United States of Nazi
Read More... The Future Of The Internet
Showing posts with label Fascism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fascism. Show all posts
H.R.5741 Universal National Service Act
HR 5741 IH
July 15, 2010
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services - Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
- (a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act'.
- (b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
- Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE
- Sec. 101. Definitions.
- Sec. 102. National service obligation.
- Sec. 103. Induction to perform national service.
- Sec. 104. Two-year period of national service.
- Sec. 105. Implementation by the President.
- Sec. 106. Examination and classification of persons.
- Sec. 107. Deferments and postponements.
- Sec. 108. Induction exemptions.
- Sec. 109. Conscientious objection.
- Sec. 110. Discharge following national service.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT
- Sec. 201. Registration of females.
- Sec. 202. Registration and induction authority.
TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE
SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
- In this title:
- (1) The term `contingency operation' has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.
- (2) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services.
- (3) The term `national service' means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.
- (4) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to the Public Health Service.
- (5) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
- (6) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.
SEC. 102. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.
- (a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.
- (b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either--
- (1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or
- (2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.
- (c) Age Limits- A person may be inducted under this title only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 42.
SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE.
- (a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.
- (b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--
- (1) a declaration of war is in effect;
- (2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or
- (3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.
- (c) Limitation on Number of Persons Inducted for Military Service- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on--
- (1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services;
- (2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels; and
- (3) provide a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.
- (d) Selection for Induction-
- (1) RANDOM SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.
- (2) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons described in section 102(a) who do not volunteer to perform military service or are not inducted for military service shall perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity pursuant to section 102(b)(2).
- (e) Voluntary Service- A person subject to induction under this title may--
- (1) volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted; or
- (2) request permission to be inducted at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.
SEC. 104. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.
- (a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.
- (b) Grounds for Extension- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this title may be extended--
- (1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or
- (2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.
- (c) Early Termination- The period of national service for a person under this title shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:
- (1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.
- (2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.
- (3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.
- (4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.
SEC. 105. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.
- (a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.
- (b) Matter To Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:
- (1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person's national service obligation under this title.
- (2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.
- (3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this title, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.
- (4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this title and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.
- (5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this title, including questions of conscientious objection.
- (6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this title through civilian service.
- (7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title.
- (c) Use of Prior Act- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this title the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.
SEC. 106. EXAMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONS.
- (a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service.
- (b) Different Classification Standards- The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.
SEC. 107. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.
- (a) High School Students- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this title postponed until the person--
- (1) obtains a high school diploma;
- (2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or
- (3) attains the age of 20.
- (b) Hardship and Disability- Deferments from national service under this title may be made for--
- (1) extreme hardship; or
- (2) physical or mental disability.
- (c) Training Capacity- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this title as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.
- (d) Termination- No deferment or postponement of induction under this title shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.
SEC. 108. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.
- (a) Qualifications- No person may be inducted for military service under this title unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.
- (b) Other Military Service- No person shall be liable for induction under this title who--
- (1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or
- (2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes at least two years training therein.
SEC. 109. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.
- (a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.
- (b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--
- (1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or
- (2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.
SEC. 110. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.
- (a) Discharge- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this title, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this title.
- (b) Coordination With Other Authorities- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT
SEC. 201. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES.
- (a) Registration Required- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--
- (1) by striking `male' both places it appears;
- (2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and
- (3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.
- (b) Conforming Amendment- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.
SEC. 202. REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY.
- (a) Registration- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
- `(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act.'.
- (b) Induction- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act.'.
BitTorrent Admins Charged in $1.25bn Movie Piracy Case
BitTorrent Admins Charged in $1.25bn Movie Piracy Case
Written by enigmax on July 13, 2010 Following the country’s first ever raid on a BitTorrent site in 2009, Russian authorities have now begun a criminal investigation into the operators of Interfilm.ru. Run by a married couple, the site is now at the center of copyright infringement claim which runs to a staggering $1.25 billion. Reports suggest that the investigation has also traced some of the site’s top users.
Claiming that the site was a major source of pre-release cammed movies with links to piracy groups outside the country, on May 26th 2009 the Russian Federation Ministry of Internal Affairs Investigation Committee under the Ministry of Internal Affairs carried out a raid on the the Russian BitTorrent tracker, Interfilm.ru.The action followed complaints from anti-piracy group RAPO, a founding member of the MPA which represents the interests of Universal, Paramount, Sony, Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox in Russia.
At Interfilm’s Moscow base the police arrested several staff and also the main targets, husband and wife team Ivan and Irina Podorozhnikovymi.
Just over a year later the Interior Ministry Investigation Committee has now filed criminal charges against the pair, known online as ‘Ripper’ and ‘Nadezhda’. The scope of the accusations are quite incredible. Domestic and foreign film companies claim that the tracker caused 38.7 billion rubles in damages – a mind-blowing $1.253 billion.
Although it has not been revealed how this astronomical figure was reached, if convicted the founders – who the authorities say moved house and took technical measures to keep the site up during the investigation – could be facing up to six years in jail under Part 3 of Article 146 of the Criminal Code.In addition to action against the site’s founders, there is an ongoing investigation into some of the top users of the site. However, in order to prove that regular users committed any crimes, under Russian law it would be necessary to prove they profited from their actions on a large scale.
There are claims that some individuals downloaded fresh movie releases from Interfilm and then uploaded them to their own sites. Police are considering whether to launch criminal investigations in these cases.
Although Interfilm went down after the initial raid, it reappeared at LeaseWeb in The Netherlands. The site remains operational today with a Malaysian host but is perhaps preparing for trouble. In addition to using the Interfilm.ru domain, the site is also in operation from BitHouse.org. Russia’s biggest torrent site, Torrents.ru, recently had to change its name to RUTracker.org after its domain was seized by Russian authorities.
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-admins-charged-in-1-25bn-movie-piracy-100713/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29
CBC - The CIAs Secret War
CBC Passionate Eye:The CIA's Secret War
51:37 - 3 years ago
Sunday October 15, 2006 at 10pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld
repeating Monday May 28 at 10pm PT on CBC Newsworld
repeating Monday May 28 at 10pm PT on CBC Newsworld
Did the CIA abduct, torture and hold men prisoner on European soil? President Bush recently acknowledged that the CIA has operated secret prisons. What happened in these secret prisons in Europe? Filmmakers Arnaud Muller and Steve Baumann conduct their own investigation around a European Parliament inquiry to help answer these troubling questions.
When several CIA airplanes suspiciously land in northern Poland, it raises questions about CIA activities in Europe. In Macedonia, a German citizen claims he was abducted and held prisoner in Kabul for five months by U.S. agents. Is there evidence these strange activities took place? The CIA's Secret War provides proof, for the first time, that these abductions and confinements are no coincidence, but the result of political decisions to use information obtained through torture in countries where torture is standard practice.
Taking viewers into the heart of a troubling European parliamentary inquiry-an inquiry that in many ways parallels Canada's own Maher Arar inquiry-The CIA's Secret War sparks a debate on the role of democratic nations in the "war on terror". The CIA's Secret War is directed by Arnaud Muller and Steve Baumann.
WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OFF NAZI!! Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
ya know, the one thing that is killing freedom is the press and the way they side things for mindless consumer consumption. Like its either democrats or repubs that r right. But the one fact no one seems to understand is that both sides r screwing the public, and the public are stupid enough to take political sides instead of the side of the people.... I dont get it at all!
WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF NAZI !
Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions
Posted: January 14, 2010
12:30 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing."
Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.
Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" to disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories.
In a 2008 Harvard law paper, "Conspiracy Theories," Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, "What can government do about conspiracy theories?"
"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."
In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to "conspiracy theories" is "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups."
(Story continues below)
Continued Sunstein: "We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity."
Read more about Cass Sunstein's agenda in "Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech"
Sunstein said government agents "might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."
Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."
Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban by Sunstein include:
He continued: "The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the CIA did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of 'mind control.'”
Sunstein's paper advocating against the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud was written before November's climate scandal in which e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. indicate top climate researchers conspired to rig data and keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.
Sunstein: Ban 'right wing' rumors
Sunstein's paper is not the first time he has advocated banning the free flow of information.
WND reported that in a recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors."
In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers.
He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations."
Ayers became a name in the 2008 presidential campaign when it was disclosed he worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment.
'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'
WND also previously reported Sunstein drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.
Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation the U.S. had to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.
Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.
In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "Fairness Doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed "equitable and balanced."
Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.
His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that "purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming."
Sunstein wrote it is "worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."
He proposes "compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."
The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.
"It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.
Writes Sunstein: "The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation."
Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, "stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues."
He continues: "In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that 'the freedom of speech' is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard."
In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts' unwillingness to "require something like a Fairness Doctrine" to be a result of "the judiciary's lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority."
He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.
"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes.
But, he says, "at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would raise no real doubts" constitutionally.
Thanks to: Susie Quint
Read More... WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OFF NAZI!! Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF NAZI !
Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions
Posted: January 14, 2010
12:30 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Cass Sunstein, huge fuckin asshole and Nazi! lets all try to get his ass sent to Guantanamo ! |
Read more about Cass Sunstein's agenda in "Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech"
Sunstein said government agents "might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."
Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."
Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban by Sunstein include:
- "The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud."
- "The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."
- "The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile."
- "The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy."
- "That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents."
- "The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred."
He continued: "The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the CIA did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of 'mind control.'”
Sunstein's paper advocating against the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud was written before November's climate scandal in which e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. indicate top climate researchers conspired to rig data and keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.
Sunstein: Ban 'right wing' rumors
Sunstein's paper is not the first time he has advocated banning the free flow of information.
WND reported that in a recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors."
In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers.
He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations."
Ayers became a name in the 2008 presidential campaign when it was disclosed he worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment.
'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'
WND also previously reported Sunstein drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.
Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation the U.S. had to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.
Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.
In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "Fairness Doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed "equitable and balanced."
Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.
His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that "purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming."
Sunstein wrote it is "worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."
He proposes "compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."
The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.
"It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.
Writes Sunstein: "The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation."
Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, "stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues."
He continues: "In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that 'the freedom of speech' is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard."
In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts' unwillingness to "require something like a Fairness Doctrine" to be a result of "the judiciary's lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority."
He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.
"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes.
But, he says, "at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would raise no real doubts" constitutionally.
Thanks to: Susie Quint
Letter to the head of social services
Attn: Mr. **** *** *****
6/16/2010
Urgent request for help
Dear Mr. *****,
At this point I really would like to remain anonymous for fear of more repercussions to me and what is left of my family.
I have recently contacted your office for help on a personal level; I was referred to the **** ***** office because of where I live.
I have had more than a few years of very bad interaction with your **** ***** office and its workers in **** *****. I was through your system during a divorce, the treatment my children and I received by the many various workers that so called “took care” of my case and said they cared was in the least shameful.
Sides were taken, favoritism was bluntly and rudely displayed by the social workers, they lied and looked the other way at every chance. The quasi psychological, psychiatric help that was court ordered with out my consent or knowledge, did nothing other than help try and brain wash the children.
The damage your **** ***** office and its social workers (that many have long been promoted) has done to what is left of my family will take years and years to repair, if that is even possible.
My request and problems are as follows:
I request to be given the opportunity for non bias treatment at any other office and with any other social worker that has had no affiliation to my past case. Or have a boss that has had any affiliation to my past case. That would mean no social workers that has been promoted to better jobs in other offices or manages another office that has had a hand in the near total destruction of my family.
My problem,
I am 100% disabled, unemployed for many years because of my disability, my son and I live together. I have now found after many years I need help, I make **** a month from **** *****. From that I need to pay all expenses I have found this impossible under the current conditions.
I send you this letter as a desperate call for help, I have waited this long out of fear of repercussions, but I no longer have any choice.
I thank you in advance for your kind attention,
Anonymous
Psychiatry: An Industry of Death
Psychiatry: An industry of Death 1:47:56 - 1 year ago
Psychiatry: An Industry of Death is a controversial documentary on the horrors of psychiatry, of punishing and persecuting of the innocent and promoting Fascism, racism and atheism.
It was the foundation for the Holocaust, apartheid, for Jim Crow and for Communism. It has lead to many deaths. It denies God, the giver of life and freedom. It stands against the values of freedom, life, liberty and dignity.
There have been allegations that this is a Scientology propaganda film. Although the church of Scientology has had influence on the production of this film, the evil inherent in psychiatry should be of great concern to all people of all faiths especially Christians and Jews.Psychiatrists in Nazi Germany basically branded innocent people as mentally ill including Jews. The concentration camps of Auschwitz and elsewhere were nothing more than psychiatric hospitals for those the Nazi State deemed mentally unfit. IE: Jews Gypsies, Christians, Dissidents, ETC.
Share
Conscious Revolutions - 9/11 Illuminati Media Propaganda - NWO
Conscious Revolutions 1:33:23 - 3 years ago
This is a summary of many films and media clips that show you that 9/11 was an inside job! This is one of the best out there a must see.
Read More... Conscious Revolutions - 9/11 Illuminati Media Propaganda - NWO
This is a summary of many films and media clips that show you that 9/11 was an inside job! This is one of the best out there a must see.
Global Governance - The Quiet War Against American Independence
Global Governance - The Quiet War Against American Independence
55:39 - 4 years ago
In 1966, a Georgetown University professor published a big book about the elite Network which he said controls America. His book approved of their plan for global, or world, control to supersede our self-government by "We the people." The professor had a profound effect on one of his students. In 1992, that student became President of the United States and Bill Clinton credited Professor Carroll Quigley with forming his vision for the future. In the next several years, he pushed for several United Nations treaties (including some rejected by Presidents Reagan and Bush) which are designed to control human behavior, energy consumption, private property, and natural resources. The President issued a secret order (PDD 25) to place American armed forces under foreign command and in foreign uniform, and he began using U.S. troops as global cops and social workers. His Administration is steadily putting American trade and property under the control of international organizations. "Global Governance: The Quiet War Against American Independence" contains exclusive interviews with national news makers on the front lines of the quiet war. This compelling program documents the treaties and UN conferences that are undermining American independence and paving the way for global control
Wilhelm Reich - The Mass Psychology of Fascism
At the time when this book was originally written, fascism was generally regarded a "political party" which, like any other "social group," was an organized representation of a "political idea." According to this concept, the fascist party "introduced" fascism by force or by "political manoeuvre."
Contrary to this concept, my medical experience with individuals from all kinds of social strata, races, nationalities and religions showed me that "fascism" is only the politically organized expression of the average human character structure, a character structure which has nothing to do with this or that race, nation or party but which is general and international. In this characterological sense, "fascism" is the basic emotional attitude of man in authoritarian society, with its machine civilization and its mechanistic-mystical view of life. It is the mechanistic-mystical character of man in our times which creates fascist parties, and not vice versa.
Even today, as a result of fallacious political thinking, fascism is still being considered a specific national characteristic of the Germans or the Japanese. The stubborn persistence of this fallacy is due to the fear of recognizing the truth: fascism is an international phenomenon which permeates all organizations of human society in all nations. This conclusion is confirmed by the international events of the past 15 years.
Liberty Bound
Liberty Bound 1:27:28 3 years agoA US Citizen's journey of discovery into the lies, oppression, and corruption that has invaded her country since 9/11. Through original footage, archived footage, and interviews with people such as Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, and Michael Ruppert, Liberty Bound explores the state of the union and its ostensible move toward fascism. We talk with people who have been interrogated by the Secret Service and threatened with arrest for doing such benign things as sending an email, turning around during a Bush speech, and having a philosophical discussion on a train.
How Police Interrogation Works
| How Police Interrogation Works April 06, 2007 | for everyone |
Hi to all
I just wanted to say before you all read this post, remember the Constitution??
Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
or do i ass u me 2 much, now if the state cant how the fuck can the fascist FED?
a few tips i can give u from what i have learned ...give only 3 points of information then, say nothing, sign nothing. as bad as you think it is it can get worse and fast, it will pass.
Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
or do i ass u me 2 much, now if the state cant how the fuck can the fascist FED?
a few tips i can give u from what i have learned ...give only 3 points of information then, say nothing, sign nothing. as bad as you think it is it can get worse and fast, it will pass.
How Police Interrogation Works
by Julia Layton
Introduction to How Police Interrogation Works
 |
Police interrogations weren't always so complex. Until the early 1900s in the United States, physical abuse was an acceptable (if not legal) method of getting a confession. Confessions obtained by "third degree" techniques -- deprivation of food and water, bright lights, physical discomfort and long isolation, beating with rubber hoses and other instruments that don't leave marks -- were usually admissible in court as long as the suspect signed a waiver stating the confession was voluntary. Between the 1930s and 1960s, though, a crackdown on police tactics gradually changed the practice of interrogation.
While the Supreme Court had ruled as early as 1897 against involuntary confessions, it was in 1937 that things really started to change. In the case Brown v. Mississippi, the Supreme Court threw out a "voluntary" confession that was obtained after police officers repeatedly strung a suspect up in a tree and whipped him. The Court's decision was clear: Confessions obtained by force cannot be used as evidence at trial. By the 1950s, confessions were considered involuntary not only if police beat the suspect, but also if they held a suspect for an unnecessarily extended period of time, deprived him of sleep, food, water or bathroom facilities, promised some benefit if the suspect confessed or threatened some harm if he didn't.
When the case Miranda v. Arizona reached the Supreme Court in 1966, coercive police interrogation took another blow. Ernesto Miranda had confessed to rape and kidnapping after two hours of interrogation, and the appeal to the Supreme Court alleged that Miranda was not aware of his rights to remain silent (the Fifth Amendment) and to counsel (the Sixth Amendment). The Court ruled in favor of Miranda, and the decision instituted what we've come to know as the "Miranda Rights." To safeguard against a suspect falling into an involuntary confession because he thinks he has no choice but to speak, the police must expressly, clearly and completely advise any suspect of his rights to silence and counsel before beginning an interrogation or any other attempt to get a statement from a suspect. The Miranda decision attempts to eliminate suspect ignorance as a contributing factor to involuntary confessions.
In looking for a replacement for illegal forms of coercion, police turned to fairly basic psychological techniques like the time-honored "good cop bad cop" routine, in which one detective browbeats the suspect and the other pretends to be looking out for him. People tend to trust and talk to someone they perceive as their protector. Another basic technique is maximization, in which the police try to scare the suspect into talking by telling him all of the horrible things he'll face if he's convicted of the crime in a court of law. Fear tends to make people talk. For a while, police tried such things as polygraphs to determine if the suspect was being deceptive, but polygraphs and polygraph training are expensive, and the results are almost never admissible in court. But some polygraph analysts, including a man named John Reid, began noticing that subjects exhibited certain outward, consistent physical signs that coincided with the polygraph's determination of untruthfulness. Reid went on to develop a non-machine-based system of interrogation based on specific types of questions and answers that uncover weaknesses the interrogator can use against a suspect to obtain a confession. Reid's "Nine Steps" of psychological manipulation is one of the most popular interrogation systems in the United States today. In the next section, we'll find out about this system.
| |
| |
The psychological manipulation begins before the interrogator even opens his mouth. The physical layout of an interrogation room is designed to maximize a suspect's discomfort and sense of powerlessness from the moment he steps inside. The classic interrogation manual "Criminal Interrogation and Confessions" recommends a small, soundproof room with only three chairs (two for detectives, one for the suspect) and a desk, with nothing on the walls. This creates a sense of exposure, unfamiliarity and isolation, heightening the suspect's "get me out of here" sensation throughout the interrogation.
 |
Before the nine steps of the Reid interrogation begin, there's an initial interview to determine guilt or innocence. During this time, the interrogator attempts to develop a rapport with the suspect, using casual conversation to create a non-threatening atmosphere. People tend to like and trust people who are like them, so the detective may claim to share some of the suspect's interests or beliefs. If the suspect starts talking to the interrogator about harmless things, it becomes harder to stop talking (or start lying) later when the discussion turns to the crime.
 |
One method of creating a baseline involves asking questions that cause the suspect to access different parts of his brain. The detective asks non-threatening questions that require memory (simple recall) and questions that require thinking (creativity). When the suspect is remembering something, his eyes will often move to the right. This is just an outward manifestation of his brain activating the memory center. When he's thinking about something, his eyes might move upward or to the left, reflecting activation of the cognitive center. The detective makes a mental note of the suspect's eye activity.
The next step is to turn the questioning to the task at hand. The detective will ask basic questions about the crime and compare the suspect's reactions to the baseline to determine if the suspect is being truthful or deceptive. If the interrogator asks the suspect where he was the night of the crime and he answers truthfully, he'll be remembering, so his eyes may move to the right; if he's making up an alibi, he's thinking, so his eyes might move to the left. If the interrogator determines that the suspect's reactions indicate deception, and all other evidence points to guilt, the interrogation of a guilty suspect begins.
The Reid technique is the basis of the widely used "Criminal Interrogation and Confessions" manual we already mentioned. It lays out nine steps or issues guiding interrogation. Many of these steps overlap, and there is no such thing as a "typical" interrogation; but the Reid technique provides a blueprint of how a successful interrogation might unfold.
- Confrontation
The detective presents the facts of the case and informs the suspect of the evidence against him. This evidence might be real, or it might be made up. The detective typically states in a confident manner that the suspect is involved in the crime. The suspect's stress level starts increasing, and the interrogator may move around the room and invade the suspect's personal space to increase the discomfort.
 |
- If the suspect starts fidgeting, licking his lips and or grooming himself (running his hand through his hair, for instance), the detective takes these as indicators of deception and knows he's on the right track.
- Theme development
The interrogator creates a story about why the suspect committed the crime. Theme development is about looking through the eyes of the suspect to figure out why he did it, why he'd like to think he did it and what type of excuse might make him admit he did it. Does the suspect use any particular mode of reasoning more often than others? For example, does he seem willing to blame the victim? The detective lays out a theme, a story, that the suspect can latch on to in order to either excuse or justify his part in the crime, and the detective then observes the suspect to see if he likes the theme. Is he paying closer attention than before? Nodding his head? If so, the detective will continue to develop that theme; if not, he'll pick a new theme and start over. Theme development is in the background throughout the interrogation. When developing themes, the interrogator speaks in a soft, soothing voice to appear non-threatening and to lull the suspect into a false sense of security. - Stopping denials
Letting the suspect deny his guilt will increase his confidence, so the detective tries to interrupt all denials, sometimes telling the suspect it'll be his turn to talk in a moment, but right now, he needs to listen. From the start of the interrogation, the detective watches for denials and stops the suspect before he can voice them. In addition to keeping the suspect's confidence low, stopping denials also helps quiet the suspect so he doesn't have a chance to ask for a lawyer. If there are no denials during theme development, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt. If initial attempts at denial slow down or stop during theme development, the interrogator knows he has found a good theme and that the suspect is getting closer to confessing. - Overcoming objections
Once the interrogator has fully developed a theme that the suspect can relate to, the suspect may offer logic-based objections as opposed to simple denials, like "I could never rape somebody -- my sister was raped and I saw how much pain it caused. I would never do that to someone." The detective handles these differently than he does denials, because these objections can give him information to turn around and use against the suspect. The interrogator might say something like, "See, that's good, you're telling me you would never plan this, that it was out of your control. You care about women like your sister -- it was just a one-time mistake, not a recurring thing." If the detective does his job right, an objection ends up looking more like an admission of guilt. - Getting the suspect's attention
At this point, the suspect should be frustrated and unsure of himself. He may be looking for someone to help him escape the situation. The interrogator tries to capitalize on that insecurity by pretending to be the suspect's ally. He'll try to appear even more sincere in his continued theme development, and he may get physically closer to the suspect to make it harder for the suspect to detach from the situation. The interrogator may offer physical gestures of camaraderie and concern, such as touching the suspect's shoulder or patting his back.
 |
- The suspect loses resolve
If the suspect's body language indicates surrender -- his head in his hands, his elbows on his knees, his shoulders hunched -- the interrogator seizes the opportunity to start leading the suspect into confession. He'll start transitioning from theme development to motive alternatives (see the next step) that force the suspect to choose a reason why he committed the crime. At this stage, the interrogator makes every effort to establish eye contact with the suspect to increase the suspect's stress level and desire to escape. If, at this point, the suspect cries, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt. - Alternatives
The interrogator offers two contrasting motives for some aspect of the crime, sometimes beginning with a minor aspect so it's less threatening to the suspect. One alternative is socially acceptable ("It was a crime of passion"), and the other is morally repugnant ("You killed her for the money"). The detective builds up the contrast between the two alternatives until the suspect gives an indicator of choosing one, like a nod of the head or increased signs of surrender. Then, the detective speeds things up. - Bringing the suspect into the conversation
Once the suspect chooses an alternative, the confession has begun. The interrogator encourages the suspect to talk about the crime and arranges for at least two people to witness the confession. One may be the second detective in room, and another may be brought in for the purpose of forcing the suspect to confess to a new detective -- having to confess to a new person increases the suspect's stress level and his desire to just sign a statement and get out of there. Bringing a new person into the room also forces the suspect to reassert his socially acceptable reason for the crime, reinforcing the idea that the confession is a done deal.
 |
- The confession
The final stage of an interrogation is all about getting the confession admitted at trial. The interrogator will have the suspect write out his confession or state it on videotape. The suspect is usually willing to do anything at this point to escape the interrogation. The suspect confirms that his confession is voluntary, not coerced, and signs the statement in front of witnesses.
The steps we've laid out here represent some of the psychological techniques that detectives use to get confessions from suspects. But a real interrogation doesn't always follow the textbook. Next, let's take a look at an actual police interrogation that ended with an admissible confession.
| |
On September 1, 2003, Detective Victor Lauria of the Novi Police Department in Detroit, Michigan, used his training in the Reid technique to interrogate Nikole Michelle Frederick. Frederick's two-year-old step daughter, Ann Marie, was brought to the emergency room near death, with obvious signs of extensive child abuse. Frederick was her primary caretaker and was watching Ann Marie in the time before the trip to the hospital. The interrogation took place over two days, with Frederick being charged with the crime immediately following the first sit-down. Lauria began with a simple interview, just talking in a non-threatening way to establish Frederick's baseline reactions:
- Lauria: How would you rate yourself as a mother?
Frederick: Um, I think I'm, I'm pretty good. I mean I, I am a little bad with being stern and stricter you know, letting them get away with things.
Lauria: How would you describe Ann Marie?
Frederick: She was a very hard baby. She would, uh, cry all the time. Always wanted to be held ... I mean Annie just, I mean she always looks like she's beaten. She's always climbing or you know. I always can see a little bit of bruising and scrapes or whatever on her back. Her shins are always bruised.
- Lauria: There's a whole line of study in police work that can determine how injuries occur and how old the injuries are.
Frederick: ... I don't even think we'll find out exactly what happened because the only one that really knows is her and it's gonna be awfully hard trying to get her to say if anything happened, you know. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, I was just wondering how long this is going to take.
Lauria: Well, like I said, one of the things we're able to do with those [bruises] is we can date bruises based upon you know whether they're new bruises just coming in, or whether they're bruises that are already starting to heal because, you know, doctors and forensic scientists and pathologists study those type of things...
Frederick: Okay.
Lauria: Can you think of any reason why they would determine that those bruises were caused in the last 24 hours and that somebody would suspect that you did this?
Frederick: Um, other than that I was there, no. ...
Lauria: Do you suspect anybody of doing this?
Frederick: No, I don't. And that's what I'm saying, and I, I'm having a hard time believing that it was inflicted on her because, like I said, we would have heard something too, you know...
Lauria: Out of all the people in the house that were there or came in last night, list all the people that you would vouch for that you would say absolutely would not do something to hurt Ann Marie.
Frederick: ... I know John wouldn't do it. I honestly don't think Brian would do it.
Lauria: Who'd vouch for you?
Frederick: Um, probably John. But see like I don't, I don't necessarily, uh, believe what the doctor's saying and how they were inflicted, whatever.
- Over two days of questioning Frederick never asked how Ann Marie was doing. Near the end of the interview I pointed this out to her. She tried to convince me that she had asked several times about Ann Marie's injuries. She then asked me for an update in her condition. I told her that Ann Marie was brain dead and that she was probably not going to survive. Frederick stated "Oh my God. I'm gonna go for murder." I then spent another 45 minutes with various themes in an attempt to get further information. After several attempts at denying any further knowledge or involvement in causing the injuries to Ann Marie she admitted to shaking her. After admitting to shaking her, Frederick broke down and cried. She then said "I killed that little girl. I killed that little girl."
Getting a guilty suspect to confess is the best way to ensure she'll be found guilty at trial and serve time for the crime she committed. The problem is that while a confession looks really good in court, it's not an infallible indicator of guilt. That's a big part of the controversy surrounding police interrogation tactics.
|
 Photo courtesy Amazon.com Earl Washington, Jr., a mentally retarded man, was almost put to death for a crime he confessed to but didn't commit. He was released from prison in 2000, nine days before his scheduled execution. |
First, interrogation is guilt-presumptive process. The goal is to get the suspect to confess. Once the interrogation begins, a detective can unconsciously ignore any evidence of innocence in pursuit of a confession. This is a common psychological phenomenon -- people often "filter out" any evidence that does not fit with their already-formed viewpoint. Interrogation is designed to make a suspect extremely nervous, and signs of stress like grooming and fidgeting, which are taken as positive indicators of guilt, might just as easily indicate the stress of an innocent person being accused of a crime he didn't commit. There's also the issue of latent coercion. While police may not explicitly offer leniency for a confession or threaten punishment if someone won't confess, they may imply promises or threats in their language and tone. For instance, when detective Lauria told Nikole Frederick that "without an explanation of what happened people would assume the worst," Frederick may have understood that to mean that if she confessed to the crime but explained why she did it, the consequences would be less severe than if she kept her mouth shut.
In a more general way, a lot of the human rights concerns surrounding police interrogation have to do with the fact that psychological interrogation techniques bear an uncanny resemblance to "brainwashing" techniques. The interrogator is attempting to influence the suspect without the suspect's consent, which is considered an unethical use of psychological tactics. A lot of the techniques used to cause discomfort, confusion and insecurity in the brainwashing process are similar to those used in interrogation:
- Invading a suspect's personal space
- Not allowing the suspect to speak
- Using contrasting alternatives
- Positioning confession as a means of escape
- Peter Reilly, 1973
Peter Reilly was 18 years old when his mother was found murdered in their home. After eight hours of interrogation by Connecticut police, he confessed to brutally murdering her. A jury convicted him of first-degree manslaughter based on his confession, and he served three years in prison before a judge set him free in the face of new evidence indicating someone else committed the crime. - Earl Washington, Jr., 1982
Earl Washington, Jr., a man described by psychologists as "mildly retarded" with an IQ of 69, confessed to raping and murdering a 19-year-old woman after undergoing interrogation. He was convicted on the confession alone and spent 18 years in prison, half of that time on death row. Nine days before his scheduled execution, the governor of Virginia pardoned him because DNA evidence had revealed that the actual perpetrator was another man. (Watch this video clip of an interview with Earl Washington, Jr., after his release.) - The "Central Park Five," 1989
After more than 20 hours of interrogation, five teenagers -- Raymond Santana, 14, Kharey Wise, 16, Antron McCray, 16, Kevin Richardson, 14, and Yusef Salaam, 15 -- confessed to raping and beating a woman jogging in Central Park in New York City. They spent between six and 12 years in prison (four out of the five were tried as minors) before another man confessed to the crime in 2001. DNA evidence confirmed that this other man was in fact the Central Park rapist. - Michael Crowe, 1998
Michael Crowe was 14 years old when police interrogated him without a parent or other adult in the room. He eventually confessed to stabbing his 12-year-old sister to death after the interrogator told Michael of false physical evidence against him. He was charged with the crime, but at pre-trial hearings, a judge deemed his confession to be involuntary. DNA evidence later led police to the man who actually murdered the girl.
For more information on police interrogation and related topics, check out the links on the next page.
Lots More Information
Links
- CourtTV: Fear Factor: How far can police go to get a confession?
- Dominance and Submission: How the Police Use Psychological Manipulation to Interrogate Citizens
- FindLaw: Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self-Incrimination
- Frontline: The case for innocence
- The Reid Technique: Case studies
- Scientific American Mind: True Crimes, False Confessions - PDF
- “Case Study: Success With the Reid Technique.”
http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/JohnReid/articles/97420/ - "Central Park Justice." Online NewsHour, Dec. 24, 2002.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec02/centralpark_12-24.html - “Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self-Incrimination.” FindLaw.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/09.html - “General Interrogation Techniques.” Just Cause Law Collective.
http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=54 - Irsay, Steve. “Fear Factor: How far can police go to get a confession?” CourtTV.com.
http://www.courttv.com/archive/movie/crowe/fear.html - "Jury: Investigator must pay ex-death row inmate." CNN.com, May 5, 2006.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/05/inmate.award.ap/index.html - Kassin, Saul M. and Gisli H. Gudjonsson. "True Crimes, False Confessions." Scientific American Mind.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/pspi/pspi5_2_11-14.pdf - Kurz, Dylan. “Dominance and Submission: How the Police Use Psychological Manipulation to Interrogate Citizens.”
http://www.grayarea.com/police8.htm - “Police Interrogation.” freeBEAGLES.
http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/interrog.html - Redlich, Allison D. , Ph.D. "Law & Psychiatry: Mental Illness, Police Interrogations, and the Potential for False Confession." Psychiatric Services.
http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/55/1/19#SEC2 - “The Reid 9 Steps of Interrogation, In Brief.” Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation.
http://www.law.wayne.edu/Faculty/Fac_web/moran/The%20REID%209%20STEPS%20OF%20INTERROGATION.htm - “The Reid Technique of interviewing and interrogation: Case studies.” Reid.com.
http://www.reid.com/success_reid/r_cstudies.html
To A Traitor from Dr. Seuss
| To A Traitor from Dr. Seuss |
Traitor George W. Bush will you please go now!
The time has come.
The time has come.
The time is now.
Just go.
Go.
Go!
I don't care how.
You can go by foot.
You can go by cow.
Traitor George W. Bush will you please go now!
You can go on skates.
You can go on skis.
You can go in a hat.
But
Please go.
Please!
I don't care.
You can go
By bike.
You can go
On a Zike-Bike
If you like.
If you like
You can go
In an old blue shoe.
Just go, go, GO!
Please do, do, do, DO!
Traitor George W. Bush
I don't care how.
Traitor George W. Bush
Will you please
GO NOW!
You can go on stilts.
You can go by fish.
You can go in a Crunk-Car
If you wish.
If you wish
You may go
By lion's tale.
Or stamp yourself
And go by mail.
Traitor George W. Bush
Don't you know
The time has come
To go, go, GO!
Get on your way!
Please Traitor George.!
You might like going in a Zumble-Zay.
You can go by balloon . . .
Or broomstick.
Or
You can go by camel
In a bureau drawer.
You can go by bumble-boat
. . . or jet.
I don't care how you go.
Just get!
Traitor George W. Bush!
I don't care how.
Traitor George W. Bush
Will you please
GO NOW!
I said
GO
And
GO
I meant . . .
The time had come
So . . .
http://www.nogw.com/nazibush.html
http://www.book-of-thoth.com/thebook/index.php/Bush_family_conspiracy_theory
as if u didnt all know that by now.
David Icke - Big Brother Big Picture (final edit)
David Icke – Big Brother, the Big Picture Presentation
Read More... David Icke - Big Brother Big Picture (final edit)
July 11, 2008, 7:35 pm
The full video of the presentation David Icke recently did on July 6th 2008, regarding the Big Brother state and the real reason for the encroaching Police State and stripping of our Freedoms. Excellent video, a must see for those who want to understand the truth and how the pieces fit together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
>
