Sunday, July 21, 2013

Bradley Manning: US ‘aiding the enemy’ charge a travesty of justice

US Pte Bradley Manning, 25, has lost his challenge against the charge of "aiding the enemy".

“

The charge of ‘aiding the enemy’ is ludicrous. What’s surprising is that the prosecutors in this case, who have a duty to act in the interest of justice, have pushed a theory that making information available on the internet – whether through Wikileaks, in a personal blog posting, or on the website of The New York Times – can amount to ‘aiding the enemy’

”

Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International

The decision by the US military judge not to drop the charge accusing Private Bradley Manning of “aiding the enemy” is a travesty of justice, Amnesty International said today. If he is found guilty of the charge, he faces a possible life sentence in military custody with no chance of parole.

“The charge of ‘aiding the enemy’ is ludicrous. What’s surprising is that the prosecutors in this case, who have a duty to act in the interest of justice, have pushed a theory that making information available on the internet – whether through Wikileaks, in a personal blog posting, or on the website of The New York Times – can amount to ‘aiding the enemy’,” said Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International.

To prove the charge that Manning has “aided the enemy,” the US government has to establish that he gave potentially damaging intelligence information to an enemy, and that he did so knowingly, with “general evil intent”.

The prosecution’s own witnesses repeatedly told the court that they found no evidence that Manning was sympathetic towards al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that he had never expressed disloyalty to his country, that they had no evidence that he had ties to any government other than his own.

“It’s abundantly clear that the charge of ‘aiding the enemy’ has no basis and the charge should be withdrawn,” said Widney Brown. “This makes a mockery of the US military court system."

Bradley Manning: US ‘aiding the enemy’ charge a travesty of justice

US Pte Bradley Manning, 25, has lost his challenge against the charge of "aiding the enemy".

“

The charge of ‘aiding the enemy’ is ludicrous. What’s surprising is that the prosecutors in this case, who have a duty to act in the interest of justice, have pushed a theory that making information available on the internet – whether through Wikileaks, in a personal blog posting, or on the website of The New York Times – can amount to ‘aiding the enemy’

”

Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Egypt’s Foreign Minister Resigns, Islamists Call for Rallies

Monday, July 1, 2013 19:13

(Before It's News)

Egypt’s Foreign Minister Resigns, Islamists Call for Rallies

Bee’s note: Stay tuned; the news keeps flowing out of Egypt!

Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr has tendered his resignation, reports state news agency.

AAFont Size

By Elad Benari

First Publish: 7/2/2013, 4:13 AM

Mohammed Morsi

AFP photo

Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr tendered his resignation on Monday night, the state news agency MENA reported, after millions of Egyptians rallied against President Mohammed Morsi.
The report did not elaborate or cite any sources for the information. At least five other ministers have resigned since Sunday’s mass protests.

Meanwhile, Egypt’s Islamist National Alliance has called for mass rallies in support of embattled President Mohammed Morsi, following a 48-hour army ultimatum for all parties to reach a resolution.

Al Arabiya reported that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups began amassing their supporters in different provinces on Monday night, with a focus on Cairo and Giza.

Activists reported that a pro-Morsi rally headed toward Cairo University, where Islamists plan to stage an open sit-in to counter opposition rallies.

During its press conference, the National Alliance of Islamist parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, rejected the use of army to “assault legitimacy” in a way that leads to a coup.

Earlier, the country’s Defense Minister General Abdel Fattah al-Sissi issued a 48-hour ultimatum to all Egyptian political forces to reach a resolution or face a military “road map for the future” that “will not exclude anyone.”

A senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) laterrejected the ultimatum, saying that “the age of military coups is over.”

The Islamist Alliance said it respects all initiatives to resolve the crisis but it must be based on the constitution. It also condemned acts of violence that killed a dozen protesters and wounded hundreds others.

Supporters and opponents of Morsi exchanged gunfire in the city of Suez at the mouth of the Suez Canal on Monday, witnesses said, according to Al Arabiya.

At least 16 people have been killed in clashes between rival protesters since Sunday, when millions of Egyptians flooded the streets to demand that Morsi resign.

Meanwhile, Nour, Egypt’s second biggest Islamist party, said it feared the army’s return to public life “in a big way”.

A member of Nour told the website of the Al-Ahram newspaper that the party believed Egypt’s national security was threatened by the division between the ruling Islamists and their opponents.

The party released a statement calling for early presidential elections and the formation of a technocratic government, reported Al-Ahram.

The party further demanded the formation of a committee tasked with amending Egypt’s post-revolution constitution, albeit without changing articles related to the “state’s identity.”

Syrian file on Saudi Arabia and beyond the permit Obama to possess Saudi nuclear weapon

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 18:33

(Before It's News)

Arab and international

Yemen Street - said the chief editor of the newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi Bari Atwan, he met with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi before

Saudi Royal Court did not deny sending a telegram from a Saudi king to send troops to fight al-Assad?

Throw the Syrian file on Saudi Arabia and beyond the permit Obama to possess Saudi nuclear weapon

Monday, 17 – June -2013

Yemen Street – special -
Said the editor of the newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi Bari Atwan, he met with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, ten days ago and told him that Bashar al-Assad powered no alternative but a political solution and expressed surprise at the sudden shift in the Egyptian position, which supported military intervention in Syria.
Political analysts said that there are developments in the Egyptian president was forced to turn his position after a meeting with Egyptian President with Syrian Brotherhood and Morsi will be implemented country-round decree, which was delayed due to the survival of the Assad regime intact, especially after excluding the diameter of the Syrian file.
Analysts said that Morsi position in the first and last will satisfy President Barack Obama before the revolution of 30-6 that it intends to Morsi opponents do.
The sources quoted that Saudi Arabia has sent a warning message to Qatar of trying to disrupt the efforts of the Syrian issue and appoint a task to Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood.
She added that Qatar is trying in various ways to sabotage the strong role of Saudi Arabia and Syrian actor in the file by using the Brotherhood and rumors broadcast through the electronic committees.
In unremitting efforts to push Saudi Arabia to the front of the struggle with the Syrian regime and opposition forces in the region, the U.S. president sought to give the impression that the king of Saudi Arabia has effective weapon to topple Bashar al-Assad Yemen Street published the text of the news rolling:
Agencies:
Picked up dozens of sites on the Internet for a press meeting with the U.S. President “Obama,” and who told him, saying: that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has a weapon (scary) individual it amusingly journalist: a nuclear bomb!!
Obama said much stronger ..!!
Where the signs seemed startled Broadcaster and said he did not hear that Saudi Arabia or Arab country have a nuclear weapon or stronger than, فماهو arms, which is owned by Saudi Arabia did not hear it, Mr. President!!
President: King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has a weapon (jihad), the declared jihad, will move millions armies of all countries of the world and even from America to defend Saudi Arabia Such a ruling powers the importance of learning to avoid wars with the capital of Islam.
Commenting on the news, said a political analyst Why is it difficult for U.S. and NATO topple Assad and why Obama seeks leaking this news Is not understand his quest for malignant rhythm between Muslims and kill each other in the framework of Islam and the Sunni-Shiite differences?.
The analyst added that the Saudis always fall into the trap of President Obama, who once deliberately peace on King Abdullah knee revelation him that the king, His Holiness and a special place in his heart.
Analysts believe that the Declaration of Mercy severing relations and confrontation with the Assad regime launched a sectarian war in the region after it was founded America in light of the Arab Spring appropriate ground.
In a related development has leaked document on the social networking include the guidance of King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz to send troops to Syria to fight against Assad, but some believe that there is a breach of the House of Saudi Arabia by the Muslim Brotherhood and the CIA and the Israeli broadcasting rumors that serve the planned destructive for the rest of the region, but the Saudi position is not clear yet and is not to deny or prove the validity of the Royal Decree of King of Saudi Arabia to send troops to Syria, which appeared in the pages in Twitter today to coincide with Obama’s remarks.
As stated in the decree which was leaked directing King to His Highness Salman bin Abdulaziz, to send troops to Turkey, led by Lt. Gen. Khalid bin Bandar bin Abdul Aziz and General Turki bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, where he is scheduled to meet with troops from Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to participate in toppling the regime of Bashar Assad.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Why Is Getting Obama To Disclose His Legal Clients Like Pulling Teeth?

Barack Obama has made some strange decisions regarding secrecy and records. His state legislative records are missing and may have been thrown out, there are questions about his answers to his application to the state bar (keep in mind the DSCC demanded George Allen release his in 2006), and he released a one-page letter from his doctor summarizing his medical history (contrasted with McCain allowing reporters to examine nearly 1,200 pages of health records). He and his former law firm say Obama only did a few hours of work for nonprofit firms connected to convicted donor Tony Rezko, but no records have been released to confirm that. (A Huffington Post blogger claims those records were released, but the link she cites doesn’t work.)
And The New York Times noted,

The campaign on Monday barred cameras from a large gathering of African-American civic leaders Mr. Obama attended. It recently refused to provide names of religious figures with whom Mr. Obama met in Chicago and directed some of them to avoid reporters by using a special exit.

But among the strangest is Obama’s refusal to specify who he worked for during his time in private practice with the firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard (now known by only the last three names). In all of his statements of economic interests filed with the Illinois State government during his years as a state legislator, Obama listed every client of the firm. The result was a “disclosure” of hundreds of clients each year – from 247 in his 1997 filing to 448 in his 2002 filing – when he was only working for a handful of those.
Obama’s old boss, Judson Miner, said there were 30 cases to which Obama contributed in some way during his time there, full time for three years and seven years “of counsel.” How many clients could he have represented in those 30 cases over 10 years?
When the Chicago Sun-Times asked for a specific list of his clients in 2007, Robert Gibbs, communications director for the senator’s presidential campaign, responded, “The rules of professional responsibility binding on the firm precludes its public dissemination of client-confidential information, including the fact of representation. If there are specific questions about specific representations, we will attempt to answer them with the assistance of the firm.”
That sounds very authoritative, but it’s also wrong. Attorney-client privilege covers the fact of representation only in extremely rare cases.
Beyond numerous citations of this, in 1996, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois*, which has jurisdiction over Chicago, ruled in Stopka vs. Alliance of American Insurers:

Fox & Grove’s general assertion that the billing statements and time records should not be disclosed because they are privileged is unpersuasive. Cohen and Pincus attest the billing statements and attorney time sheets maintained by the law firm “would reveal the Alliance’s motivation for seeking legal counsel and would reveal the nature of services provided by Fox and Grove to the Alliance in both this case and other matters.” Cohen Aff. ¶ 3; Pincus Aff. ¶ 3. “A client’s motive for seeking legal advice is undeniably a confidential communication.” Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding, Cherney, 898 F.2d 565, 568 (7th Cir. 1990); In re Grand Jury Witness, 695 F.2d at 362. Accordingly, the substance of those meetings is privileged. However, billing statements and time records are not privileged insofar as they state when, where and for how long Fox & Grove attorneys met with Stopka or other Alliance officials.”

It’s hard to argue that the fact of representation is covered by attorney-client privilege, but the billing records aren’t. And fact of representation is exactly what the Sun-Times and other media organizations are asking for, not any legally sensitive material of any of Obama’s discussions with them.
And indeed, the Obama campaign is willing to confirm Obama’s participation in a case when the media brings the client to their attention — suing on behalf of ACORN, a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, a trader who reported his bosses for fraud, a psychologist fired by Cook County, etc. But they’ve turned the simple question of “who did Obama work for?” into a guessing game – they’ll only confirm or deny representation for that list of hundreds of firm clients.
Why?

* This post originally referred the 7th District Court as a whole, not the Northern Illinois District.
UPDATE: A reader who is an Illinois lawyer asks if the Obama campaign is citing the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. But while the rules prohibit disclosing “a confidence or secret of the client,” I don’t see anything that would cover the fact of representation. Note that the client’s hiring of the firm is already disclosed in his statements of economic interests Obama files because he served in the state legislature; the question is, which clients did Obama actually do work for?
Are we to believe that every client of Obama’s asked that he keep his work for them secret?
ANOTHER UPDATE: Another Northern District of Illinois case dealing with disclosing billing records, from a few years earlier:

“In their opposition brief, plaintiffs list six categories of documents they claim to be privileged. Category I consists of billing statements for legal services rendered on behalf of KRS by various attorneys, including a description of the type of service provided, the cost of such services, and the checks paying for such services. Such communications do not relate to confidential matters and are clearly unprivileged.” Schachar v. American Academy of Ophthalmology, 106 F.R.D. 187 at 192 (N.D. Ill. 1986)

Recall Gibbs’ statement, “The rules of professional responsibility binding on the firm precludes its public dissemination of client-confidential information, including the fact of representation.” Too bad this ruling indicates that the billing statements are not confidential or privileged, much less the fact of representation.

Dept. of Aptitude (w/Alexandra Robbins)

Subscribers can read the full version of this story by logging into our digital archive. You can also subscribe now or find out about other ways to read The New Yorker digitally.

Keywords: Bush, George W. (Gov.);; Presidential Candidates;; Yale University;; Republican Party;; School Grades;; Washington;; SEE ALSO: The Mail, Nov. 29, 1999, p. 12

Talk story about the writer’s discovery of Republican Presidential front-runner George W. Bush’s confidential school records when he attended Yale... all the fuss in New Haven may be an overreaction, to judge from a copy of the academic file that not long ago found its way here. Bush, after all, has never claimed Phi Beta Kappa membership or an internship at Partisan Review. He told the Washington Post’s Lois Romano that if he ever dared to call himself “an intellectual” his friends would immediately “start laughing” at him. The college records merely confirm what Bush has already conceded. According to the Yale document, Bush was a C student... In the end, George W. may be marked for the White House because of, rather than in spite of, his mediocre grades. Historically, there is no correlation between academic achievement and success in the Oval Office. Some of the nation’s most fiercely intelligent presidents, including Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter, ran troubled administrations; two of the century’s most influential presidents were also among the least academically distinguished—Ronald Reagan did just well enough at Eureka College to keep his football scholarship, and Franklin Roosevelt coasted through Harvard with gentleman’s C’s. So it’s hard to know if the student is really father to the president...

Jane Mayer, The Talk of the Town, “Dept. of Aptitude (w/Alexandra Robbins),” The New Yorker, November 8, 1999, p. 30

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) Home

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.
FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children's education records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level. Students to whom the rights have transferred are "eligible students."

Parents or eligible students have the right to inspect and review the student's education records maintained by the school. Schools are not required to provide copies of records unless, for reasons such as great distance, it is impossible for parents or eligible students to review the records. Schools may charge a fee for copies.
Parents or eligible students have the right to request that a school correct records which they believe to be inaccurate or misleading. If the school decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student then has the right to a formal hearing. After the hearing, if the school still decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student has the right to place a statement with the record setting forth his or her view about the contested information.
Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31):
- School officials with legitimate educational interest;
- Other schools to which a student is transferring;
- Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes;
- Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student;
- Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school;
- Accrediting organizations;
- To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;
- Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and
- State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law.

Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. However, schools must tell parents and eligible students about directory information and allow parents and eligible students a reasonable amount of time to request that the school not disclose directory information about them. Schools must notify parents and eligible students annually of their rights under FERPA. The actual means of notification (special letter, inclusion in a PTA bulletin, student handbook, or newspaper article) is left to the discretion of each school.
For additional information, you may call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (voice). Individuals who use TDD may use the Federal Relay Service.
Or you may contact us at the following address:
Family Policy Compliance Office
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-8520

Missouri Legislature Bans UN Agenda 21 Written by Alex Newman font size decrease font size increase font size Print E-mail Missouri Legislature Bans UN Agenda 21 With a veto-proof majority, the Missouri legislature approved a popular bill protecting private property and due process rights by banning a deeply controversial United Nations “sustainability” scheme known as UN Agenda 21. The legislation, SB 265, now heads to Democrat Governor Jay Nixon, who has not yet taken a public position on the issue. The effort to ban Agenda 21 in Missouri, widely celebrated by activists from across the political spectrum, comes in the wake of similar moves to stop the UN plan across America. In Alabama, for example, lawmakers in both houses unanimously approved a law last year prohibiting the international “sustainable development” agenda within the state. Numerous other states are working to do the same, and multiple legislatures have adopted strongly worded resolutions blasting the program. In Missouri, the legislation was approved 24 to 9 in the GOP-controlled Senate last month. The Republican-dominated state House of Representatives, meanwhile, approved the bill 131 to 42 on May 8, also with a slight veto-proof majority. It remains unclear whether the governor will try to stop the legislation, sign it, or simply do nothing and let it quietly become law, according to news reports. With lawmakers able to override any potential veto, activists who supported the effort are cautiously optimistic that the state government, as well as city and county authorities, will soon be prohibited by law from implementing the controversial UN agenda in Missouri. Liberty-minded legislators, responding to strong grassroots pressure from constituents, also say the law is needed to protect the rights of citizens. The two-page legislation is short and simple. "Neither the state of Missouri nor any political subdivision shall adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development,” the bill reads, defining political subdivisions as cities, counties, public-private partnerships, and other public entities. If the legislation becomes law, the state government and all of its political subdivisions would also be barred from adopting or implementing any other “international law” or “ancillary plan of action” that contravenes the U.S. or Missouri constitutions. Lawmakers in the “Show-Me” State and around the country say such prohibitions are needed to protect citizens from unelected international bureaucrats seeking to impose their will on Americans — especially considering recent overt moves by the UN to broadly expand its powers on everything from guns and healthcare to the environment and welfare. The Missouri bill ends with a ban on cooperating with UN allies involved in pushing the controversial agenda. "Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the state of Missouri and all political subdivisions are prohibited from entering into any agreement with, expending any sum of money for, receiving funds from, contracting services from, or giving financial aid to those nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21," it states. The widely criticized UN scheme, adopted by governments and dictatorships worldwide at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro more than two decades ago, has been marketed as a way to make humanity more “sustainable.” According to UN documents, however, Agenda 21 essentially seeks to restructure human civilization under the guise of environmentalism. Even human thought is in the crosshairs, official reports show. While the UN plot has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution, it has been quietly creeping into states and local communities with prodding and bribes from the federal executive branch. “Here in Arizona, Agenda 21 is slowly creeping into the state,” popular Arizona state Sen. Judy Burges, a Republican who sponsored similar legislation in her state, told The New American recently. “It has its tentacles in everything from the schools to local government all the way up to the state.” Also key to foisting the agenda on communities are “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs). Among the primary groups is the Germany-based ICLEI, formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. During an interview with The New American in Rio last June at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, ICLEI President David Cadman said he did not understand opposition to Agenda 21 and did not believe state governments could ban it. If Missouri’s legislation becomes law, however, all state and local agencies will be barred from working with his controversial organization. “This is truly a bill that’s going to help protect Missourians and their private property rights,” said Missouri Rep. Lyle Rowland, a Republican who sponsored the legislation. “Just because Agenda 21 hasn’t been approved by the federal government — there’s a lot of things that we get hit with that there hasn’t been any legislation passed on.” Numerous other lawmakers echoed those sentiments, saying it was important to defend the rights of citizens from unconstitutional assaults. As has become typical in the increasingly fierce nationwide battle, some Democrat politicians opposed the bill, mostly citing bizarre arguments that revealed a profound and troubling ignorance of the entire subject. House Democrat Leader Jake Hummel, for example, apparently woefully uninformed about Agenda 21 and UN sustainability schemes, absurdly compared the effort to protect private property rights, due process, and state sovereignty with regulating extraterrestrials. "Could we talk about space aliens coming down? That could happen," he said, drawing a swift rebuke from better-educated legislators. "Do you think we should waste time on a mythical thing?" It was not immediately clear whether Rep. Hummel was unaware of the existence of Agenda 21, which is touted all over the UN’s websites, or was simply engaged in a strange attempt at humor or ridicule by feigning ignorance. Of course, many Democrats have supported efforts to stop Agenda 21 — in Alabama, every lawmaker voted to support a similar bill. Still, some rabidly pro-UN, big government-supporting lawmakers have also resorted to childish jokes, suggesting either that the UN plan does not exist or that it is actually just a harmless “non-binding” agreement. The international body, however, actually offers a concise summary of the massive plan on its website that has sparked alarm among lawmakers and activists nationwide. “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment,” the UN admits on its website. Even the relatively tame summary has sparked suspicions from analysts, who point out that virtually every aspect of human existence has some “impact” on the “environment.” The UN even claims, for example, that carbon dioxide — a gas exhaled by everyone on Earth and required for all plant life — is a “pollutant” in need of a global CO2 regulation regime. If the latest legislation eventually becomes law, Missouri would be the second state after Alabama to protect private property, state sovereignty, individual liberties, and due process rights by officially banning the controversial UN program. Recent bids to ban the agenda in Arizona and Oklahoma almost succeeded, and multiple other states are working to adopt similar laws. In addition, numerous state and county governments have adopted powerful resolutions blasting Agenda 21 as a “socialist” and “communist” plot completely at odds with American values and constitutional self-government. While the UN has found a determined ally in much of the establishment media and among some extremist Democrats, the effort to quash Agenda 21 is gaining momentum across America. The Republican Party officially opposes it, and even liberty-minded Democrats have joined the movement to protect private property and national sovereignty. Grassroots activists, who have largely led the effort to stop UN encroachments, said the legislation in Missouri was likely just a harbinger of more major victories to come. Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Related articles: Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21 State Ban on UN Agenda 21 Clears Arizona Senate Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Ban UN Agenda 21 Tennessee Passes Resolution Slamming “Socialist” UN Agenda 21 Virginia Takes On Sound Money, Federal Assaults, and UN Agenda 21 The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked GMO Giant Monsanto Joins Big Business Coalition for UN Agenda 21 Powerful New Video Explores How Agenda 21 Will Affect You UN Sustainability Summit Exposed: Big Business, Dictators, and NGOs GOP Platform Rejects UN Agenda 21 as Threat to Sovereignty Your Hometown & the United Nations’ Agenda 21 Sustainable Freedom: Surging Opposition to Agenda 21, “Sustainable Development”

Missouri Legislature Bans UN Agenda 21

Written by Alex Newman

font size
Print
E-mail

With a veto-proof majority, the Missouri legislature approved a popular bill protecting private property and due process rights by banning a deeply controversial United Nations “sustainability” scheme known as UN Agenda 21. The legislation, SB 265, now heads to Democrat Governor Jay Nixon, who has not yet taken a public position on the issue.

The effort to ban Agenda 21 in Missouri, widely celebrated by activists from across the political spectrum, comes in the wake of similar moves to stop the UN plan across America. In Alabama, for example, lawmakers in both houses unanimously approved a law last year prohibiting the international “sustainable development” agenda within the state. Numerous other states are working to do the same, and multiple legislatures have adopted strongly worded resolutions blasting the program.

In Missouri, the legislation was approved 24 to 9 in the GOP-controlled Senate last month. The Republican-dominated state House of Representatives, meanwhile, approved the bill 131 to 42 on May 8, also with a slight veto-proof majority. It remains unclear whether the governor will try to stop the legislation, sign it, or simply do nothing and let it quietly become law, according to news reports.

With lawmakers able to override any potential veto, activists who supported the effort are cautiously optimistic that the state government, as well as city and county authorities, will soon be prohibited by law from implementing the controversial UN agenda in Missouri. Liberty-minded legislators, responding to strong grassroots pressure from constituents, also say the law is needed to protect the rights of citizens.

The two-page legislation is short and simple. "Neither the state of Missouri nor any political subdivision shall adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development,” the bill reads, defining political subdivisions as cities, counties, public-private partnerships, and other public entities.

If the legislation becomes law, the state government and all of its political subdivisions would also be barred from adopting or implementing any other “international law” or “ancillary plan of action” that contravenes the U.S. or Missouri constitutions. Lawmakers in the “Show-Me” State and around the country say such prohibitions are needed to protect citizens from unelected international bureaucrats seeking to impose their will on Americans — especially considering recent overt moves by the UN to broadly expand its powers on everything from guns and healthcare to the environment and welfare.

The Missouri bill ends with a ban on cooperating with UN allies involved in pushing the controversial agenda. "Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the state of Missouri and all political subdivisions are prohibited from entering into any agreement with, expending any sum of money for, receiving funds from, contracting services from, or giving financial aid to those nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21," it states.

The widely criticized UN scheme, adopted by governments and dictatorships worldwide at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro more than two decades ago, has been marketed as a way to make humanity more “sustainable.” According to UN documents, however, Agenda 21 essentially seeks to restructure human civilization under the guise of environmentalism. Even human thought is in the crosshairs, official reports show.

While the UN plot has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution, it has been quietly creeping into states and local communities with prodding and bribes from the federal executive branch. “Here in Arizona, Agenda 21 is slowly creeping into the state,” popular Arizona state Sen. Judy Burges, a Republican who sponsored similar legislation in her state, told The New American recently. “It has its tentacles in everything from the schools to local government all the way up to the state.”

Also key to foisting the agenda on communities are “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs). Among the primary groups is the Germany-based ICLEI, formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. During an interview with The New American in Rio last June at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, ICLEI President David Cadman said he did not understand opposition to Agenda 21 and did not believe state governments could ban it. If Missouri’s legislation becomes law, however, all state and local agencies will be barred from working with his controversial organization.

“This is truly a bill that’s going to help protect Missourians and their private property rights,” said Missouri Rep. Lyle Rowland, a Republican who sponsored the legislation. “Just because Agenda 21 hasn’t been approved by the federal government — there’s a lot of things that we get hit with that there hasn’t been any legislation passed on.” Numerous other lawmakers echoed those sentiments, saying it was important to defend the rights of citizens from unconstitutional assaults.

As has become typical in the increasingly fierce nationwide battle, some Democrat politicians opposed the bill, mostly citing bizarre arguments that revealed a profound and troubling ignorance of the entire subject. House Democrat Leader Jake Hummel, for example, apparently woefully uninformed about Agenda 21 and UN sustainability schemes, absurdly compared the effort to protect private property rights, due process, and state sovereignty with regulating extraterrestrials.

"Could we talk about space aliens coming down? That could happen," he said, drawing a swift rebuke from better-educated legislators. "Do you think we should waste time on a mythical thing?" It was not immediately clear whether Rep. Hummel was unaware of the existence of Agenda 21, which is touted all over the UN’s websites, or was simply engaged in a strange attempt at humor or ridicule by feigning ignorance.

Of course, many Democrats have supported efforts to stop Agenda 21 — in Alabama, every lawmaker voted to support a similar bill. Still, some rabidly pro-UN, big government-supporting lawmakers have also resorted to childish jokes, suggesting either that the UN plan does not exist or that it is actually just a harmless “non-binding” agreement. The international body, however, actually offers a concise summary of the massive plan on its website that has sparked alarm among lawmakers and activists nationwide.

“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment,” the UN admits on its website. Even the relatively tame summary has sparked suspicions from analysts, who point out that virtually every aspect of human existence has some “impact” on the “environment.” The UN even claims, for example, that carbon dioxide — a gas exhaled by everyone on Earth and required for all plant life — is a “pollutant” in need of a global CO2 regulation regime.

If the latest legislation eventually becomes law, Missouri would be the second state after Alabama to protect private property, state sovereignty, individual liberties, and due process rights by officially banning the controversial UN program. Recent bids to ban the agenda in Arizona and Oklahoma almost succeeded, and multiple other states are working to adopt similar laws. In addition, numerous state and county governments have adopted powerful resolutions blasting Agenda 21 as a “socialist” and “communist” plot completely at odds with American values and constitutional self-government.

While the UN has found a determined ally in much of the establishment media and among some extremist Democrats, the effort to quash Agenda 21 is gaining momentum across America. The Republican Party officially opposes it, and even liberty-minded Democrats have joined the movement to protect private property and national sovereignty. Grassroots activists, who have largely led the effort to stop UN encroachments, said the legislation in Missouri was likely just a harbinger of more major victories to come.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

Related articles:

Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21
State Ban on UN Agenda 21 Clears Arizona Senate
Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Ban UN Agenda 21
Tennessee Passes Resolution Slamming “Socialist” UN Agenda 21
Virginia Takes On Sound Money, Federal Assaults, and UN Agenda 21
The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked
GMO Giant Monsanto Joins Big Business Coalition for UN Agenda 21
Powerful New Video Explores How Agenda 21 Will Affect You
UN Sustainability Summit Exposed: Big Business, Dictators, and NGOs
GOP Platform Rejects UN Agenda 21 as Threat to Sovereignty
Your Hometown & the United Nations’ Agenda 21
Sustainable Freedom: Surging Opposition to Agenda 21, “Sustainable Development”

Developments in the Policing of National Special Security Events: An Analysis of the 2012 RNC and DNC

Executive Summary
In preparation for the 2012 Democratic and Republican national conventions, the cities of Charlotte and Tampa—working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security and under the supervision of the U.S. Secret Service—implemented a militarized security model that is now standard at high profile gatherings designated as National Special Security Events (NSSE). The security measures taken at the RNC and DNC are in keeping with the last fifteen years of government planning for national and international political and economic meetings, which have been defined by massive expenditures on weapons and outside personnel, restrictive event permits and ordinances that limit protest activities, and the vilification of constitutionally protected speech and assembly through media manipulation and aggressive police tactics. While this year’s nominating conventions produced smaller demonstrations and fewer arrests than expected by protest organizers, the militarization of the host cities and the narrative of violent protesters used to justify these practices must be challenged.
Drawing from firsthand observations of NLG members who were in Tampa and Charlotte, as well as interviews with activists and media accounts, this report presents an overview of the 2012 RNC and DNC demonstrations and makes recommendations for treatment of protesters at future events. In particular, we discuss the effects of designating political conventions as NSSEs, the selection of host cities, the expenditures on police equipment and personnel, the adoption of protest-targeted ordinances, the preconceived police narrative of protester violence, and the evolving use of media technology by protesters and police.

Freedom From War The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

Freedom From War

The United States Program
for General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful
World

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961

Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. - Price 15 cents

INTRODUCTION

The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should be taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:

First, there must be immediate disarmament action:

A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.

Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject to effective international controls:

The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.

Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:

There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.

--------

There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The full text of the program is contained in an appendix to this pamphlet.

FREEDOM FROM WAR

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

SUMMARY

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations. In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:

The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.

TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES

The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form part of the total program.

GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that:

As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes;
Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;
Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;
Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and
Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.

DISARMAMENT STAGES

The program provides for progressive disarmament steps to take place in three stages and for the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions.

FIRST STAGE

The first stage contains measures which would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage aggressive war. Implementation of this stage would mean that:

The nuclear threat would be reduced:
   All states would have adhered to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons.
   The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons would be stopped and quantities of such materials from past production would be converted to non-weapons uses.
   States owning nuclear weapons would not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and would not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture.
    States not owning nuclear weapons would not manufacture them or attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states.
   A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Strategic delivery vehicles would be reduced:
Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of specified categories and weapons designed to counter such vehicles would be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps; their production would be discontinued or limited; their testing would be limited or halted.
Arms and armed forces would be reduced:
The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.1 million men each (with appropriate levels not exceeding that amount for other militarily significant states); levels of armaments would be correspondingly reduced and their production would be limited.
An Experts Commission would be established to examine and report on the feasibility and means of accomplishing verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of all chemical, biological and radiological weapons.
Peaceful use of outer space would be promoted:
The placing in orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable of producing mass destruction would be prohibited.
States would give advance notification of space vehicle and missile launchings.
U.N. peace-keeping powers would be strengthened:
Measures would be taken to develop and strengthen United Nations arrangements for arbitration, for the development of international law, and for the establishment in Stage II of a permanent U.N. Peace Force.
An International Disarmament Organization would be established for effective verification of the disarmament program:
   Its functions would be expanded progressively as disarmament proceeds.
   It would certify to all states that agreed reductions have taken place and that retained forces and armaments do not exceed permitted levels.
   It would determine the transition from one stage to the next.
States would be committed to other measures to reduce international tension and to protect against the chance of war by accident, miscalculation, or surprise attack:
   States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
   A U.N. peace observation group would be available to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.
   States would be committed to give advance notice of major military movements which might cause alarm; observation posts would be established to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.

SECOND STAGE

The second stage contains a series of measures which would bring within sight a world in which there would be freedom from war. Implementation of all measures in the second stage would mean:

Further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons;
Further development of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes under the United Nations;
Establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations;
Depending on the findings of an Experts Commission, a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses;
On the basis of the findings of an Experts Commission, a reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons;
The dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located; and
The strengthening and enlargement of the International Disarmament Organization to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to determine the transition to Stage III.

THIRD STAGE

During the third stage of the program, the states of the world, building on the experience and confidence gained in successfully implementing the measures of the first two stages, would take final steps toward the goal of a world in which:

States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

Appendix

DECLARATION ON DISARMAMENT

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

The Nations of the world,
Conscious of the crisis in human history produced by the revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences;
Determined to save present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of the arms race and to create conditions in which all peoples can strive freely and peacefully to fulfill their basic aspirations;
Declare their goal to be: A free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world where adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations; a world where there shall be a permanent state of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and where the resources of nations shall be devoted to man's material, cultural, and spiritual advance;
Set forth as the objectives of a program of general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world:
(a) The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
(b) The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
(c) The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations;
(d) The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
Call on the negotiating states:
(a) To develop the outline program set forth below into an agreed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved;
(b) To this end to seek to attain the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date;
(c) Also to seek --- without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program --- agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form a part of that program.
Affirm that disarmament negotiations should be guided by the following principles:
(a) Disarmament shall take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed in stages containing balanced, phased and safeguarded measures, with each measure and stage to be carried out in an agreed period of time.
(b) Compliance with all disarmament obligations shall be effectively verified from their entry into force. Verification arrangements shall be instituted progressively and in such a manner as to verify not only that agreed limitations or reductions take place but also that retained armed forces and armaments do not exceed agreed levels at any stage.
(c) Disarmament shall take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state, whether or not a party to an international agreement or treaty.
(d) As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as well as to facilitate the development of international cooperation in common tasks for the benefit of mankind.
(e) Transition from one stage of disarmament to the next shall take place as soon as all the measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and effective verification is continuing and as soon as the arrangements that have been agreed to be necessary for the next stage have been instituted.
Agree upon the following outline program for achieving general and complete disarmament:

STAGE I

A. To Establish an International Disarmament Organization:
(a) An International Disarmament Organization (IDO) shall be established within the framework of the United Nations upon entry into force of the agreement. Its functions shall be expanded progressively as required for the effective verification of the disarmament program.
(b) The IDO shall have: (1) a General Conference of all the parties; (2) a Commission consisting of representatives of all the major powers as permanent members and certain other states on a rotating basis; and (3) an Administrator who will administer the Organization subject to the direction of the Commission and who will have the authority, staff, and finances adequate to assure effective impartial implementation of the functions of the Organization.
(c) The IDO shall: (1) ensure compliance with the obligations undertaken by verifying the execution of measures agreed upon; (2) assist the states in developing the details of agreed further verification and disarmament measures; (3) provide for the establishment of such bodies as may be necessary for working out the details of further measures provided for in the program and for such other expert study groups as may be required to give continuous study to the problems of disarmament; (4) receive reports on the progress of disarmament and verification arrangements and determine the transition from one stage to the next.

B. To Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Force levels shall be limited to 2.1 million each for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and to appropriate levels not exceeding 2.1 million each for all other militarily significant states. Reductions to the agreed levels will proceed by equitable, proportionate, and verified steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reductions shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the states party to the agreement have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) The production of agreed types of armaments shall be limited.
(d) A Chemical, Biological, Radiological (CBR) Experts Commission shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of CBR weapons stockpiles and the halting of their production.

C. To Contain and Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
(a) States that have not acceded to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons shall do so.
(b) The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped.
(c) Upon the cessation of production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, agreed initial quantities of fissionable materials from past production shall be transferred to non-weapons purposes.
(d) Any fissionable materials transferred between countries for peaceful uses of nuclear energy shall be subject to appropriate safeguards to be developed in agreement with the IAEA.
(e) States owning nuclear weapons shall not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and shall not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons shall not manufacture such weapons, attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states, or seek or receive information or materials necessary for their manufacture.
(f) A Nuclear Experts Commission consisting of representatives of the nuclear states shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.

D. To Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
(a) Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles in specified categories and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished in each step by transfers to depots supervised by the IDO of vehicles that are in excess of levels agreed upon for each step. At specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the vehicles that have been placed under supervision of the IDO shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(b) Production of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be discontinued or limited.
(c) Testing of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be limited or halted.

E. To Promote the Peaceful Use of Outer Space:
(a) The placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable c,f producing mass destruction shall be prohibited.
(b) States shall give advance notification to participating states and to the IDO of launchings of space vehicles and missiles, together with the track of the vehicle.

F. To Reduce the Risks of War by Accident, Miscalculation, and Surprise Attack:
(a) States shall give advance notification to the participating states and to the IDO of major military movements and maneuvers, on a scale as may be agreed, which might give rise to misinterpretation or cause alarm and induce countermeasures. The notification shall include the geographic areas to be used and the nature, scale and time span of the event.
(b) There shall be established observation posts at such locations as major ports, railway centers, motor highways, and air bases to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.
(c) There shall also be established such additional inspection arrangements to reduce the danger of surprise attack as may be agreed.
(d) An international commission shall be established immediately within the IDO to examine and make recommendations on the possibility of further measures to reduce the risks of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, or failure of communication.

G. To Keep the Peace:
(a) States shall reaffirm their obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force--including nuclear, conventional, or CBR--contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter.
(b) States shall agree to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
(c) States shall use all appropriate processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes and shall seek within the United Nations further arrangements for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and for the codification and progressive development of international law.
(d) States shall develop arrangements in Stage I for the establishment in Stage II of a U.N. Peace Force.
(e) A U.N. peace observation group shall be staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be dispatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.

STAGE II

A. International Disarmament Organization:
The powers and responsibilities of the IDO shall be progressively enlarged in order to give it the capabilities to verify the measures undertaken in Stage II.

B. To Further Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Levels of forces for the U.S., U.S.S.R., and other militarily significant states shall be further reduced by substantial amounts to agreed levels in equitable and balanced steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be further reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage II reduction process, the parties have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) There shall be further agreed restrictions on the production of armaments.
(d) Agreed military bases and facilities wherever they are located shall be dismantled or converted to peaceful uses.
(e) Depending upon the findings of the Experts Commission on CBR weapons, the production of CBR weapons shall be halted, existing stocks progressively reduced, and the resulting excess quantities destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.

C. To Further Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon as a result of the findings of the Nuclear Experts Commission; the resulting excess of fissionable material shall be transferred to peaceful purposes.

D. To Further Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in Stage I.

E. To Keep the Peace:
During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the United Nations, to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations:
(a) States shall agree upon strengthening the structure, authority, and operation of the United Nations so as to assure that the United Nations will be able effectively to protect states against threats to or breaches of the peace.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened.
(c) States shall also agree upon further improvements and developments in rules of international conduct and in processes for peaceful settlement of disputes and differences.

STAGE III

By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.

The progressive steps to be taken during the final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:
(a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N Peace Force.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
(c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
(d) The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 O 609147 [end of document]

as if i am dumb i will never believe the lies of this man

President Obama: Advancing Israel's Security and Supporting Peace

“Our commitment to the security of Israel is rock solid. And as I've said to the Prime Minister in every single one of our meetings, the United States will always have Israel's back when it comes to Israel's security. This is a bond that is based not only on our mutual security interests and economic interests, but is also based on common values and the incredible people-to-people contacts that we have between our two countries.”

President Barack Obama
March 5, 2012

The President has strengthened Israel’s security in tangible and concrete ways.
On July 27, 2012 the President signed the “United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012”, which strengthens Israel’s qualitative military edge. The bill expressed bipartisan Congressional support for Administration initiatives that deepen U.S. defense and security cooperation with Israel, to include providing Israel with financial and technological assistance to produce defensive systems to counter the threat of rockets and missiles; access to U.S. manufactured defense equipment and excess defense articles; and increased opportunities to train with U.S. military forces.
Despite tough fiscal times, the President fought for and secured full funding for Israel in FY 2012, including $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing – the largest amount of funding for Israel in U.S. history.
The President secured an additional $205 million in FY 2011 to help produce an Israeli-developed short-range rocket defense system called Iron Dome, which has helped defend Israeli communities against rocket attacks by successfully striking rockets as they are fired at Israeli civilians.
In July 2012, President Obama provided an additional $70 million to Israel to ensure that Israel could maximize its production of the Iron Dome system for 2012. Over the next three years, the Administration intends to request additional funding for Iron Dome, based on an annual assessment of Israeli security requirements against an evolving threat.
Israeli forces now benefit from regular joint exercises and training opportunities, access to advanced U.S. military hardware, emergency stockpiles, and favorable terms for the acquisition of equipment.
Prime Minister Netanyahu told the AIPAC conference on May 23, 2012, that “Yesterday President Obama spoke about his ironclad commitment to Israel's security. He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented… And he has backed those words with deeds.”
In a July 25, 2012, speech to the Israeli National Security College, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, “The security ties between us and the current administration are at the highest level they have ever been. The administration is consistently strengthening the depths of Israel’s security abilities. The decision to expand the Iron Dome system with U.S. financial backing is yet another expression of this deep connection and commitment.”
The President has galvanized the international community to put more pressure on the Iranian regime than ever before.
President Obama has been clear that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He has backed up this commitment with tangible steps to increase pressure substantially on the Iranian regime and raise the costs of its defiance of the international community.
With President Obama’s leadership, the United States gained the support of Russia, China, and other nations to pass United Nations Security Council resolution 1929, creating the most comprehensive and biting international sanctions regime the Iranian government has ever faced. This resolution imposes restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities, ballistic missile program, conventional military exports to Iran, Iranian banks and financial transactions, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The Obama Administration also worked with allies such as the European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, Canada, and others to adopt additional national measures to increase pressure on the Iranian regime, including in the financial, banking, insurance, transportation, and energy sectors. Iran is now virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system and we are working aggressively to isolate Iran even further.
In addition to multilateral sanctions, President Obama worked with Congress to pass in 2010 the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which strengthens existing U.S. sanctions, and makes it harder for the Iranian government to buy refined petroleum and the goods it needs to modernize its oil and gas sector. Already, close to $60 billion in energy-related projects in Iran have been put on hold or discontinued.
More recently, the Administration worked with Congress to develop Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which makes sanctionable a host of transactions involving the Central Bank of Iran.
The United States has worked closely with partners during the first half of 2012 to secure their cooperation with these sanctions, resulting in the significant reduction of purchases of oil from all of Iran’s major oil trading partners. For instance, the European Union has put in place a full embargo on Iranian oil. The impact on Iran has been severe, with perhaps as much as 1 million barrels per day in sales revenue taken away from Iran, at the cost of billions per month.
International companies are increasingly recognizing the risks of doing business with Iran and are abandoning existing business opportunities, declining to take advantage of new ones, and scaling back any existing relationships. This trend has been replicated across a broad range of industries. Examples of companies withdrawing from business with Iran include: Shell, Total, ENI, Statoil, Repsol, Lukoil, Kia, Toyota, Siemens, and foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms such as GE, Honeywell, and Caterpillar.
The Obama Administration is working to develop more sanctions to further isolate and increase the pressure on the Iranian regime. The President signed two new Executive Orders in April 2012 that addressed human rights violations and sanctions evasion, and we continue to look for new ways to expand our authorities and strengthen our implementation of existing ones to ensure that Iran understands that its failure to comply with its international obligations will have ever intensifying consequences.
The President has stood with Israel in times of crisis.
The President personally intervened to help avert catastrophe when a violent mob stormed the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. Afterwards, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said of the President: “I requested his assistance at a decisive—I would even say fateful—moment. He said he would do everything possible, and this is what he did. He activated all of the United States’ means and influence — which are certainly considerable. I believe we owe him a special debt of gratitude.”
The President has made clear that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Hamas, a terrorist group sworn to its destruction.
In his speech in Cairo and elsewhere, the President has consistently demanded that Hamas accept Israel’s right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to all existing agreements before it can play a role in achieving Middle East peace.
The President has spoken out forcefully to condemn Hamas attacks against Israelis. He has made clear that “it is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That’s not how moral authority is claimed; that’s how it is surrendered.” At the United Nations, he emphasized that “the slaughter of innocent Israelis is not resistance – it’s injustice.”
The President has forcefully opposed unbalanced and biased actions against Israel in the Security Council, the UN General Assembly, and across the UN system.
The President has consistently opposed attempts to shortcut the peace process through resolutions at the United Nations. When an effort was made to insert the Security Council into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it. In his September 21, 2011 address to the United Nations General Assembly, the President said “I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.”
When the UN General Assembly voted for a commemoration in September 2011 of the original 2001 Durban conference, we voted against it and announced we would not participate. When the Goldstone Report was released, we stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself.
The President has called on all sides – Arabs, Palestinians, and Israelis alike – to do their part to help achieve Middle East peace.
In Cairo, the President said that Arab states must recognize that they too have responsibilities to move towards peace, including by fostering a culture of peace. He said clearly that “threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong,” and that denying the Holocaust is “baseless, ignorant, and hateful.”
In his May 19, 2011 speech, President Obama emphasized that a peace agreement must meet the needs of both sides, including by: ending the conflict and resolving all claims, achieving the goal of two states for two peoples with Israel as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people, achieving secure and recognized borders for both sides, and devising robust security arrangements that will not leave Israel vulnerable.

The Khazarian Occupation of America

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Bradley Manning: US ‘aiding the enemy’ charge a travesty of justice

Bradley Manning: US ‘aiding the enemy’ charge a travesty of justice

Bradley Manning: US ‘aiding the enemy’ charge a travesty of justice

Bradley Manning: US ‘aiding the enemy’ charge a travesty of justice

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Egypt’s Foreign Minister Resigns, Islamists Call for Rallies

Egypt’s Foreign Minister Resigns, Islamists Call for Rallies

Egypt’s Foreign Minister Resigns, Islamists Call for Rallies

Syrian file on Saudi Arabia and beyond the permit Obama to possess Saudi nuclear weapon

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Why Is Getting Obama To Disclose His Legal Clients Like Pulling Teeth?

Dept. of Aptitude (w/Alexandra Robbins)

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Missouri Legislature Bans UN Agenda 21

Developments in the Policing of National Special Security Events: An Analysis of the 2012 RNC and DNC

Developments in the Policing of National Special Security Events: An Analysis of the 2012 RNC and DNC

Developments in the Policing of National Special Security Events: An Analysis of the 2012 RNC and DNC

Tags

Freedom From War The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

Freedom From War

The United States Program
for General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful
World

INTRODUCTION

FREEDOM FROM WAR

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

SUMMARY

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES

GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

DISARMAMENT STAGES

DECLARATION ON DISARMAMENT

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

STAGE I

STAGE II

STAGE III

as if i am dumb i will never believe the lies of this man

President Obama: Advancing Israel's Security and Supporting Peace

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Bradley Manning: US ‘aiding the enemy’ charge a travesty of justice

Bradley Manning: US ‘aiding the enemy’ charge a travesty of justice

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Egypt’s Foreign Minister Resigns, Islamists Call for Rallies

Egypt’s Foreign Minister Resigns, Islamists Call for Rallies

Syrian file on Saudi Arabia and beyond the permit Obama to possess Saudi nuclear weapon

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Missouri Legislature Bans UN Agenda 21

Developments in the Policing of National Special Security Events: An Analysis of the 2012 RNC and DNC

Developments in the Policing of National Special Security Events: An Analysis of the 2012 RNC and DNC

Tags

Freedom From War

The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

INTRODUCTION

FREEDOM FROM WAR

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

SUMMARY

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES

GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

DISARMAMENT STAGES

DECLARATION ON DISARMAMENT

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

STAGE I

STAGE II

STAGE III

President Obama: Advancing Israel's Security and Supporting Peace

The United States Program
for General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful
World

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD