So, imagine this happening in America? Where's the outrage?
by Nick Mottern
It is a grim prospect that the US would prefer to leave in the shadows, judging from the unwillingness of US military spokespersons to provide comprehensive responses to email questions on Iraqi detention presented to them over the last six months. The small amount of information that the Pentagon has provided, however, suggests that many if not most in Iraqi prisons are facing harsh conditions with no legal representation - a violation of their rights under international law.
This conclusion is reinforced by a hunger strike of 300 detainees protesting their treatment in Rusafa prison near Baghdad that started over the weekend of June 13-14, 2009, according to a June 16 Associated Press report. Iraq's Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani, the report also said, would charge 40 police officers for jailing inmates without warrants and other rights violations.
On June 12, 2009, Harith al-Obaidi, perhaps Iraq's leading campaigner against abuse in Iraqi prisons, a Sunni cleric and deputy chair of the Parliament's human rights committee, was assassinated one day after condemning prison abuse in a fiery debate in Parliament. Mr. Obaidi, the report said, "was fighting against such practices as torture and indefinite detention for prisoners, and was trying to improve their living conditions."
Emails requesting information on what the US military knows about torture in Iraqi prisons have brought no response, with the exception that I was referred by a military press officer in Baghdad to a June 7, 2009, Agence France Presse (AFP) report on torture and prisoner abuse. The article says that the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior investigated the torture of 10 prisoners at a prison in Diwaniyah and that the chief of the prison and interrogators there were transferred to another prison. The AFP report said the ministry also reported that eight prisoners at a prison in Amara, arrested in June 2008, had gone on a hunger strike protesting the delay in processing their cases.
In response to questions about conditions in Iraqi prisons, the Pentagon has taken the position most recently stated in a June 30, 2009, email from a military press officer: "The US does not run prisons, the Iraqis do."
The US is likely to have, however, detailed knowledge of conditions within Iraqi prisons, judging from a December 5, 2008, DoD email saying: "U.S. advisors and trainers are co-located in many of the Iraqi prisons to which Iraqi nationals are transferred. These individuals provide real-time mentoring and training to assist the Government of Iraq in meeting international standards of judicial and human rights."
The Pentagon has failed over the last six months to answer questions about specifics of the prison mentoring program. The Pentagon did provide some insight into Iraqi prison conditions, whether intentionally or not, in the person of David King, a British civil servant working with US forces in Iraq. In answer to questions on conditions in Iraqi prisons during a Pentagon-sponsored phone conference for Internet reporters on April 17, 2009, Mr. King gave what appears to be the most forthcoming description of Iraqi prison conditions provided directly by any Pentagon-connected source:
"I personally engage on issues that arise around detention facilities and the sort of challenge that there is between operational pressure and frankly the rule of law now. And I have been to a number of facilities. So I do have some idea of the issues that face up ... "I would sort of say that, in the round ... it's an uncomfortable place to be, to be in an MOD (Iraqi Ministry of Defense) facility. If you judged it by the standards we hope at our best we'd apply in, say, the US and the UK, we would say that they are very overcrowded ... and they are very poorly equipped. And they are, therefore, uncomfortable.
"But there are some cultural pieces to this about a willingness to accept more people in a smaller space that we might. I make no judgment on that, but overcrowding, and overcrowding is an issue in many facilities; it's not an issue in all of them. "And if I'm specific, again, medical conditions - I do hear often, I do see, issues that result from proximity of people and lack of light and lack of air. You know, as I say, these are not - these are not great places."
Mr. King went on to say that he had also seen good care in Iraq prisons and "some improvements" and that "quite a few of the indicators are the right way ... in terms of getting clean bedding and clean clothing to people, getting visits to detainees, getting family access, getting notification to the families after arrests. These are things which are better than they were. "But there is no disguising the fact that the detention facilities, even in the MOD, are not ideal."
Mr. King said that overcrowding is related to military operations "where people are being picked up for what should be - sometimes is, sometimes isn't - a short period before investigation and either release or processing into the system. So overcrowding tends to be worse in areas where there is - and this is understandable - where there is an intense effort to try to deal with the terrorism in the field."
Continue reading:
http://www.truthout.org/070609A?n
09 July, 2009
The David Bradley Effect
The corrupting effect of his off-the-record salons.
By Jack Shafer
http://www.slate.com/id/2222405/
The off-the-record-for-dollars salon scheme that got Katharine Weymouth and the Washington Post in so much trouble last week prompted TPM Muckraker to flush David Bradley - owner and publisher of the Atlantic - into the open about his salon-happy organization.
In an interoffice memo that he posted to the Web yesterday, Bradley defended the corporately sponsored, off-the-record public-policy dinners that his company has been hosting for "a half-dozen years" in his patented self-effacing manner. He claims that his presence at his sponsored dinners "as to all things - tends to dampen high spirits." Elsewhere in the memo, Bradley writes, "Please forgive me if this runs long." Oh, no, David! It's your blogspace and your defense! Go on as long as you'd like! I'll even hold your coat while you do!
Bradley separates the intimate, off-the-record dinners he throws for policymakers and journalists in which no money changes hands, written about in April by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, and the buck-raking, targeted ones that he convenes for corporate sponsors such as AstraZeneca, Microsoft, GE, Allstate, and Citi. As TPM Muckraker reported, the topics presented at Bradley's paid sessions have been financially relevant to the sponsors (in order, health care, global trade, energy, the American city, global markets).
There's not much new or wildly controversial about Bradley's noncommercial sessions. In its various incarnations over the decades, the Georgetown journalism establishment has tossed a million off-the-record dinners for the powerful. Former Washington Post Co. Chairman Katharine Graham served so many meals to notables at her Georgetown mansion that the District of Columbia's Food Safety Division could have easily insisted on conducting regular health inspections of her kitchen. You might not like the fact that the journalists and politicians socialize, but you can't do much about it.
It's Bradley's corporate salons and his defense of them that deserve scrutiny. He claims that the sessions are placed off the record to avoid canned remarks. "My own view is that there is a great deal of constructive conversation that can take place only with the promise that no headline is being written," he writes.
Has Bradley never attended a function at the Cato Institute, where the repeal of the drug laws, the phasing out of Social Security, the privatization of education, the dismantling of the Cold War war machine, and other contentious topics are discussed openly and cordially on a regular basis? The same can be said for discussions at the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for American Progress, and other think tank venues. Elsewhere in his memo, Bradley applauds his company's ability to attract "authors and activists" representing "all sides of an issue" at its talks: "conservatives and liberals, conservative think tanks and liberal think tanks, corporations and consumer groups, all manner of associations and all manner of environmental, health advocacy and public interest groups. The art here is bringing disparate parties to table for a constructive conversation."
It's fantasy to imagine that there's any "art" to staging constructive conversation in Washington, and Bradley knows it. All that's required is the selection of a topic in the news, the recruitment of a few interesting speakers, the procurement of a small auditorium or hall, the distribution of a few hundred invitations, and the production of an attractive cheese-ball-and-white-wine spread. Hit those marks, and the city's journalists, bureaucrats, office-holders, scholars, lobbyists, activists, policymakers, and freeloaders will storm your event to genially wonk around the clock. It would be easier to get a nap at your average think tank debate than in a soundproof room.
So why Bradley's elaborate defense of the off-the-record rules? Going off the record is what Washingtonians do to make themselves feel important. By placing his paid salons off the record and charging high prices, Bradley makes them appear exclusive, valuable, and daring. The sponsors feel important because they think they're impressing their audience with their frankness and because they're encouraged into thinking that the off-the-record journalists and politicians are sharing electric insights they could never share with their readers. The politicians, well, the politicians live in their own cognitive dissonance bubble. Any audience will do.
The rest of the country knows how badly off-the-record stinks. In 2004, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's handler invited several regional reporters to meet his boss after he gave a speech in Omaha, Neb. Wolfowitz's comments would have to be attributed to a "senior Defense Department official," the handler said. The reporters replied that they and their editors had no interest in a no-name briefing. Besides, they noted, it was already public knowledge that Wolfowitz was the most senior Defense Department official in the region that day. Why the ridiculous sourcing arrangement? The standoff ended and the interview commenced when Wolfowitz agreed to go on the record.
If paid off-the-record salons are charades, why oppose them? For one thing, I hate to see anybody defrauded, even AstraZeneca. For another, no journalist should serve as an accomplice to fraud. But most important, the off-the-record comfort zones run by Bradley for the benefit of his corporate clients corrupts the business of journalism in deep, fundamental ways. Every new off-the-record venue drives a measurable quantity of political discourse out of the public sphere and into the private. It's in the interests of journalists and the public, as the Omaha press corps demonstrated, to push the powerful onto the record. Establishing safe harbors for them - and charging them for the privilege of anchorage - is not what journalism is about. The erection of such salons says this to corporations and public officials: You owe your candor not to the public but to one another, and journalistic organizations such as the Atlantic and the Washington Post will gladly pocket the cash to help you keep your "secrets."
http://www.slate.com/id/2222405/
By Jack Shafer
http://www.slate.com/id/2222405/
The off-the-record-for-dollars salon scheme that got Katharine Weymouth and the Washington Post in so much trouble last week prompted TPM Muckraker to flush David Bradley - owner and publisher of the Atlantic - into the open about his salon-happy organization.
In an interoffice memo that he posted to the Web yesterday, Bradley defended the corporately sponsored, off-the-record public-policy dinners that his company has been hosting for "a half-dozen years" in his patented self-effacing manner. He claims that his presence at his sponsored dinners "as to all things - tends to dampen high spirits." Elsewhere in the memo, Bradley writes, "Please forgive me if this runs long." Oh, no, David! It's your blogspace and your defense! Go on as long as you'd like! I'll even hold your coat while you do!
Bradley separates the intimate, off-the-record dinners he throws for policymakers and journalists in which no money changes hands, written about in April by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, and the buck-raking, targeted ones that he convenes for corporate sponsors such as AstraZeneca, Microsoft, GE, Allstate, and Citi. As TPM Muckraker reported, the topics presented at Bradley's paid sessions have been financially relevant to the sponsors (in order, health care, global trade, energy, the American city, global markets).
There's not much new or wildly controversial about Bradley's noncommercial sessions. In its various incarnations over the decades, the Georgetown journalism establishment has tossed a million off-the-record dinners for the powerful. Former Washington Post Co. Chairman Katharine Graham served so many meals to notables at her Georgetown mansion that the District of Columbia's Food Safety Division could have easily insisted on conducting regular health inspections of her kitchen. You might not like the fact that the journalists and politicians socialize, but you can't do much about it.
It's Bradley's corporate salons and his defense of them that deserve scrutiny. He claims that the sessions are placed off the record to avoid canned remarks. "My own view is that there is a great deal of constructive conversation that can take place only with the promise that no headline is being written," he writes.
Has Bradley never attended a function at the Cato Institute, where the repeal of the drug laws, the phasing out of Social Security, the privatization of education, the dismantling of the Cold War war machine, and other contentious topics are discussed openly and cordially on a regular basis? The same can be said for discussions at the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for American Progress, and other think tank venues. Elsewhere in his memo, Bradley applauds his company's ability to attract "authors and activists" representing "all sides of an issue" at its talks: "conservatives and liberals, conservative think tanks and liberal think tanks, corporations and consumer groups, all manner of associations and all manner of environmental, health advocacy and public interest groups. The art here is bringing disparate parties to table for a constructive conversation."
It's fantasy to imagine that there's any "art" to staging constructive conversation in Washington, and Bradley knows it. All that's required is the selection of a topic in the news, the recruitment of a few interesting speakers, the procurement of a small auditorium or hall, the distribution of a few hundred invitations, and the production of an attractive cheese-ball-and-white-wine spread. Hit those marks, and the city's journalists, bureaucrats, office-holders, scholars, lobbyists, activists, policymakers, and freeloaders will storm your event to genially wonk around the clock. It would be easier to get a nap at your average think tank debate than in a soundproof room.
So why Bradley's elaborate defense of the off-the-record rules? Going off the record is what Washingtonians do to make themselves feel important. By placing his paid salons off the record and charging high prices, Bradley makes them appear exclusive, valuable, and daring. The sponsors feel important because they think they're impressing their audience with their frankness and because they're encouraged into thinking that the off-the-record journalists and politicians are sharing electric insights they could never share with their readers. The politicians, well, the politicians live in their own cognitive dissonance bubble. Any audience will do.
The rest of the country knows how badly off-the-record stinks. In 2004, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's handler invited several regional reporters to meet his boss after he gave a speech in Omaha, Neb. Wolfowitz's comments would have to be attributed to a "senior Defense Department official," the handler said. The reporters replied that they and their editors had no interest in a no-name briefing. Besides, they noted, it was already public knowledge that Wolfowitz was the most senior Defense Department official in the region that day. Why the ridiculous sourcing arrangement? The standoff ended and the interview commenced when Wolfowitz agreed to go on the record.
If paid off-the-record salons are charades, why oppose them? For one thing, I hate to see anybody defrauded, even AstraZeneca. For another, no journalist should serve as an accomplice to fraud. But most important, the off-the-record comfort zones run by Bradley for the benefit of his corporate clients corrupts the business of journalism in deep, fundamental ways. Every new off-the-record venue drives a measurable quantity of political discourse out of the public sphere and into the private. It's in the interests of journalists and the public, as the Omaha press corps demonstrated, to push the powerful onto the record. Establishing safe harbors for them - and charging them for the privilege of anchorage - is not what journalism is about. The erection of such salons says this to corporations and public officials: You owe your candor not to the public but to one another, and journalistic organizations such as the Atlantic and the Washington Post will gladly pocket the cash to help you keep your "secrets."
http://www.slate.com/id/2222405/
08 July, 2009
Updated CIA renditions trial
Obama, NSA, CIA and the Bible, better be getting paranoid ;o) (the title is the link)
06 July, 2009
To damn the torrential rivers of blood . . .
By Jason Miller
Years of introspection and profound soul searching—intrepidly trekking the seemingly infinite number of unexplored, untamed, thorny and treacherous paths winding circuitously through my psyche—led me to naively conclude that I’d sketched out a nearly complete map of who I am, my worldview, and my purpose.
Fortunately a chain of events that began unfolding several months ago, and recently culminated when I immersed myself in the company of some of the most dedicated, knowledgeable, and passionate animal activists with whom I’ve had the privilege to associate,[1] shattered my semi-complacency and ignited my passion to launch yet another thorough and harrowing examination of who I am and what I believe—a “revaluation of all values” if you will–including the inevitable significant growing pains of personal evolution. While I recognize that my core sense of self, general worldview, and essential beliefs are relatively immutable, there’s still plenty of room for discovery and growth.
Steve Best commented to me about a year ago that he wanted to make philosophy dangerous again. With that in mind, I’ve come to some radical conclusions about us humans and our largely reprehensible ways of being as a species. Indulge me as I “philosophize with a hammer,” driving home some ideologies, thoughts, observations, principles, and assertions that will bludgeon some of the sacred tenets of the anthropocentric Judeo-Christian status quo of Western Civilization, evoke the wrath of hardened speciesists who lash out like spoiled children when people challenge their “unassailable right” to torture, murder, and eat other sentient beings, and leave me about as popular as an agitated, unleashed pit bull at a Cat Fanciers’ Association show.
Despite the nearly unanimous anthropocentric belief that we human animals are superior to nonhuman animals, we are equal—AT BEST. In fact, our collective malevolence, greed, apathy, belligerence, arrogance, selfishness and tendency to dominate, exploit, and mutilate the Earth and its other inhabitants, have me convinced that we are inferior to other animals, both morally and, in a perverse way, intellectually. We’re just intelligent enough that we’ve developed a devastatingly destructive superiority complex, believing that our capacity to engage in complex forms of thought and communication endows us with the right to serially abuse the planet and other sentient beings, create artificial barriers to alienate us from the rest of nature, and to litter and contaminate the land-base and waterways with all manner of toxic, putrid, noxious, infectious, and disgusting liquids and solids, many with half-lives that exceed the 10,000 years that the disease we call civilization has existed. Homo sapiens, the “superior species,” has taken “stewardship” of the planet and is careening toward self-destruction and mass extinctions of other species. How intelligent is that?
Nonhuman animals are sentient, and an increasingly impressive body of peer-reviewed research scientifically legitimizes the empirical, common sense observations that many other animals are also ‘subjects of a life’ in that they lead relatively rich and complex intellectual, emotional, and social lives. Intentionally killing them is as much murder as it is to kill a human being. That’s right; I wrote it. “Meat” is murder. As are vivisection, fur, dog-fights, cock-fights, dairy and egg production, and the rest of the myriad monstrous atrocities committed by the animal industrial complex around the globe. While the consumers and end users are complicit, it is the shit-laden toilet of the speciesist capitalism system that we need to smash into a million shards of porcelain by wielding the most massive sledgehammer we can find.
Continue reading:
http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/to-dam-the-torrential-rivers-of-blood-and-to-silence-the-cacophony-of-their-agonized-cries%e2%80%a6/
Years of introspection and profound soul searching—intrepidly trekking the seemingly infinite number of unexplored, untamed, thorny and treacherous paths winding circuitously through my psyche—led me to naively conclude that I’d sketched out a nearly complete map of who I am, my worldview, and my purpose.
Fortunately a chain of events that began unfolding several months ago, and recently culminated when I immersed myself in the company of some of the most dedicated, knowledgeable, and passionate animal activists with whom I’ve had the privilege to associate,[1] shattered my semi-complacency and ignited my passion to launch yet another thorough and harrowing examination of who I am and what I believe—a “revaluation of all values” if you will–including the inevitable significant growing pains of personal evolution. While I recognize that my core sense of self, general worldview, and essential beliefs are relatively immutable, there’s still plenty of room for discovery and growth.
Steve Best commented to me about a year ago that he wanted to make philosophy dangerous again. With that in mind, I’ve come to some radical conclusions about us humans and our largely reprehensible ways of being as a species. Indulge me as I “philosophize with a hammer,” driving home some ideologies, thoughts, observations, principles, and assertions that will bludgeon some of the sacred tenets of the anthropocentric Judeo-Christian status quo of Western Civilization, evoke the wrath of hardened speciesists who lash out like spoiled children when people challenge their “unassailable right” to torture, murder, and eat other sentient beings, and leave me about as popular as an agitated, unleashed pit bull at a Cat Fanciers’ Association show.
Despite the nearly unanimous anthropocentric belief that we human animals are superior to nonhuman animals, we are equal—AT BEST. In fact, our collective malevolence, greed, apathy, belligerence, arrogance, selfishness and tendency to dominate, exploit, and mutilate the Earth and its other inhabitants, have me convinced that we are inferior to other animals, both morally and, in a perverse way, intellectually. We’re just intelligent enough that we’ve developed a devastatingly destructive superiority complex, believing that our capacity to engage in complex forms of thought and communication endows us with the right to serially abuse the planet and other sentient beings, create artificial barriers to alienate us from the rest of nature, and to litter and contaminate the land-base and waterways with all manner of toxic, putrid, noxious, infectious, and disgusting liquids and solids, many with half-lives that exceed the 10,000 years that the disease we call civilization has existed. Homo sapiens, the “superior species,” has taken “stewardship” of the planet and is careening toward self-destruction and mass extinctions of other species. How intelligent is that?
Nonhuman animals are sentient, and an increasingly impressive body of peer-reviewed research scientifically legitimizes the empirical, common sense observations that many other animals are also ‘subjects of a life’ in that they lead relatively rich and complex intellectual, emotional, and social lives. Intentionally killing them is as much murder as it is to kill a human being. That’s right; I wrote it. “Meat” is murder. As are vivisection, fur, dog-fights, cock-fights, dairy and egg production, and the rest of the myriad monstrous atrocities committed by the animal industrial complex around the globe. While the consumers and end users are complicit, it is the shit-laden toilet of the speciesist capitalism system that we need to smash into a million shards of porcelain by wielding the most massive sledgehammer we can find.
Continue reading:
http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/to-dam-the-torrential-rivers-of-blood-and-to-silence-the-cacophony-of-their-agonized-cries%e2%80%a6/
Universal Declaration of Resistance to Mandatory Vaccinations
We the undersigned, as Freemen and Freewomen, do not recognize the authority of the World Health Organization (WHO) to mandate general forced vaccinations. Our bodies are sovereign territory subject to our exclusive self-determination. Any attempted violation of this trust must be construed as a breach of said right.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/a-universal-declaration-of-resistance-to-mandatory-vaccinations
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/a-universal-declaration-of-resistance-to-mandatory-vaccinations
03 July, 2009
Argentina: "No Rational Explanation" for Cattle Mutes
Source: www.diariovictoria.com.ar
Date: July 1, 2009
Argentina: “No Rational Explanation” Found for Cattle Mutes
The police found four cows whose eyes, uteruses and tongues had been removed. The animals were found dead in the rural area of Nogoyá. The absence of water in a nearby lagoon also drew their attention.
Residents of the rural area known as Crucesita Tercera, in the Department of Nogoyá, are shaken by the strange death of four cows in the interior of two fields and the unforeseen draining of a lagoon. Personnel of the Office of Cattle Theft and the Nogoyá Police ascertained that the cows had succumbed to a mysterious mutilation, but also noted that a nearby lagoon, which a day earlier had been full of water, was now empty.
Once more, fantasy, myth and mystery began to weave themselves over the deaths of these animals. Apparitions of the so-called “Chupacabras” and even a UFO sighting are now part of the comments being made in the heart of the province.
The cows found by police officers were missing their reproductive organs, tongues and eyes. For this reason, the veterinarian attached to the Office of Cattle Theft, a part of the Nogoyá Police force, stated that there is no rational explanation for the animals’ deaths and much less for their strange mutilations.
The dead bovines, according to police, were the property of Gustavo Cabañas, an employee of the Banco de Entre Rios, Nogoyá branch. The man owned the field and the herd of cows and calves within it.
A few days later, Cabañas had surveyed the farm and found that everything was in good order. Even the volume of water of nearby lagoon presented a generous quantity of the vital fluid, considering the drought. But for reasons that remain unclear, the lagoon dried up in a few hours, forcing the field’s owner to transfer the animals. He found the dead animals as he performed the transfer.
Nogoyá’s cattle rustling authorities and agents of the Sheriff’s office confirmed their investigation and the mysteries that surround it. The events cannot be explained scientifically.
Crucesita Tercera is some 50 kilometers from the departmental capital. Due to this event, the Cattle Theft officers spoke to local residents, who gave scant details on elements that could help explain the deaths of these animals.
The subject expanded yesterday when it was learned that Police found another mutilated bovine in an adjacent field. The carcass displayed the same characteristics: it was missing both eyes, its tongue and uterus. The cow belonged to a woman surnamed Sanchez and the incident was discovered only a short distance from the Sheriff’s office.
The Cattle Theft office noted that they had reported the mutilations on the three cows found over the weekend, but that the bones near the mutilated parts were clean, as if death had occurred some time ago, and not a matter of days, either. Furthermore, surgical incisions were confirmed, some of them without scarring or blood on the grass of the animals’ hides.
Three years earlier, a pair of bovines was found lifeless and mutilated only a short distance from this last discovery.
Veterinarian Esteban Puntín, who investigated the events a while ago explained, “while he is aware of these last cases from remarks, he believes that [all of this] is the result of natural action.”
Puntín noted:“due to uncontrolled deforestation, predators began looking for food in smaller and cleaner fields. With the onset of cold weather and the drought, there is very little grass. Therefore, animals are hungry. Bovines look for grass, and they may end up eating “yuyos” (brambles) which are poisonous, such as the Mio Mio. When the animal dies, foxes, weasels, vultures and even mice report to the site, eating the softer parts of the carcass, which are generally the anus or vulva, the udders and the tongue. Carrion animals also eat the eyes. These animals are great feeders, and only stop at bones and harder tissue.”
He added, “If there is no blood to be found, it is due to the cold weather, which dries up all manner of fluids.”
(Translation (c) 2009, S. Corrales, IHU. Special thanks to Grupo GABIE: www.grupogabie.blogspot.com)
Date: July 1, 2009
Argentina: “No Rational Explanation” Found for Cattle Mutes
The police found four cows whose eyes, uteruses and tongues had been removed. The animals were found dead in the rural area of Nogoyá. The absence of water in a nearby lagoon also drew their attention.
Residents of the rural area known as Crucesita Tercera, in the Department of Nogoyá, are shaken by the strange death of four cows in the interior of two fields and the unforeseen draining of a lagoon. Personnel of the Office of Cattle Theft and the Nogoyá Police ascertained that the cows had succumbed to a mysterious mutilation, but also noted that a nearby lagoon, which a day earlier had been full of water, was now empty.
Once more, fantasy, myth and mystery began to weave themselves over the deaths of these animals. Apparitions of the so-called “Chupacabras” and even a UFO sighting are now part of the comments being made in the heart of the province.
The cows found by police officers were missing their reproductive organs, tongues and eyes. For this reason, the veterinarian attached to the Office of Cattle Theft, a part of the Nogoyá Police force, stated that there is no rational explanation for the animals’ deaths and much less for their strange mutilations.
The dead bovines, according to police, were the property of Gustavo Cabañas, an employee of the Banco de Entre Rios, Nogoyá branch. The man owned the field and the herd of cows and calves within it.
A few days later, Cabañas had surveyed the farm and found that everything was in good order. Even the volume of water of nearby lagoon presented a generous quantity of the vital fluid, considering the drought. But for reasons that remain unclear, the lagoon dried up in a few hours, forcing the field’s owner to transfer the animals. He found the dead animals as he performed the transfer.
Nogoyá’s cattle rustling authorities and agents of the Sheriff’s office confirmed their investigation and the mysteries that surround it. The events cannot be explained scientifically.
Crucesita Tercera is some 50 kilometers from the departmental capital. Due to this event, the Cattle Theft officers spoke to local residents, who gave scant details on elements that could help explain the deaths of these animals.
The subject expanded yesterday when it was learned that Police found another mutilated bovine in an adjacent field. The carcass displayed the same characteristics: it was missing both eyes, its tongue and uterus. The cow belonged to a woman surnamed Sanchez and the incident was discovered only a short distance from the Sheriff’s office.
The Cattle Theft office noted that they had reported the mutilations on the three cows found over the weekend, but that the bones near the mutilated parts were clean, as if death had occurred some time ago, and not a matter of days, either. Furthermore, surgical incisions were confirmed, some of them without scarring or blood on the grass of the animals’ hides.
Three years earlier, a pair of bovines was found lifeless and mutilated only a short distance from this last discovery.
Veterinarian Esteban Puntín, who investigated the events a while ago explained, “while he is aware of these last cases from remarks, he believes that [all of this] is the result of natural action.”
Puntín noted:“due to uncontrolled deforestation, predators began looking for food in smaller and cleaner fields. With the onset of cold weather and the drought, there is very little grass. Therefore, animals are hungry. Bovines look for grass, and they may end up eating “yuyos” (brambles) which are poisonous, such as the Mio Mio. When the animal dies, foxes, weasels, vultures and even mice report to the site, eating the softer parts of the carcass, which are generally the anus or vulva, the udders and the tongue. Carrion animals also eat the eyes. These animals are great feeders, and only stop at bones and harder tissue.”
He added, “If there is no blood to be found, it is due to the cold weather, which dries up all manner of fluids.”
(Translation (c) 2009, S. Corrales, IHU. Special thanks to Grupo GABIE: www.grupogabie.blogspot.com)
02 July, 2009
29 June, 2009
26 June, 2009
Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder
by Barbara Minton, Natural Health Editor
(NaturalNews) As the anticipated July release date for Baxter's A/H1N1 flu pandemic vaccine approaches, an Austrian investigative journalist is warning the world that the greatest crime in the history of humanity is underway. Jane Burgermeister has recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder. She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination which is being filed in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from apandemic.
Summary of claims and allegations filed with FBI in Austria on June 10, 2009
In her charges, Burgermeister presents evidence of acts of bioterrorism that is in violation of U.S. law by a group operating within the U.S. under the direction of international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, as well as WHO, UN and NATO. This bioterrorism is for the purpose of carrying out a mass genocide against the U.S. population by use of a genetically engineered flu pandemic virus with the intent of causing death. This group has annexed high government offices in the U.S.
Specifically, evidence is presented that the defendants, Barack Obama, President of the U.S, David Nabarro, UN System Coordinator for Influenza, Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO, Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, David de Rotschild, banker, David Rockefeller, banker, George Soros, banker, Werner Faymann, Chancellor of Austria, and Alois Stoger, Austrian Health Minister, among others, are part of this international corporate criminal syndicate which has developed, produced, stockpiled and employed biological weapons to eliminate the population of the U.S. and other countries for financial and political gain.
The charges contend that these defendants conspired with each other and others to devise, fund and participate in the final phase of the implementation of a covert international bioweapons program involving the pharmaceutical companies Baxter and Novartis. They did this by bioengineering and then releasing lethal biological agents, specifically the "bird flu" virus and the "swine flu virus" in order to have a pretext to implement a forced mass vaccination program which would be the means of administering a toxic biological agent to cause death and injury to the people of the U.S. This action is in direct violation of the Biological Weapons Anti-terrorism Act.
Burgermeister's charges include evidence that Baxter AG, Austrian subsidiary of Baxter International, deliberately sent out 72 kilos of live bird flu virus, supplied by the WHO in the winter of 2009 to 16 laboratories in four counties. She claims this evidence offers clear proof that the pharmaceutical companies and international government agencies themselves are actively engaged in producing, developing, manufacturing and distributing biological agents classified as the most deadly bioweapons on earth in order to trigger a pandemic and cause mass death.
In her April charges, she noted that Baxter's lab in Austria, one of the supposedly most secure biosecurity labs in the world, did not adhere to the most basic and essential steps to keep 72 kilos of a pathogen classified as a bioweapon secure and separate from all other substances under stringent biosecurity level regulations, but it allowed it to be mixed with the ordinary human flu virus and sent from its facilities in Orth in the Donau.
In February, when a staff member at BioTest in the Czech Republic tested the material meant for candidate vaccines on ferrets, the ferrets died. This incident was not followed up by any investigation from the WHO, EU, or Austrian health authorities. There was no investigation of the content of the virus material, and there is no data on the genetic sequence of the virus released.
In answer to parliamentary questions on May 20th, the Austrian Health Minister, Alois Stoger, revealed that the incident had been handled not as a biosecurity lapse, as it should have been, but as an offence against the veterinary code. A veterinary doctor was sent to the lab for a brief inspection.
Burgermeister's dossier reveals that the release of the virus was to be an essential step for triggering a pandemic that would allow the WHO to declare a Level 6 Pandemic. She lists the laws and decrees that would allow the UN and WHO to take over the United States in the event of pandemic. In addition, legislation requiring compliance with mandatory vaccinations would be put into force in the U.S. under conditions of pandemic declaration.
She charges that the entire "swine flu" pandemic business is premised on a massive lie that there is no natural virus out there that poses a threat to the population. She presents evidence leading to the belief that the bird flu and swine flu viruses have, in fact, been bioengineered in laboratories using funding supplied by the WHO and other government agencies, among others. This "swine flu" is a hybrid of part swine flu, part human flu and part bird flu, something that can only come from laboratories according to many experts.
WHO's claim that this "swine flu" is spreading and a pandemic must be declared ignores the fundamental causes. The viruses that were released were created and released with the help of WHO, and WHO is overwhelmingly responsible for the pandemic in the first place. In addition, the symptoms of the supposed "swine flu" are indistinguishable from regular flu or from the common cold. The "swine flu" does not cause death anymore often than the regular flu causes death.
Burgermeister notes that the figures for deaths reported for the "swine flu" are inconsistent and there is no clarity as to how the number of "deaths" has been documented.
There is no pandemic potential unless mass vaccinations are carried out to weaponize the flu under the guise of protecting the population. There are reasonable grounds for believing that the mandatory vaccines will be purposely contaminated with diseases that are specifically designed to cause death.
Reference is made to a licensed Novartis bird flu vaccine that killed 21 homeless people in Poland in the summer of 2008 and had as its "primary outcome measure" an "adverse events rate", thereby meeting the U.S. government's own definition of a bioweapon (a biological agent designed to cause an adverse events rate, i.e death or injury) with a delivery system (injection).
She alleges that the same complex of international pharmaceutical companies and international government agencies that have developed and released pandemic material have positioned themselves to profit from triggering the pandemic with contracts to supply vaccines. Media controlled by the group that is engineering the "swine flu" agenda is spreading misinformation to lull the people of the U.S. into taking the dangerous vaccine.
The people of the U.S. will suffer substantial and irreparable harm and injury if they are forced to take this unproven vaccine without their consent in accordance with the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, National Emergency Act, National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, and the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza.
Continue reading here:
http://naturalnews.com/z026503_pandemic_swine_flu_bioterrorism.html
(NaturalNews) As the anticipated July release date for Baxter's A/H1N1 flu pandemic vaccine approaches, an Austrian investigative journalist is warning the world that the greatest crime in the history of humanity is underway. Jane Burgermeister has recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder. She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination which is being filed in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from apandemic.
Summary of claims and allegations filed with FBI in Austria on June 10, 2009
In her charges, Burgermeister presents evidence of acts of bioterrorism that is in violation of U.S. law by a group operating within the U.S. under the direction of international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, as well as WHO, UN and NATO. This bioterrorism is for the purpose of carrying out a mass genocide against the U.S. population by use of a genetically engineered flu pandemic virus with the intent of causing death. This group has annexed high government offices in the U.S.
Specifically, evidence is presented that the defendants, Barack Obama, President of the U.S, David Nabarro, UN System Coordinator for Influenza, Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO, Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, David de Rotschild, banker, David Rockefeller, banker, George Soros, banker, Werner Faymann, Chancellor of Austria, and Alois Stoger, Austrian Health Minister, among others, are part of this international corporate criminal syndicate which has developed, produced, stockpiled and employed biological weapons to eliminate the population of the U.S. and other countries for financial and political gain.
The charges contend that these defendants conspired with each other and others to devise, fund and participate in the final phase of the implementation of a covert international bioweapons program involving the pharmaceutical companies Baxter and Novartis. They did this by bioengineering and then releasing lethal biological agents, specifically the "bird flu" virus and the "swine flu virus" in order to have a pretext to implement a forced mass vaccination program which would be the means of administering a toxic biological agent to cause death and injury to the people of the U.S. This action is in direct violation of the Biological Weapons Anti-terrorism Act.
Burgermeister's charges include evidence that Baxter AG, Austrian subsidiary of Baxter International, deliberately sent out 72 kilos of live bird flu virus, supplied by the WHO in the winter of 2009 to 16 laboratories in four counties. She claims this evidence offers clear proof that the pharmaceutical companies and international government agencies themselves are actively engaged in producing, developing, manufacturing and distributing biological agents classified as the most deadly bioweapons on earth in order to trigger a pandemic and cause mass death.
In her April charges, she noted that Baxter's lab in Austria, one of the supposedly most secure biosecurity labs in the world, did not adhere to the most basic and essential steps to keep 72 kilos of a pathogen classified as a bioweapon secure and separate from all other substances under stringent biosecurity level regulations, but it allowed it to be mixed with the ordinary human flu virus and sent from its facilities in Orth in the Donau.
In February, when a staff member at BioTest in the Czech Republic tested the material meant for candidate vaccines on ferrets, the ferrets died. This incident was not followed up by any investigation from the WHO, EU, or Austrian health authorities. There was no investigation of the content of the virus material, and there is no data on the genetic sequence of the virus released.
In answer to parliamentary questions on May 20th, the Austrian Health Minister, Alois Stoger, revealed that the incident had been handled not as a biosecurity lapse, as it should have been, but as an offence against the veterinary code. A veterinary doctor was sent to the lab for a brief inspection.
Burgermeister's dossier reveals that the release of the virus was to be an essential step for triggering a pandemic that would allow the WHO to declare a Level 6 Pandemic. She lists the laws and decrees that would allow the UN and WHO to take over the United States in the event of pandemic. In addition, legislation requiring compliance with mandatory vaccinations would be put into force in the U.S. under conditions of pandemic declaration.
She charges that the entire "swine flu" pandemic business is premised on a massive lie that there is no natural virus out there that poses a threat to the population. She presents evidence leading to the belief that the bird flu and swine flu viruses have, in fact, been bioengineered in laboratories using funding supplied by the WHO and other government agencies, among others. This "swine flu" is a hybrid of part swine flu, part human flu and part bird flu, something that can only come from laboratories according to many experts.
WHO's claim that this "swine flu" is spreading and a pandemic must be declared ignores the fundamental causes. The viruses that were released were created and released with the help of WHO, and WHO is overwhelmingly responsible for the pandemic in the first place. In addition, the symptoms of the supposed "swine flu" are indistinguishable from regular flu or from the common cold. The "swine flu" does not cause death anymore often than the regular flu causes death.
Burgermeister notes that the figures for deaths reported for the "swine flu" are inconsistent and there is no clarity as to how the number of "deaths" has been documented.
There is no pandemic potential unless mass vaccinations are carried out to weaponize the flu under the guise of protecting the population. There are reasonable grounds for believing that the mandatory vaccines will be purposely contaminated with diseases that are specifically designed to cause death.
Reference is made to a licensed Novartis bird flu vaccine that killed 21 homeless people in Poland in the summer of 2008 and had as its "primary outcome measure" an "adverse events rate", thereby meeting the U.S. government's own definition of a bioweapon (a biological agent designed to cause an adverse events rate, i.e death or injury) with a delivery system (injection).
She alleges that the same complex of international pharmaceutical companies and international government agencies that have developed and released pandemic material have positioned themselves to profit from triggering the pandemic with contracts to supply vaccines. Media controlled by the group that is engineering the "swine flu" agenda is spreading misinformation to lull the people of the U.S. into taking the dangerous vaccine.
The people of the U.S. will suffer substantial and irreparable harm and injury if they are forced to take this unproven vaccine without their consent in accordance with the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, National Emergency Act, National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, and the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza.
Continue reading here:
http://naturalnews.com/z026503_pandemic_swine_flu_bioterrorism.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
