-cut answer to the question. Until someone offers a simple, complete explanation of the issue, the film's stubborn absence is annoying as well as mystifying. I'm just glad I got a copy in the couple of days before they vanished.
Hohhoijaan suosima wikipedia tietää kertoa DVD:n pois vedosta tämän.
DVD release
This film was scheduled for release on DVD in June of 2006 as part of the Fox Film Noir series. Just prior to release, the DVD was recalled without explanation, though some copies did trickle out on the market. It is not known if it will be released at a future time. There is speculation of a copyright issue as the DVD itself has no flaws or defects.
Hämärää on. Todistaa että jotain pimitetään.
Haiskahtaa vähän sille että jotain on meneillä. Pitäs saada se suomen bilderberg dokumentti valmiiksi niin alkaisivat muutkin haistaa Suomessa itse suomalaiset että jotain on meineillä, jotain sellaista hämärää.
Muistan kuinka olen "väitellyt" asioista hohhoijaan kanssa. Vaikka äijä on täys sosiaalitapauksela niin tietää kuitenkin asioista yllättävän paljon. Ongelma on siinä kun äijä tietää olevansa väärässä niin rupeaa haukkumaan retardiksi jne.
Muutenkin koko suomi24 on täysin NWO:n huora-palikka. Laitoin WTC-viestejä täysin asiallisesti. (linkit olivat mm CIA, FBI, BBC...jne).
Kyllä totuus tekee näköjään kipeää. Haistakaa vittu koko suomi24!!!!
ota kantaa tuohon mitäpä tuosta juttuun. Se on tässä ketjussa.
Pistin eilen viestiä ylläpidolle ja kerroin että tämä Hohhoijaa on erikoisunut sellaisten aiheiden valittamiseen jossa hän on ottanut turpiinsa. Ketjussa ei tarvitse olla kuin yksi "ruma sana" ja Hohhoijaa tarttuu siihen ja kiireiset modet poistavat viestin kun eivät jaksa lukea viestejä. Uskon että ylläpito on nyt jatkossa tarkempi Hohhoijaan kanssa.
niin kovasti haukottele, minäkin laitoin ylläpidolle palautetta jatkuvasta solvailusta.
Toivottavasti pysyy asialinjalla tulevaisuudessa.
Täällä haukutaan USA:ta sensuurista ja poliisivaltion luomisesta jne. Puhutaan NWO:sta ja sen kontrollista ym. Eikö tämän palstan pitänyt olla viimeinen saareke kaikkea tuota vastaan, jossa voidaan vapaasti jutella ja väitellä eri mielipiteiden ja näkemysten kesken??? Salaliitoista että onko niitä ja millaisia jne.
Ei ilmeisesti, kun täälläkin halutaan sensuuria ja kyttäystä ja isoveli valvoo-meininkiä. Täälläkin siis saa olla vain sitä "oikeaa" mieltä asioista, tai sitten tulee gestapo sensuroimaan ja poistelemaan väärät mielipiteet.
Haistakaa salkkarit jotakin pahalle haisevaa ja nauttikaa teidän ajatuksianne tukevasta sensuurista ja kontroloinnista vaan minun puolestani. Olette nauretavia ja pohjimmiltanne sitä samaa pohjamutaa, mitä "vastaan" täällä keuhkootte!!!
Ompas kiva uutinen. Kuinkahan kauan ylläpito pystyy pitämään tämän häirikön aisoissa? Kenties selvittävät IPn?
Jos ette kestä kritiikkiä niin silloin olette päässeet NWO:n päämäärään. Vapaa sana on kontrollin käsissä.
EI HAUKKU LOUKKOO TEE ELLEI HALOSELLA PÄÄHÄN LYÖ.
Tietääkö muuten presidenttimme, että WTC oli räjähdepurku ja Palme oli false flag operaatio johon liittyy Elia Kazanin filmi Boomerang.
Voisimme vaatia, että politikot ottavat kantaa näinkin vakavaan asiaan. Kuuhuijaus on pientä verrattuna vaikka Palmen murhaan, josta pääsette jujulle katsomalla folmin Boomerang.
Hohhoijaaaaaaa
Joka päivä tulee kasoittain niitä retard-sperma juttuja. Hyvä että laittoivat aisoihin.
No tässähän se selitys kun ei ole ollut näitä retard ja pissa juttuja pitkään aikaan. Palstan ilmapiiri on noussut kohisten. Toivottavasti pitävät sen aisoissa pitkään.