Reuters is reporting the White House will announce the deadline for mandatory vaccination of all federal contractors will be December 8th. However, it is likely someone is going to file a lawsuit… so keep that in mind.
President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Sept. 9 requiring federal contractors to mandate vaccinations, but many U.S. companies with federal contractors have awaited formal guidance from the White House before moving forward.
https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/09/23/man-jailed-on-50k-bond-facing-7-years-for-accidentally-underpaying-for-a-soda-by-43-cents/
By Matt Agorist Perry County, PA — When Joseph Sobolewski got thirsty last month, he saw a sign in a nearby convenience store that was… Man Jailed on $50K Bond, Facing 7 Years for Accidentally… Go to Source Author: Activist Post… Read more
…
This was how a DOJ press release put it:
The technology executive, for his part, exploited his
access to non-public data at multiple internet companies and enlisted
the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university … The indictment further alleges that researchers were tasked to mine this internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” that would tie then-presidential candidate Donald Trump to Russia, and which the executive believed would please certain “VIPs.” The indictment also alleges that Sussmann, his law firm, and the technology executive coordinated with representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign in
these efforts.
…
https://unnecessarynewsfromearth.wordpress.com/2021/08/18/and-the-winner-is/
I really like these lines of Shakespeare. It is an universal general assessment for all humanity, that exactly coincides with human behavior in every age from a time period which seems to be before time. Be sure, even if the calendar shows the year of 2500, these words will be compatible with humanity.
Let’s frame this on the latest situation in Afghanistan today and which country is showing what kind of policy inside and out; and finally, let’s rate them in a political context which a form of activity produced by humans currently works/operates, and how much good their performance acting on the stage by filming.
First, United States of America, movie name “We’re Heroes”
Stage Inside:
Reuters news quote:
“WASHINGTON, Aug 17 (Reuters) – The United States will seek to evacuate as many U.S. citizens and Afghan interpreters as possible in coming weeks, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday, saying Americans could again make their way to the Kabul airport. We’re going to work really hard in the coming weeks to get as many of them out of the country as we can…Three U.S. military bases were prepared to accept up to 22,000 Afghan allies in the coming weeks… More than 700 people, including more than 150 U.S. citizens, were evacuated in the past 24 hours, Kirby said separately on ABC News’ “Good Morning America.”
Stage Outside:
“Afghans, who were put on a cargo plane with the dream of being taken to America, were left in Uganda. According to news, in the statement, it was claimed that the Afghans, who were loaded on the cargo plane from Kabul Airport, took them to Uganda. The statement said: “The first group of Afghan refugees (over 400) who came to Uganda started to settle in the country. Uganda has agreed to accept 2,000 Afghans under a new agreement with the United States. Afghans, who did not know that they were taken to Uganda, were reported to have reacted after they landed.”
Kirby had said 3 of US military bases prepared for Afghans, but according to news at least one of them these bases he mentioned in the Uganda.
Anyway, Over 5 points rating, I give 3 points to US authorities to their film. I take 2 points off US authorities; 1 of 2 points since they did not show much emotional behavior when the statement was made, so acting of one of male leads is not good. 1 of 2 points since they didn’t foresee that the information that Afghans were taken to Uganda instead of going to America would come out in a day, and because their production clumsily.
Secondly, France, movie name “Les Macronuzes”
Stage Inside:
According to rfi news: “Macron to deploy special forces to Kabul to evacuate French nationals, Afghan allies, French President Emmanuel Macron has said that Afghanistan should not return to becoming a “sanctuary of terrorism” and that Paris will not abandon Afghans who worked for France who find themselves under threat from the Taliban.”
Stage Outside:
According to francetvinfo news: (translated with google)
“Adel Abdul Raziq, president of the Association of former auxiliaries of the French army affirms that his”colleagues are abandoned by the French army”.”Since the Taliban returned to Kabul, the auxiliaries of the French army, are worried about this threat. They are all locked in their homes,” he testifies. (About 80 people plus their families) …Last June, the Taliban assured that the interpreters were in no danger and called them “repent” and stay in Afghanistan. What is it?
This is a lie. We lost one of our colleagues, Abdul Basir, after their announcement. He was kidnapped for two weeks and they murdered him. They broke their promise. That is why my friends and colleagues who are in Afghanistan are so worried about their future. Those who remained in Afghanistan regret having worked with the French army.”
Over 5 points rating, I give 3 points to France’s Macron and his team movie. I cut one point Macron’s lack directorship ability, and cut one another point, since the promotion of the film resulted in a fiasco on the same day.
Third, Dutch-Netherlands, movie name “Summer in Afghanistan”
Stage Inside:
Dutch Defense Minister Ank Bijleveld said on Twitter:
Stage Outside:
Accoding to Cumhuriyet news: “Dutch newspaper NRC wrote that Afghans working at the Dutch Embassy in Kabul were stunned when they arrived at the office on Sunday, August 15, when all the Dutch staff left the building without saying anything. It was stated that the Dutch staff at the embassy left quietly and that 37 Afghan employees found their places vacant when they came to work.”
I give 2 points to Dutch government. I took off 3 points because they didn’t choose the actors well and the stage planning was very bad. Because seemingly stage was already empty.
Fourth, Sweden, the name of movie, “Greetings to Afghanistan”
Stage Inside:
“In the press conferance of Swedish Minister of Foreign Affair, Ann Linde “They are currently working to evacuate local employees. These are employees at the embassy and people who worked for the Armed Forces until 2014, as well as their families.”
Also according to her tweet:
Stage outside:
According to news of Cumhuriyet:
“According to the news in the Swedish press, 19 people from the Swedish Embassy in Kabul were taken to the US military base in Doha, the capital of Qatar, by helicopter and plane on Sunday evening, August 15. Swedish personnel left Kabul, while local Afghan personnel working with them were left in the country.
It came to the fore that the Swedish staff even blocked the corporate e-mail accounts of Afghans working with them and did not answer their phones.
A group of local Afghan employees e-mailed the Swedish newspaper Expressen yesterday, explaining that they were dumped by former Swedish colleagues who blocked their email addresses and did not answer their calls.
“We don’t know what’s going on and they left us at the office while we were working. We tried to contact them but they didn’t answer our calls and they blocked our email addresses. Please write about us, our lives are in danger. Sweden should abandon its bureaucratic system and “put our lives first before its laws,” statements were included in the email.”
I give 1 points to Swedish government’s movie. I took off 4 points because while artistic concern draws attention in classical Swedish cinema generally, commercial success is in the background, but here on the contrary here, artistic carelessness draws attention, commercial success is in the foreground.
Fifth, Germany, movie name “Dosenbier und Weinflaschen” – “Cans of beer and bottles of wine”
Stage Inside:
According to dw news:
“Merkel on Afghanistan — ‘Bitter, dramatic and terrifying’ “It is a terrible development for the millions of Afghans who want a more liberal society,” she said.
She paid tribute to the 59 German soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan, as well as those who were injured in action.
“I am thinking of the pain of families of soldiers who lost their lives fighting there. Now everything seems so hopeless.”
Stage Outside:
According to Bild news: “
With the headline “Beer and wine removed – local personnel remain”, “There was a carrying capacity for alcohol, but not for local personnel in Afghanistan.” evaluation was made.
In the news, it was reminded that at the beginning of June, when Germany was preparing to leave Afghanistan, it took out 65,000 beer cans and 340 wine bottles belonging to the German army from the country.
Although this is a coincidence in terms of timing, the German government’s priority given to people who worked for Germany for years and risked their lives in Afghanistan, the report said, “For the German government, they are less valuable than beer cans.” expression was used.
I don’t want to impress anyone who reads these lines, but I give this movie of the German government 5 full points! It was built on the love of beer, which is mostly identified with the German people in the world, and processed the brain work of the Germans, who are mechanical geniuses. Especially if we had been able to watch those drinks being loaded onto the planes in a systematic and disciplined Germans way, it would have been a visual feast! Congratulations to Merkel and her team, bravo!
If you want to give a rating or comment about these movies, you’re always welcome my earthling friends!
The FBI is facing yet another controversy over what court documents is the theft of the life’s savings of 800 random people at the U.S. Private Vaults safety deposit box storage in Beverly Hills .
Federal agents raided U.S. Private Vaults and asserted in court last February that the business was a front for laundered drug money. Six months later, nobody has been charged and the US Attorney prosecuting the case has not provided any updates.
…
…
More than 2000 protesters shouting anti-vaccination
messages have marched through Melbourne’s CBD, as the construction industry reels from a snap two-week shutdown imposed overnight on Monday.
After marching onto the West Gate Bridge, the protesters turned back into the city and were met by a line of riot police, who appeared to fire tear gas or rubber pellets at the crowd.
…
A court in Rwanda says the man who inspired the movie
Hotel Rwanda, Paul Rusesabagina, has been found guilty of terror-related
offences.
…
… The European Court of Human Rights (EHCR) has ruled that Russia was
responsible for the 2006 killing of ex-KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko,
who died an agonising death after he was poisoned in London with
Polonium 210, a rare radioactive isotope.
…
The claims, if false, could be the basis for defamation and a separate lawsuit against Lizza and Hearst by the family farm, NuStar, was previously found valid for the purposes of a trial. The issue was the separate Nunes complaint and federal judge C.J. Williams rejected his claims because “[m]oving or concealing a move is not a crime. Because the object of the ‘conspiracy’ is harmless, no reasonable reader could interpret the term ‘conspiracy’ to imply criminal conduct in this context.”
The appellate panel agreed that there was no express defamatory statement in the article. However, it found that a reasonable jury could find it defamatory by implication. As such, the statements do no need to be individually defamatory by creates defamatory meaning in the juxtaposing of fact or omitting facts. The court ruled that “[b]ased on the article’s presentation of facts, we think the complaint plausibly alleges that a reasonable reader could draw the implication that Representative Nunes conspired to hide the farm’s use of undocumented labor.”
The problem for Nunes is that he is a public official. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. This is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. As such, public officials and public figures must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
Notably, Nunes sought to challenge New York Times v. Sullivan, which a lower court could not set aside. Presumably, he will seek an eventual Supreme Court review to achieve that purpose. However, the appellate court is bound to follow the precedent and held “[u]nder that demanding standard, we agree with the district court that the complaint is insufficient to state a claim of actual malice as to the original publication.”
That is when the case took a very interesting turn. The Court found that Lizza later retweeting and linking to his story created a viable basis for defamation. Under the “single publication” rule any one edition of a book or newspaper, even if distributed to in thousands of copies, constitutes one publication that may support only one cause of action. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577A(3) (Am. L. Inst. 1977). However, there can be liability for a “republication.”
That is what the court found Lizza did when he later retweeted the publication. On November 20, 2019, Lizza tweeted: “I noticed that Devin Nunes is in the news. If you’re interested in a strange tale about Nunes, small-town Iowa, the complexities of immigration policy, a few car chases, and lots of cows, I’ve got a story for you.” That, according to the panel, tripped the wire by showing actual malice since he was now aware of the denials of involvement in the farm:
“The complaint here adequately alleges that Lizza intended to reach and actually reached a new audience by publishing a tweet about Nunes and a link to the article. In November 2019, Lizza was on notice of the article’s alleged defamatory implication by virtue of this lawsuit. The complaint alleges that he then consciously presented the material to a new audience by encouraging readers to peruse his “strange tale” about “immigration policy,” and promoting that “I’ve got a story for you.” Under those circumstances, the complaint sufficiently alleges that Lizza republished the article after he knew that the Congressman denied knowledge of undocumented labor on the farm or participation in any conspiracy to hide it.”
It is important to keep in mind that the “actual malice” standard can be shown by either making knowingly false statements or showing a reckless disregard for the truth. The irresistible impulse to strike out at Nunes may prove extremely costly for Lizza.
The panel held:
“Lizza tweeted the article in November 2019 after Nunes filed this lawsuit and denied the article’s implication. The pleaded facts are suggestive enough to render it plausible that Lizza, at that point, engaged in “the purposeful avoidance of the truth.” Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 692.”
This could present a major new precedent if it is appealed to the Supreme Court. First, it could allow the Court to review New York Times v. Sullivangiven the questions raised by some justices recently about the case. Second, even if Sullivan is safe, it could expand possible liability by treating social media links and retweets as republications.
We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalismand the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. This ruling could present a serious push back on advocacy journalism where the line between fact and opinion is becoming increasingly blurry.
Here is the decision: Nunes opinion
By Yvonne Ridley | MEMO| September 20, 2021
Palestine Action is, as its name implies, involved in direct action against some of the arms trade’s most deadly production lines, notably Israel’s Elbit Systems. Since it burst onto the scene, quite a few members have been arrested at some of Elbit’s ten known factories and offices in Britain.
Elbit Systems is Israel’s largest arms company; it makes deadly “unmanned aerial vehicles”, known as drones. Palestine Action’s trademark calling card is deep red paint; it has used gallons since last year, symbolising the blood of innocents spilled in drone strikes.
Recently, the group has expanded its brief from targeting weapons factories to spraying the tented entrance of Britain’s biggest arms fair — DSEI at London’s ExCel Centre — to remind those seeking to buy weapons of the bloodshed caused by the products marketed within. Key exhibitors such as Elbit Systems, Raytheon, BAE Systems, and Lockheed Martin use arms fairs to market their deadly technology and products to governments from around the world. Perhaps they should be the focus of police interest rather than members of Palestine Action.
Like many others, I am sick and tired of half-hearted apologies from the armed forces which use (or misuse) their weaponry. There’s nothing “smart” about a precision-guided missile which kills innocent civilians as — and I hate this term — collateral damage. There is no such thing as a clinical kill, a point agreed by several protest groups which have criticised the arms fair for its role in enabling the destructive US-UK war in Afghanistan over the past twenty years.
According to US policy, attacks by drones are not to go ahead if there is a probability that innocent civilians will be killed or injured. As we found out a few days ago, the US doesn’t really have a clue who it’s blowing up. Call me naïve, but it seems that the only certain thing when a drone takes to the air is, that innocent civilians will die, whether they’re Afghani, Iraqi, Pakistani, Yemeni, Syrian, or Palestinian.
Drone attacks were much favoured by Barack Obama who joked about their efficiency. One news story illustrated how much he ordered their use by pointing out that it would take the former US president more than three years to get through them all if he apologised to one innocent person a day. Human rights groups have demanded transparency from all US presidents since the Bush administration launched its drone wars, but there remains very little clarity on the number of civilians killed.
I’ve suspected this for many years. After the most recent US apology for killing civilians, I had a sense of déjà vu. In April 2003, I travelled solo to Paktika in Afghanistan after hearing rumours of an atrocity against innocent civilians in a district called Bermal. All eyes were focused on Iraq so even though I got the story, it was difficult to find someone to publish it. There’s only so much injustice against the people of Asia and the Middle East that the media is prepared to broadcast or publish.
While I was investigating the atrocity in southern Afghanistan, a senior US army officer was also in the district with hush money to keep Afghan villagers quiet. He did not want people talking to me in case I found out that America had killed eleven children in another deadly blunder.
The Pentagon had claimed that it destroyed a Taliban stronghold when, in fact, US forces had destroyed a house. The grieving mother — Sawara was her name —lost all of her nine children in the attack. She was like an empty shell when I finally spoke to her.
She and her husband Mawes Khan had put their children to bed in the family home they shared with his brother Sardar, and his wife and their seven children. By morning, the corpses of eleven brothers, sisters, and cousins lay in a neat row in the courtyard. The Americans realised the full extent of their mistake and gave the family the equivalent of £6,350 and an apology.
That happened two years into the war when the number of dead Afghan civilians was not deemed important enough to register. How much compensation will the Americans pay to Zemari Ahmadi after wiping out ten members of his family, including eight children? The admission of guilt and an apology were only forthcoming because the world’s media was in Kabul on the day of the attack and had access to the scene of devastation as well as eyewitnesses and survivors to interview.
The media in Washington was briefed about how an unnamed ISIS-Khorasan fighter had been in a vehicle with an associate at the time of the strike, which was carried out by an MQ-9 Reaper drone. Captain Bill Urban, spokesman for US Central Command, assured journalists that the military had used specially chosen precision munitions in order to minimise civilian casualties. In essence, the compliant media was being fed propaganda packed with deceptive euphemisms.
The drone attack on the eve of the departure of the last US troops had come three days after Isis-Khorisan terrorists killed dozens of Afghan civilians, nearly 30 Taliban soldiers, and thirteen members of the US military in a suicide bombing at the gates of Kabul Airport. Civilians always suffer when the US rushes in to wreak revenge.
This week we heard US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin apologise for a “horrible mistake” after he admitted: “We now know that there was no connection between Mr Ahmadi and Isis-Khorasan, that his activities on that day were completely harmless and not at all related to the imminent threat we believed we faced, and that Mr Ahmadi was just as innocent a victim as were the others tragically killed.”
Compare this with the narrative pushed out on 29 August when the US military claimed triumphantly to have taken out ISIS terrorists and that there had been “significant secondary explosions from the vehicle”, suggesting that explosives were on board. Journalists were told that there were “no indications” of civilian casualties. As I said, America would have got away with the lies had there not been so many foreign journalists on the ground.
It emerged that Zemari Ahmadi is an engineer for aid group Nutrition and Education International. He was observed placing large water bottles or jugs into the back of his white car. US intelligence (surely a contradiction in terms) interpreted this as an ISIS-K member packing explosives into a vehicle for another suicide mission.
It is time for the world to accept that there’s no such thing as a surgical strike and that unmanned drones are among the worst weapons for producing civilian casualties. It would, therefore, make more sense to listen to groups like Palestine Action rather than deploy deadly weapons which have a track record of killing innocent people.
The theme of the DSEI fair at the ExCel Centre was “Integrated Response to Future Threats”, with a focus on drone warfare and surveillance technology. Palestine Action says that this will mean a greater role for drones in British policing as the government enters new procurement and training contracts with the likes of Elbit Systems. According to the activists’ press release, the London fair and a similar exhibition in Liverpool “serve a similar purpose of normalising these firms’ operations and providing an open market for the exchange of the weapons of war. Palestine Action is calling for the cancellation of both events and the ceasing of these firms’ operations on British soil, failing which direct action will continue and will escalate.”
Drone strikes outside the declared war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq are the province of the CIA and the secretive US Joint Special Operations Command. Various US administrations have treated them as official secrets. In the absence of justice for the families of those killed accidentally and/or targeted in drone strikes, civil disobedience and resistance is thus the duty of all reasonable people in war zones like Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, and elsewhere.
It is easy for governments to demonise dead civilians as “terrorists” because most are killed in remote areas where the absence of justice or journalists makes it easier for the authorities to bury their mistakes. With governments prepared to lie or twist the facts, weapons manufacturers should be careful about those to whom they sell their arms, or be ready to be accused of complicity in war crimes.
We now suspect that the Palestinian children killed while playing on a beach in Gaza in 2014 were hit by an Israeli drone strike. The manufacturers are surely just as complicit as the Israeli soldiers who targeted young boys. Again, had journalists not been in an adjacent hotel when the strike took place, Israel might have got away with insulting everyone’s intelligence by claiming that Hamas “terrorists” were on active duty that day.
These are the sort of crimes that British police officers should be investigating, instead of arresting the people who draw attention to international war crimes and criminal negligence which led to the killing of Palestine’s 9-year-old Ismayil Bahar, 10-year-old Aed Bahar, 10-year-old Zacharia Bahar, and 11-year-old Muhammed Bahar on that Gaza beach; the Ahmadi family in Kabul earlier this month; and the Khan’s eleven children in Bermal in 2003, as well as the tens of thousands of others in-between. The law of universal jurisdiction exists to allow states to prosecute those responsible for international crimes committed elsewhere. The fact that few, if any such prosecutions go ahead, signals a degree of complicity at the highest levels of governments and judiciaries.
In such cases, it is not always the law that is an ass, but the people charged with implementing it and ensuring that justice is seen to be done for people like the Bahar, Ahmadi, and Khan families. Apologies and compensation are simply not good enough.
