Back In The USSA! | Call Me Stormy

https://callmestormy.net/2021/09/18/back-in-the-ussa-2/?amp=1

Nearly half the U.S. public thinks those jailed for the Jan. 6 siege on the Capitol are political prisoners, according to a Rasmussen poll. Thirty percent strongly agree, while 42 percent strongly disagree. Surprisingly, 45 percent of Democrats agree with with the assessment. With such sentiment penetrating our nation, how can a free republic move forward and survive?

Australian Court Overturns Dismissal Of Anti-Israeli Professor – JONATHAN TURLEY

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/05/australian-court-overturns-dismissal-of-anti-israeli-professor/

Facebook

There is an important ruling on academic freedom out of Australia where one of the most controversial academic figures in the country secured a ruling from a federal court to overturn his dismissal by Sidney University. Professor Tim Anderson was fired after inserting a swastika in the middle of an Israeli flag and posting a picture of a lunch in which one of the guests wore badges that said “Death to Israel” and “Curse the Jews” written in Arabic. The lower court found that the academic freedom promised Anderson upon his hiring was unenforceable and largely aspirational. The ruling (below) found an enforceable standard, though this does not end the long controversy over Anderson’s status.

Anderson, a political economist, is an extremist voice in Australian political debates. He has criticized for pro-Iranian and anti-Israeli statements as well as remarks deemed anti-Semitic. He appears to have a tolerance for some of the most blood-soaked authoritarian regimes in the world with controversial visits to places like Syria and North Korea.

Anderson has been repeatedly accused to violent crimes in support of his views. In 1979, he was convicted and sentenced to 16 years for an alleged conspiracy to bomb the house of a far-right political figure as part of Ananda Marga, a socio-spiritual organization. After seven years in prison, he was released and later pardoned. In 1989, he was arrested again and convicted of three counts of murder for planning the Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing. However, that conviction was overturned on appeal in 1991.Despite his radical and allegedly violent past, Sidney University hired Anderson and, as part of the “Enterprise Agreement,” the university agreed to Clause 317 to “uphold the principle and practice of intellectual freedom in accordance with the highest ethical, professional and legal standards.”

That brings us to Anderson’s latest controversy. Anderson caused an outrage when he posted an image that included an Israeli flag with a swastika over it. It is a deeply offensive and disgraceful image. Anderson deserved to be roundly condemned for the posting but the Court correctly noted that this is still the expression of his view Israeli policies:

“Consider the PowerPoint presentation in more detail. It is the Israeli flag superimposed with the swastika which is the issue. Everything else in the PowerPoint presentation involves the expression of a legitimate view, open to debate, about the relative morality of the actions of Israel and Palestinian people. Dr Anderson is making a public comment asserting that the concept of moral equivalence between Israel and Palestinian people who attack Israel is false, in part, because of an asserted higher number of deaths of civilian Palestinians in Gaza from purportedly “precision attacks” by Israel compared to an asserted far lower number of deaths of people in Israel from purportedly “indiscriminate” attacks by Palestinians. He is including Israel within a long history of colonial exploitation by one political entity over another weaker entity or people. It does not matter whether this comparison may be considered by some or many people to be offensive or insensitive or wrong. As discussed, offence and insensitivity cannot be relevant criteria for deciding if conduct does or does not constitute the exercise of the right of intellectual freedom in accordance with cll 315 and 317.”

What is most notable for American civil libertarians is the references to academic freedom rather than free speech. In the United States, this would be viewed as a free speech question, particularly if committed by a state school. However, the construct is due to the contractual promise of academic or intellectual freedom afforded to faculty. That leaves an issue for renewed litigation as made clear by how the court addressed the lunch issue:

“277 The contrary submissions for the appellants are not persuasive. Insofar as the issue is one of connection to employment, it does not matter that Dr Anderson was not under any duty to post photographs or anything else on social media. He chose to do so in the described circumstances which create the sufficient connection to his employment. It does not matter that the posting of a social event does not “obviously” constitute public debate. The photo was made public and includes Mr Tharappel, an academic colleague of Dr Anderson’s at the University (see J [17]), wearing a jacket with the badge saying, in Arabic, “Death to Israel”, “Curse the Jews” and “Victory to all Islam”: J [220]. These are political comments connected with Dr Anderson’s academic work as an employee of the University. It does not matter that Dr Anderson was on leave or on about to be on sabbatical. He was still an employee of the University. It does not matter that the lunch photo was not captioned. The badge worn by Mr Tharappel spoke for itself. It does not matter that Dr Anderson made no comment about the badge. Dr Anderson chose to post the lunch photo on his Facebook account. It does not matter that in attending the lunch and posting the lunch photo Dr Anderson was engaging in a personal social activity. A person can be both engaging in a personal social activity and conduct themselves in a manner connected to their employment.

278 The question whether the University gave Dr Anderson a lawful and reasonable direction to remove the lunch photo depends on whether the lunch photo in fact constituted misconduct or serious misconduct which the primary judge did not decide. If it was in fact misconduct or serious misconduct to post the lunch photo, the University’s direction to remove the lunch photo was lawful and reasonable. If it was not misconduct or serious misconduct to post the lunch photo, the University’s direction to remove the lunch photo was unlawful and unreasonable.”

While condemning Anderson’s views, academic groups have rallied behind the case as an exercise of academic freedom. The ruling is a major win in that regard given the lower court’s view that this guarantee is effectively unenforceable. Yet, the court is sending the case back to define the limits of academic freedom. The notion that a professor could be canned for posting a picture of a third party wearing an anti-Israel badge is breathtaking. The picture can be seen in the opinion below.

Many however condemned not just Anderson but his use of free speech. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Ron Porat is quoted as saying Anderson is a mouthpiece for Iran and he and others are “exploiting the right to freedom of speech in this country, the Al-Tajamu network promotes support for murderous regimes and terrorists, and in some cases, also disseminates antisemitic tropes.”

This is not exploiting free speech. It is the essence of free speech. We do not need free speech protections for popular speech. It is a protection that guarantees that even the least popular among us will be allowed to speak. Anderson is the price we pay for free speech. His views and conduct are often repellent and hurtful. However, the same rights protect Porat and others in condemning his views and associations. Ironically, Anderson is enjoying not just free speech but due process that is utterly absent in places like North Korea and Iran. Yet, we do not protect Anderson because we agree with him. We protect him despite our disagreement with him in order to defend this fundamental right.

I am admittedly a free speech dinosaur. I believe in largely unfettered free speech, particularly for statements made off campus or outside of a classroom. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

Anderson was engaged in public discourse over his views of Israel and other matters. Such viewpoint expression must be protected if we are to maintain the needed bright line rule that protects us all. We are living in an age of rage where people often spend more time trying to silence opposing voices than responding to them. In this case, a court was willing to reduce academic freedom itself to a mere aspirational consideration for universities in yielding to campaigns for termination. While the continued litigation brings continued concerns over how speech could be curtailed in this case, this was a major victory for Australian academics despite their overwhelming disapproval of the views of Professor Anderson.

While condemning Anderson’s views, academic groups have rallied behind the case as an exercise of academic freedom. The ruling is a major win in that regard given the lower court’s view that this guarantee is effectively unenforceable. Yet, the court is sending the case back to define the limits of academic freedom. The notion that a professor could be canned for posting a picture of a third party wearing an anti-Israel badge is breathtaking. The picture can be seen in the opinion below.

Many however condemned not just Anderson but his use of free speech. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Ron Porat is quoted as sayingAnderson is a mouthpiece for Iran and he and others are “exploiting the right to freedom of speech in this country, the Al-Tajamu network promotes support for murderous regimes and terrorists, and in some cases, also disseminates antisemitic tropes.”

This is not exploiting free speech. It is the essence of free speech. We do not need free speech protections for popular speech. It is a protection that guarantees that even the least popular among us will be allowed to speak. Anderson is the price we pay for free speech. His views and conduct are often repellent and hurtful. However, the same rights protect Porat and others in condemning his views and associations. Ironically, Anderson is enjoying not just free speech but due process that is utterly absent in places like North Korea and Iran. Yet, we do not protect Anderson because we agree with him. We protect him despite our disagreement with him in order to defend this fundamental right.

I am admittedly a free speech dinosaur. I believe in largely unfettered free speech, particularly for statements made off campus or outside of a classroom. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

Anderson was engaged in public discourse over his views of Israel and other matters. Such viewpoint expression must be protected if we are to maintain the needed bright line rule that protects us all. We are living in an age of rage where people often spend more time trying to silence opposing voices than responding to them. In this case, a court was willing to reduce academic freedom itself to a mere aspirational consideration for universities in yielding to campaigns for termination. While the continued litigation brings continued concerns over how speech could be curtailed in this case, this was a major victory for Australian academics despite their overwhelming disapproval of the views of Professor Anderson.

Here is the opinion: NTEU and Anderson v University of Sydney [2021] FCAFC 159.

35 repatriated after Coast Guard stops Cuban migrants off Key West, Marathon – WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports | Fort Lauderdale

Comment by tonytran2015: Why cannot Cubans claim to be political refugees?

https://wsvn.com/news/local/florida/35-repatriated-after-coast-guard-stops-cuban-migrants-off-key-west-marathon/

NZ terror attack: Ahamed Aathill Mohammad Samsudeen

Comment by tonytran2015: Why didn’t some person fleeing Sri Lanka go to any nearer countries such as India, Pakistan or Bangladesh ?

https://www.smh.com.au/world/oceania/terrorist-who-stabbed-6-people-in-nz-named-20210904-p58otd.html

…Samsudeen’s refugee status was granted on December 20, 2013 after a tribunal found he had a well-founded fear of facing harm if he returned
to Sri Lanka…

Another instance of FBI anti-Trump sentiments rocks Whitmer kidnap plot case

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/09/04/another-instance-of-fbi-anti-trump-sentiments-rocks-whitmer-kidnap-plot-case/
Agent who called former president ‘a piece of sh-t’ on social media precluded from testifying. Go to Source Author: {Just The News}… Read more

Australia Passes Sweeping Online Surveillance Bill Amid Privacy Concerns – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2021/09/01/australia-passes-sweeping-online-surveillance-bill-amid-privacy-concerns/

The Australian federal government last week passed a sweeping surveillance bill that would grant top law enforcement agencies the authority to take over social media accounts and hack the devices of individuals suspected of participating in serious online crime.

The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identity and Disrupt) Bill 2020 passed both houses of federal parliament on Aug. 25, and introduces three new powers which Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews argues will assist law enforcement in keeping up with evolving technologies to protect Australians.

Specifically, the legislation grants the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) the power to modify or delete the data of suspected offenders, collect intelligence on criminal networks, and take control of suspected offenders’ online accounts.

Those who refuse to comply can face up to 10 years in prison.

In defending the legislation, Andrews cited an operation earlier this year that resulted in 290 arrests, saying that this “confirmed the persistent and ever evolving threat of transnational, serious and organised crime—and the reliance of these networks on the dark web and anonymising technology to conceal their offending.”

“In Operation Ironside, ingenuity and world-class capability gave our law enforcement an edge. This bill is just one more step the government is taking to ensure our agencies maintain that edge,” the minister said in a statement.

“Under our changes the AFP will have more tools to pursue organised crime gangs to keep drugs off our street and out of our community, and those who commit the most heinous crimes against children,” she added.

Passage of the bill however has been met with scrutiny, with some human rights activists saying it’s a “draconian” and “extreme” infringement on an individual’s right to privacy.

Earlier this year, Bill Rowlings, CEO of rights group Civil Liberties Australia, called for the measure to be scrapped.

“These are particularly draconian and particularly bad, so my message would be to throw these out, start again and get some proper consultation from the beginning,” he told SBS Newsin March.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has separately expressed concern that these powers may adversely impact the privacy of a large number of individuals, including individuals not suspected of involvement in criminal activity.

“Given the privacy impact of these law enforcement powers on a broad range of individuals and networks, they should be accompanied by appropriate privacy safeguards,” the OAIC said in March.

Upon passage of the bill, some legal bodies have also argued that the federal government ignored recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) on the implementation of critical safeguards.

According to Sky News, President of the Law Council Dr. Jacoba Brasch QC said that these powers “have the potential to cause significant loss, damage or disruption to lawful computer users who are not suspected of any wrongdoing.”

Senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, Kieran Pender, told the news outlet that given the “unprecedented” and “extraordinarily intrusive” nature of these powers, they should have been narrowed to what is strictly necessary and subject to robust safeguards.

“It is alarming that, instead of accepting the Committee’s recommendations and allowing time for scrutiny of subsequent amendments, the Morrison Government rushed these laws through Parliament in less than 24 hours,” he added.

The bill is now awaiting Royal Assent, the final step before it becomes law.

Chase Bank Cancels General Mike Flynn’s Credit Cards

Comment by tonytran2015: Emergency Services may next refuse to attend to cases from political opponents.

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/08/30/chase-bank-cancels-general-mike-flynns-credit-cards/
Chase Bank has canceled General Mike Flynn’s personal credit card, citing “possible reputational risk to our company.” 🚨🚨BREAKING: Chase Bank cancels its credit card accounts with General Flynn citing possible “reputational risk” to their company. In case there was any doubt what is happening in this country. […]

Ex-NSA head cheers for sending ‘unvaxxed MAGA’ Americans to Afghanistan, compares Trump supporters to Taliban — RT USA News

https://www.rt.com/usa/532851-michael-hayden-taliban-trump-antivax/

Former CIA and NSA head Michael Hayden has applauded treating
fans of ex-president Donald Trump as subhuman – or at least second-class
citizens, cheering a suggestion they be thrown out of the country and
compared to the Taliban.
On Sunday, Hayden retweeted a post suggesting sending “MAGA-wearing unvaxxed” Americans to Afghanistan rather than sending the evacuation planes “back empty” after they deposited those fleeing the Taliban elsewhere, calling it a “good idea.”

The
General also retweeted an image of pickup trucks with Trump flags
stretching over a road as far as the eye could see, reminiscent of
similar images of identical Toyota pickups driven by ISIS. Ironically,
those trucks were also likely American in origin. ISIS is also, notably, not the Taliban.

The
former intelligence chief also posted a photoshopped image of the child
from the Sixth Sense film inside a car surrounded by anti-vaccine
protesters, the caption reading “I see soon-to-be-dead people” – a threat or a sardonic observation, depending on how one reads it.

Hayden’s retweet spree appears to be part of a growing effort among national security bigwigs to bring the “War on Terror” home – an effort that is sure to escalate now that the war in Afghanistan is, at least in theory, over.

With
anti-terror dollars burning holes in their pockets and a presidential
administration still doggedly insisting that January 6 was an armed
insurrection that came a hair’s breadth from overthrowing American
democracy, the national security apparatus is no doubt going to continue
inflating the threat of “Vanilla ISIS” – a cringe-inducing
mash-up between the rapper of ‘Ice Ice Baby’ fame and the terror group –
used by some observers to describe white Trump supporters, until
ordinary Americans, too, fear the terrorists next door.

FBI director Christopher Wray has warned for months that “white supremacists” and other so-called “home-grown extremists
pose the worst threat to Americans, while the Department of Homeland
Security earlier this month published a terrorism warning seemingly
likening Americans protesting draconian anti-coronavirus restrictions to
would-be al-Qaeda nostalgists celebrating the anniversary of September
11.



Also on rt.com
Biden administration warns of threat from anti-lockdown ‘extremists’ & terrorist sympathizers marking 9/11 anniversary

While the DHS admitted there were “no credible or imminent threats identified,”
that didn’t stop them from wielding the empty threat like a bludgeon,
as visions of their French, Italian, and British counterparts being
swarmed by ordinary protesting citizens no doubt has their American
counterparts quaking in their combat boots.

The most recent group
of generals to take office at the Pentagon under Biden haven’t gotten
their communications channels straight, apparently, as Press Secretary
John Kirby acknowledged he was “not familiar” with the US Embassy’s warning not to travel to the Kabul airport.

The Biden administration and its allies in the Democratic Party have also been working hard to conflate so-called “anti-vaxxers” with other forms of “home-grown extremists,”
calling for Facebook and other social networks to remove their accounts
and – in some cases – even suggesting exceptions be made in the First
Amendment for criminalizing their speech. One bill proposed by Senate
Democrats insists social media platforms should be held liable for their
failure” to remove “health and vaccine-related misinformation during public health emergencies.”

The
bill was proposed by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) and Ben Ray
Lujan (D-New Mexico) last month shortly after it became publicly known
that the Biden administration was openly asking Facebook and other
social networks to remove certain posts.



Also on rt.com
Tony Blair calls US Afghanistan withdrawal ‘imbecilic’ – What, then, was the Bush-Blair invasion of 2001?

Editorials in mainstream publications have repeatedly compared
the vaccine-hesitant to terrorists, and cities like New York and San
Francisco have taken matters even further, barring the non-vaccinated
from entering most places of business.

And indeed, further
incursions on the rights of the unvaccinated would be right up Hayden’s
alley. He described the constitutional protections guaranteed by the
Fourth Amendment – which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure – as
having changed following the September 11 terror attacks, infamously
explaining in a speech several years later that the NSA “doesn’t just listen to bad people. NSA listens to interesting people. People who are communicating information.

Or, dare he say it…“mis”information?

‘Proud Boys’ leader sentenced to jail for burning BLM banner in DC and having rifle magazine — RT USA News

https://www.rt.com/usa/532865-proud-boys-leader-tarrio-jailed/

Leader of the ‘Proud Boys’ group Enrique Tarrio was sentenced to
a total of 300 days in jail for bringing a loaded rifle magazine into
Washington, DC and setting a Black Lives Matter banner on fire outside a
church.
Tarrio was given 240 days
in prison – 90 of them suspended – and a fine for the unlawful
possession of the magazine, and another 60 days for destroying the
banner. Judge Harold L. Cushenberry Jr. of DC Superior Court handed down
the sentence on Monday.

He
is expected to report to the same DC jail where the hundreds of people
charged in the January 6 riot at the US Capitol are currently being
held.

“This court must respect the right of any citizen to peacefully assemble, protest, and make his or her views known on issues,” Cushenberry said at the sentencing, according to CNN.

“But
Mr. Tarrio’s conduct in these criminal cases vindicate none of these
democratic values. Instead, Mr. Tarrio’s actions betrayed them.”



Also on rt.com
‘Case closed’: Police shooting of Ashli Babbitt during January 6 riots ruled ‘lawful,’ officer will NOT face disciplinary action

Tarrio “clearly, intentionally and proudly crossed the line
from peaceful protest and assembly to dangerous and potentially violent
criminal conduct,” the judge added.

The ‘Proud Boys’ chairman
wasn’t actually in DC on January 6. He was arrested the day prior – at
which point the police found the rifle magazines in his possession – for
the alleged “hate crime” of setting the banner on fire during a demonstration in December, and ordered to leave the city.

At
Monday’s sentencing hearing the pastor of the church from which Tarrio
took the Black Lives Matter banner said that its burning “sparked feelings of hurt, anger, confusion.”

“I made a grave mistake,” Tarrio told the judge after that testimony, adding that he would “like to profusely apologize” for his actions, describing them as “wrong.”



Also on rt.com
SHOOTING erupts as Antifa & Proud Boys clash violently in Portland (VIDEOS)

That was quite a change from his statements back in December,
when he admitted to being responsible for burning the sign. He said he
didn’t do it out of hate but “out of love,” calling BLM “a racist movement that has terrorized the citizens of this country.”

“Internal Investigation” Exonerates Cop Who Murdered Ashli Babbitt…Cop’s Lawyer Claims He Can’t Be Heard Warning Ashli He Was Going To Shoot Her Because of His Face Mask! – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2021/08/21/internal-investigation-exonerates-cop-who-murdered-ashli-babbittcops-lawyer-claims-he-cant-be-heard-warning-ashli-he-was-going-to-shoot-her-because-of-his/

Source: Patty McMurray

The question of who shot and killed US Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt remains unanswered, and as time goes on, more people are demanding answers. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) has called for answers about who killed Ashli and has requested the videotape from the day of the shooting at the Capitol.

Rep. Devin Nunes called for answers: The family has now filed a lawsuit. And with any normal circumstance where you have an officer-involved shooting, you have people who go out there and say, “Where’s the videotape? Where’s the videotape? We need to know what officer did this… Why are we living under a different set of rules? I think that’s what the Babbit family is asking, and I agree with them. We should know who the shooter is… House Republicans still have not seen the videotapes. There are reportedly 14,000 hours of videotapes from inside the Capitol. Why is that? Why do we not have that? Why do we not have an accounting of the dozens of people who broke the windows versus the people who just walked in openly because the Capitol police let them in?

Meanwhile, the family of Ashli Babbitt is suing the Metropolitan Police Department for records of the officer who fatally shot her at the January 6th Capitol riots. Babbitt’s husband (PICTURED BELOW) has also filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the records from the Metropolitan Police Department.

The lawsuit asks for all video footage of the shooting at the Capitol on January 6th and witness statements and documents gathered during an investigation into her death.

The Department of Justice decided not to pursue criminal charges against the police officer responsible in mid-April.

Department officials said at the time; an investigation found he was likely acting in self-defense as Babbitt crawled through a window.

The family of Ashli Babbitt is also pursuing another lawsuit against the Metropolitan Police Department, claiming he used excessive force. They are asking for more than $10 million in that lawsuit.

Now, it’s being reported that after an “internal investigation,” the Capitol cop that murdered the unarmed veteran has been exonerated.

The Daily Mail reports- The commander of the Capitol Police’s Office of Personal Responsibility says ‘no further action will be taken in this matter,’ according to a memo obtained by NBC News.

In April, the Department of Justice said it wouldn’t be filing charges against the officer, so the conclusion of the internal probe ends the official investigation.

Babbitt’s family told The Washington Examiner earlier this month that they plan on filing a $10million wrongful death lawsuit, claiming a plainclothes officer didn’t issue a verbal command.

The family’s lawyer, Terry Roberts, alluded to a video of the Air Force veteran being shot and said the fact that no one appears to be ducking for cover in the moments before Babbitt was killed also suggests that the cop gave no verbal warning.

The cop’s lawyer denied this in previous interviews and said his client issued multiple verbal commands but that they weren’t audible on the video because he was wearing a mask.

Hmmm…does that mean all future “accidental” shootings of unarmed Americans will be excused if the cop was wearing a face covering and couldn’t be heard on his bodycam yelling, “I’m going to shoot you!”???