Denk niet dat er nog iemand is die gelooft dat de FBI een nette politie organisatie is, of je moet werkelijk niets hebben gelezen over deze organisatie, bovendien zijn er flink wat films waarin de FBI een uiterst dubieuze rol speelt (en ja ik weet: er zijn er ook genoeg die het tegenovergestelde proberen te laten zien).......
In een zaak tegen een 'white supremacist' (ofwel een neonazi) heeft de verdachte de FBI beschuldigd van het 16 jaar lang werken met een uitgever van racistische (en nazi-) publicaties..... Deze zou van de FBI voor zijn heilzame werkzaamheden maar liefst een bedrag van in totaal $ 144,000 hebben ontvangen en voor de zaak tegen de verdachte nog eens $ 82,000..... Daarnaast was deze uitgever 15 jaar geleden gearresteerd voor het illegaal (zonder vergunning) hebben van een vuurwapen, waarvan het serienummer was weggevijld, bovendien had hij voor dat wapen een ongeregistreerde geluidsdemper, de straf werd niet opgelegd daar deze figuur beloofde voor de FBI te zullen werken...... ('goed hè?' het systeem van 'kroongetuige....')
Het Department of Justice (DOJ), te vergelijken met ons Ministerie van Justitie, stelt lak te hebben aan e.e.a. men zou de verdachte toch wel hebben berecht, voorts wordt het wapenbezit gebagatelliseerd...... Je 'zou bijna denken' dat het DOJ zich onder en boven de wet stelt, immers een kroongetuige mag in de VS geen geldelijk gewin halen, noch andere voordelen hebben bij het getuigen tegen een verdachte...... Dit valt uiteraard ook de FBI kwalijk te nemen, echter dat die organisatie onder en boven de wet staat is zonder meer zeker, de bewijzen daarvoor vullen intussen een gigantisch archief...... Bovendien 'zou je kunnen denken' dat het DOJ en de FBI zijn afgeladen met racisten......
Verderop in het artikel hieronder opgenomen, geschreven door Ken Silva en dat werd gepubliceerd op The Epoch Times, stelt Silva dat de beschuldigingen tegen de informant vooraf werden gegaan door de rol die FBI informanten hebben gespeeld in de mislukte samenzwering om Michigan gouverneur Gretchen Whitmer te ontvoeren: uit onderzoek van Buzzfeed News bleek dat de FBI minstens 12 informanten gebruikte die bij het plan tot ontvoering waren betrokken, waardoor de idee is ontstaan dat het plan tot ontvoering van Whitmer zonder de FBI niet zou hebben bestaan.....
Voorts zijn er vragen gesteld over de rol van de FBI bij de bestorming van het Capitol op 6 januari dit jaar. Glenn Greenwald, die vaak over smerige zaken van de FBI heeft geschreven, stelde dat het niet shockerend zou zijn als zou blijken dat de FBI informanten en andere infiltranten had in de groepen die de rellen van 6 januari planden, maar wat wel shockerend, bizar en onverklaarbaar zou zijn is als de FBI deze groepen niet onder strenge controle zou hebben gehad........
FBI headquarters in Washington on Feb. 2, 2018. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
FBI Allegedly Funded White Supremacist Publisher: Court Documents
By Ken Silva August 29, 2021Updated: August 29, 2021
The FBI allegedly paid a publisher of white supremacist
literature more than $144,000 over 16-plus years to serve as a
confidential informant, according to recent filings in an ongoing
domestic extremism case.
These allegations were made earlier this month by Kaleb Cole, an
accused member of the white supremacist group Atomwaffen. Cole was arrested
in February 2020 for allegedly participating in an Atomwaffen
intimidation campaign against Jewish people and journalists of color.
On Aug. 13, Cole filed a motion to suppress evidence seized during
the FBI’s search of his Texas home. According to Cole, the FBI failed to
disclose the sordid background of one of its confidential informants in
the bureau’s application for a search warrant.
“The CI [confidential informant] is a convicted felon and currently
owns and operates a publishing company that distributes white
supremacist writings,” Cole said in his Aug. 13 filing.
“The CI began his long career as a professional informant in exchange
for consideration regarding his sentence on a federal conviction for
possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number and an
unregistered silencer.
“He has continued this work for pay.”
According to Cole, the FBI has paid this white supremacist more than
$144,000, including more than $82,000 for his work in this case.
Cole’s attorneys argued that the FBI’s omissions violate requirements
for law enforcement to disclose whether their informants have financial
or other ulterior motives for providing information.
“The failure to include the information about the CI’s incentives is
made more egregious by the fact that the warrant application
incriminated Mr. Cole based almost solely on the alleged observations of
the CI,” Cole’s motion said.
The Department of Justice admitted in filings last week that the FBI
failed to disclose information about the confidential informant’s
criminal history—though prosecutors said the search warrant used against
Cole was still legally obtained.
“Although the defense is correct that certain potential impeachment
information about the informant was not included in the affidavit, that
omission is hardly fatal,” the DOJ said. “The omitted information was
limited to the fact that the informant was well compensated by the FBI
over a 16-year period, and was convicted of a firearms crime over 15
years ago.”
According to prosecutors, the FBI didn’t include this information
because agents believed in good faith that probable cause wasn’t
dependent on the informant’s credibility.
Moreover, the FBI didn’t believe that including the informant’s
criminal history would have changed the judge’s decision to issue a
warrant to search Cole’s home, prosecutors said. In fact, the DOJ argued
that the FBI’s use of the informant for more than 16 years suggests
that the FBI consistently found the informant reliable.
“And it is far-fetched to suggest that a single 15-year-old firearms
conviction would have caused the magistrate judge to refuse to sign off
on the warrant,” the DOJ said. “And finally, as the affidavit outlined
in great detail, the agents were able to corroborate the information the
informant had relayed about the plot.”
The DOJ’s response didn’t address Cole’s allegation that the FBI informant is a white supremacist publisher.
When contacted by The Epoch Times, a DOJ spokesperson said, “Our
filings in this case speak for themselves, and we have no additional
comment to add at this time.” Cole’s attorney declined to comment, while
the FBI’s Houston office directed inquiries to the national press
office, which has not responded.
Cole’s case is set for jury trial on Sept. 27.
The allegations about the Atomwaffen informant follow revelations
about the heavy role FBI informants played in the failed plot to kidnap
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. A Buzzfeed News investigation
last month found that the FBI used at least 12 informants involved with
the kidnapping—suggesting that the scheme might not have started in the
first place without the FBI.
“Working in secret, they [the informants] did more than just
passively observe and report on the actions of the suspects. Instead,
they had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting
with its inception,” Buzzfeed reported. “The extent of their involvement
raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy
without them.”
Questions have also been raised about the role FBI informants may have played in the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riots.
“What would be shocking and strange is not if the FBI had embedded
informants and other infiltrators in the groups planning the January 6
Capitol riot,” said journalist Glenn Greenwald, who’s been extensively
documenting various questionable activities of the national security
apparatus, in a recent op-ed. “What would be shocking and strange—bizarre and inexplicable—is if the FBI did not have those groups under tight control.”
Ken Silva
Ken Silva covers national security issues for The
Epoch Times. His reporting background also includes cybersecurity, crime
and offshore finance – including three years as a reporter in the
British Virgin Islands and two years in the Cayman Islands. Contact him
at ken.silva@epochtimes.us
'Ex-FBI bons geeft toe dat FBI zich bezighield en houdt met het manipuleren van VS verkiezingen.....' (24 januari 2019; inclusief een gecensureerde video....) En dan lopen de reguliere westerse media maar te zeiken over Russische bemoeienis met verkiezingen elders, terwijl de VS niet anders doet, niet alleen elders maar ook in eigen land, echter daarvoor is amper of geen belangstelling bij die media..... (en zie de links in dat bericht, o.a. verwijzend naar Martin Luther King, die slachtoffer werd van een FBI samenzwering....)
Glenn
Greeenwald schrijft over het feit dat een tweede oorlog tegen terreur op til is, nu gericht tegen de binnenlandse terreur in de VS, echter gegarandeerd
dat er al generaals zijn en topgraaiers van de geheime diensten, die proberen om dit om te vormen tegen de 'buitenlandse
terreur......' (zoals de nazi's het woord terreur al gebruikten als ze het hadden over
verzetsdaden, ook in het buitenland.......) Al zal men in de nabije
toekomst de wat men in de VS extreem linkse sites noemt, van het internet bannen, zoals Brasscheck TV nu al bijna geen door YouTube 'geserveerde'
video meer kan weergeven in haar berichten of je krijgt te lezen dat
men 'dit adres niet vertrouwt', of je nog maar even wilt kijken, echter
wat je ook doet: je krijgt de video niet te zien..... (een enkele uitzondering daar gelaten)
Kortom
links (althans wat men in de VS politiek 'links' noemt) zal worden
gecensureerd en dan krijg je zo'n video bijvoorbeeld niet meer te
zien en met 'een beetje geluk' wordt je account verwijderd dan wel geblokkeerd....... Benieuwd
of men ook zo hard achter rechts aangaat en dan heb je het over extreem
rechts, je weet wel de figuren die zich lieten opjutten om het
Capitol te bestormen. De vraag stellen is haar beantwoorden:
uiteraard worden deelnemers van die bestorming strafrechtelijke
vervolgd, anders zouden er 'South Park rellen' uitbreken over de hele
VS.... Maar reken gerust dat men na een eerste 'opwinding' onder het volk, extreem rechts
weer snel 'links' zal laten liggen...... Met 'links' bedoel ik uiteraard niet
het spreekwoordelijke links van zojuist, maar allen die uit
overtuigende redenen werken aan een betere wereld, een wereld waar
iedereen gelukkig kan zijn en niet alleen de kleine minderheid die de
'zaakjes prima voor elkaar heeft', een wereld ook waar men werkelijk probeert de klimaatverandering af te remmen en de luchtvervuiling daadwerkelijk zo snel mogelijk probeert uit te bannen.... (zo behoort de Nederlandse luchtkwaliteit tot de slechtste van de EU, waardoor jaarlijks rond de 18.000 mensen [het echte cijfer], niet maanden maar jaren eerder overlijden en dat in verreweg het grootste aantal gevallen na een akelig ziekbed....) Tja, als je je inzet voor een wereld die ook voor komende generaties leefbaar moet blijven, word je al snel als links neergezet.....
Maar
terug naar het onderwerp: deze tweede oorlog tegen terreur zal naar
schatting nog veel meer mensen schaden en de de dood injagen.....
In de
film het verhaal van Mohemedou Slahi, een man die het slachtoffer
werd in de eerste oorlog tegen terreur, hij zat 14 jaar gevangen, niet
alleen in Guantanamo Bay maar ook in de geheime CIA gevangenissen
over de wereld en als in Guantanamo werd hij daar vreselijk werd gemarteld.... (maar ja zijn
daarin nog gradaties te ontdekken? vast wel....) Obama beloofde bij zijn aantreden de gevangenen van Guantanmo Bay vrij te laten tegen wie geen zaak was, echter zijn administratie en daarmee hijzelf ging in tegen de vrijspraak van Slahi, zodat hij nog langer moest vastzitten.... Slahi is nooit veroordeeld en toch is hij ondanks dat hij in 2016 vrij kwam nog steeds een gevangene, daar hij Mauritanië niet mag verlaten van de VS, een voorwaarde voor zijn vrijlating, daardoor kan Slahi o.a. zijn zoon niet bezoeken die in Duitsl;and woont..... Ach ja de VS, de grootste terreurentiteit ter wereld.....
Onlangs
had ik nog een bericht over Ahmed
Rabbani die
nog steeds volkomen onterecht gevangen zit in Guantanamo Bay*, deze mensen, voor het
overgrote deel niet eens veroordeeld, moeten vrijgelaten worden en
liever gisteren dan vandaag, zijn ze in de VS nu helemaal gek
geworden???? (nogmaals: de vraag stellen is haar beantwoorden....) Slahi heeft nog een opmerkelijke gelijkenis met Rabbani: ook hij koestert verder geen wrok tegen de VS (ik kan me dat niet voorstellen na zoveel ellende, het geeft nogmaals aan dat de VS willekeurig mensen heeft ontvoerd, niet zelden na tipgeld te hebben betaald aan schoften die zogenaamde terroristen aangaven en dat is dan weer een vergelijking met het kopgeld dat de nazi-Duitse bezetter betaalde voor het verklikken van o.a. Joden.......)
Zoals gezegd de VS is de
grootste terreurentiteit ter wereld en is alleen deze eeuw al
verantwoordelijk voor de moord op 5 miljoen mensen en weet je wat?
Die massamoord begon met de 'terreuraanval' op de Twin Towers in New
York en ja dat is intussen 20 jaar geleden...... Een aanval die
overduidelijk is georganiseerd door de CIA, NSA en
hoogstwaarschijnlijk met hulp van de Israëlische Mossad, deze torens
en WTC gebouw 7 kunnen onmogelijk door hitte zijn neergegaan, zoals
intussen een groot aantal deskundigen hebben verklaard, zoveel en
overtuigend dat de figuren die dit af durven doen als de door de CIA
uitgevonden term 'complottheorie', zichzelf volkomen belachelijk maken......
Lees het
ontluisterende artikel hieronder, geschreven door Glenn Geenwald en zie de video's
en houd in de toekomst je ogen open en je camera of smartphone bij de hand (en zet je
GPS uit!!)!! Geeft het door, voor je het weet ben jij slachtoffer
van de heksenjacht 2021, of die nog een paar jaar op zich laat wachten........
Je kent het devies: mensen die nadenken zijn uitermate lastig (voor
de autoriteiten.....) en nee bij rechts zijn maar weinig mensen te
vinden die echt zelf kunnen denken...... Vandaar ook het succes van fascistische partijen of bewegingen als resp. FVD en de PVV......
Imprisoned
without charges for fourteen years in Guantánamo, Mohamedou Slahi is
a symbol of humans' impulse to abuse power and their capacity for
redemption.
SYSTEM
UPDATE interview with Mohamedou Slahi from his home in Mauritania,
March 6, 2021
Mohamedou
Slahi is
an extraordinary person with a harrowing past and a remarkable,
still-unfolding story. The interview I conducted with him on
Saturday, which can be viewed below, is one I sincerely hope you will
watch. He has much to say that the world should hear, and, with a new
War on Terror likely to be launched in the U.S., his story is
particularly timely now.
Known
as the author of the best-selling Guantánamo
Diary
— a memoir he wrote during his fourteen years in captivity in the
U.S. prison camp at Guantánamo — he is now the primary character
of a new Hollywood feature film about his life, The
Mauritanian.
The first eight years of Slahi’s imprisonment included multiple
forms of abuse in four different countries and separation from
everything he knew, but it afforded no charges, trials, or
opportunities to refute or even learn of the accusations against him.
The
film stars Jodie Foster, Benedict Cumberbatch and Shailene Woodley,
while Slahi is played by the French-Algerian actor Tahar Rahim.
Foster last week won a Golden Globe award for her role as Nancy
Hollander, Slahi’s lawyer who worked for years, for free, to secure
his right simply to have a court evaluate the evidence which the U.S.
Government believed justified his due-process-free, indefinite
imprisonment. Cumberbatch plays Slahi’s military prosecutor whose
friend died on 9/11 when the American Airlines passenger jet he was
piloting was hijacked and flown into the South Tower of the World
Trade Center.
Slahi’s
story is fascinating unto itself but, with a second War on Terror
looming, bears particular relevance now. No matter your views on the
post-9/11 War on Terror — ranging from “it
was necessary to take the gloves off and dispense with all limits in
order to win this war against an unprecedented evil and existential
threat”
to “the
U.S. gravely overreacted and mirrored the worst abuses of what it
claimed it was fighting”
to anything in between — it cannot be disputed that limitless power
was placed in the hands of the U.S. Government to imprison, to
monitor, to surveil, to kidnap and to kill anyone it wanted, anywhere
in the world, with no checks. And like most authorities vested in the
state in the name of some emergency, these powers were said to be
temporary but, almost twenty years later, show no signs of going
anywhere. They are now embedded in the woodwork of U.S. political
life.
What
happened to Slahi is a vivid embodiment of how humans will inevitably
abuse power when it is wielded without safeguards or limits. In
November, 2001, Slahi was attending a party with his mother and other
relatives in his home country of Mauritania, the U.S.-aligned nation
in Northwest Africa plagued for years by dictatorships and military
coups. Police arrived and told him they needed to question him. That
was the last time he would ever see his mother.
After
two weeks of intense interrogation about his ties to Islamic
radicals, Slahi was flown in chains and shackles to Jordan, the
U.S.-controlled oil monarchy where he had never visited and with
which he had no ties. For the next eight months, he was interrogated
on a daily basis by Jordanian and U.S. operatives, including CIA
agents. The Jordanians frequently used classic torture techniques to
extract information when their CIA bosses assessed that he was not
being forthcoming. After eight months, the Jordanians concluded that
he was not affiliated with any extremist groups and had no more
information to provide, but the Americans, still reeling from the
9/11 attack, were not convinced.
He
was told he would return to Mauritania but quickly realized that was
a lie as he was placed in full-body shackles, chains and a jumpsuit.
This time, he was flown to the notorious U.S. military base in
Bagram, Afghanistan, home to thousands of prisoners detained
indefinitely
by the Bush and Obama administrations with no charges or human rights
protections. After two weeks of brutal daily interrogations, Slahi
was told that he was being taken to a U.S. military base in
Guantánamo.
Because
the camp had opened only after Slahi was first detained in
Mauritania, he had no idea what Guantánamo was. But, he told me, he
was so happy and relieved to hear he was being taken to the U.S.
because “the U.S. is where you get legal rights and there is a
functioning court system.” Upon hearing the news, he thought his
nightmare, now almost a year long, was about to end. In fact, it was
only beginning, and was about to get far darker than he could have
imagined.
Flown
to the floating island prison in the middle of the Caribbean,
thousands of miles away from his home, Slahi, though in American
custody on a U.S. military base, was in a place which the U.S.
Government had decreed was not the United States at all. It was a
no-man’s land, free of any law or authority other than the
unconstrained will of U.S. political leaders. Shortly after his
arrival, the Bush administration — guided
by
then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice, and Attorney General John Ashcroft — authorized the use of
multiple forms of torture that it and the U.S. press euphemistically
called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
It
is not in dispute, because official U.S. Government documents
acknowledge it, that Slahi, along with dozens of others, was
subjected to these techniques over and over. They included prolonged
sleep deprivation, beatings and stress positions, a mock execution,
and sexual humiliation and assault.
When
he arrived at the camp, he spoke Arabic, German and French, and then
quickly learned English from his captors and interrogators. His
refuge from his hopelessness was the book he wrote, which he authored
in English. Completed in 2005, it was taken from him by camp guards
and not permitted to be published until ten years later, when it
became a global bestseller while Slahi was still consigned to a cage,
convicted of nothing and with no idea of when, if ever, he would be
freed.
Throughout
his ordeal,
all Slahi wanted, as any human would, was the opportunity to be told
of the charges against him and presented with the evidence
corroborating the accusations. But the U.S. government’s decree
that Guantánamo was foreign soil and thus free of constitutional
constraints enabled them to imprison people indefinitely with no due
process of any kind. A bipartisan law enacted by Congress in 2006
called
“the Military Commissions Act” fortified the Bush
administration’s position by barring federal courts from reviewing
any petitions brought by War on Terror detainees to have the validity
of their imprisonment legally evaluated.
In
2008, the U.S. Supreme Court — by a 5-4 majority in Boumediene
v. Bush
— ruled
that the Guantánamo military base was under U.S. sovereignty and the
U.S. Constitution thus governed what the U.S. Government could and
could not do there. As a result, detainees such as Slahi finally
earned the right to petition federal courts for release on the ground
that they were being wrongfully imprisoned, based on the
constitutional guarantee of habeas
corpus.
Unlike
prior prisoner of war camps, filled with uniformed soldiers arrested
on a battlefield, Slahi, like so many War on Terror detainees, was
arrested at home, far from any war zone, as part of a “war” that
was widely recognized from the start would likely be eternal and
where the “battlefield” was designated as the entire planet.
Whatever one’s views of the War on Terror, indefinite
imprisonment under such circumstances was fundamentally different
from the traditional prisoner-of-war framework. Empowering a
government to detain, kidnap and imprison anyone it wants from
anywhere in the world obviously presents a whole new set of potential
abuses.
In
2010 — eight full years after he was first arrested and imprisoned
at the behest of the U.S. Government — Slahi was finally able to
have his day in court. In a meticulous review of the allegations and
evidence presented against him by the Obama DOJ, federal judge James
Robertson concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant his
ongoing detention. A major part of the ruling
was the U.S. Government’s own acknowledgement that many of the
statements on which it was relying were ones it extracted from Slahi
under torture:
There
is ample evidence in this record that Slahi was subjected to
extensive and severe mistreatment at Guantanamo from mid-June 2003 to
September 2003…. The government acknowledges that Slahi's abusive
treatment could diminish the reliability of some of his statements.
The
huge irony of the government’s allegations that he was affiliated
with al-Qaida was that much of the case against him was based on his
decision to go to Afghanistan in 1990 to fight with the Mujahideen.
For more than a decade — including when Slahi went — the U.S.
Government was one of the prime allies and sponsors of this fighting
force, using it as a proxy army against the invading Soviet army in
Afghanistan and then, after the Soviet withdrawal, to topple the
communist government it left in place. Underscoring this irony is
that one of the first military guards at Guantánamo with whom Slahi
interacted was stationed at the same Mujahideen training camp in
Afghanistan where Slahi was first assigned upon his arrival there.
When
he decided to join the Mujahideen, Slahi was in West Germany, where
he had been given a scholarship to study engineering due to his
excelling academically as a teenager in Mauritania. When I asked him
what motivated him to leave his studies at the age of 21 to go fight
in Afghanistan, he explained that at the time the Mujahideen was
considered “cool” throughout the west, the way for young Muslim
men to fight against Soviet and imperialist domination. Indeed,
throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s, Reagan, Bush 41 and
Clinton officials, as well as right-wing members of Congress,
frequently heralded the Mujahideen as heroic “freedom fighters,”
and were regarded by the west as important allies.
That
this
association
of Slahi’s from ten years earlier became the foundation of the U.S.
Government’s accusation that he was an anti-American terrorist who
must be imprisoned indefinitely highlighted the absurdity of U.S.
foreign policy and its arbitrary ability overnight to declare freedom
fighters to be terrorists, or allies to be monstrous enemies, and
vice-versa (similar to how Saddam’s “gassing of his own people”
became the 2002 mantra to justify regime change and war even though
Saddam’s chemical assault on the Kurds occurred when he was a close
U.S. ally).
Slahi
terminated his relationship with the Mujahideen when he left
Afghanistan in 1992, but various associations that he maintained, as
well a two-month stay in Canada in 1999, were used by the U.S.
Government to claim that he was still working on behalf of
“jihadists.” But the court found the evidence woefully inadequate
to justify the allegations:
A
habeas court may not permit a man to be held indefinitely upon
suspicion, or because of the government's prediction that he may do
unlawful acts in the future - any more than a habeas court may rely
upon its prediction that a man will not be dangerous in the future
and order his release if he was lawfully detained in the first place.
The question, upon which the government had the burden of proof, was
whether, at the time of his capture, Slahi was a "part of"
al-Qaida. On the record before me, I cannot find that he was.
Despite
that resounding 2010 judicial exoneration, Slahi did not leave
Guantánamo until six
years later,
in 2016. In part that was because President Obama — who so
flamboyantly campaigned in 2008 on the promise to close the camp —
instead had his Justice Department appeal the ruling in Slahi’s
favor in order to keep him encaged. The appellate court then ruled in
favor of the Obama DOJ, concluding that there were flaws in the
process. The court ordered a new habeas
corpus review,
but it never came. Instead, a Pentagon review board concluded six
years later, in 2016, that he could be safely released.
Even
when he finally left the camp, after fourteen years in
due-process-free captivity, Slahi was not fully free. The U.S.
conditioned his release on the agreement of the compliant regime in
Mauritania that it would seize his passport and not permit him to
travel outside the country. As a result, almost twenty years after
his multi-nation nightmare began, his liberty is still radically
restricted despite never having been charged with, let alone
convicted of, any crime. His mother died while he was imprisoned, and
he has a young son in Germany who he cannot travel to see.
My
interview with Slahi, who I have found to be a fascinating person
since I first spoke with him several years ago, can be seen below. It
is part of the SYSTEM UPDATE YouTube program I launched last year but
put on hiatus while I built this platform. At the start of the video,
I spent roughly fifteen minutes discussing my reaction to the
discussion I had with him and the reasons I find his perspective so
important, so the interview itself begins at roughly the 15:00 mark.
For
reasons I cannot quite fathom, Slahi has managed to avoid a life
filled with bitterness, rage and a desire for vengeance over what was
done to him. He has started a family and re-created his life as a
father, a novelist, and an evangelist for humanitarianism and peace
in a way that is genuine, profound and inspiring: everything but
banal and contrived. Judge for yourself by listening to him. Among
other things, he established contact with an American guard he had
seen almost every day in the early years of his Guantánamo detention
and then befriended, and invited him to Mauritania where the two had
an unlikely but remarkable reunion.
I
believe as a general proposition that the more the world hears from
Slahi, the better (you can follow him on Twitter here).
But particularly now, with Democrats and their neocon allies who
spawned the first War on Terror eplicitly
plotting
how to launch a second one, this time with a domestic focus, it is
more important than ever to understand in the most visceral ways
possible how arbitrary power of this kind ends up at least as
dangerous and destructive as the enemy invoked to justify their
adoption in the first place.
Glenn Greenwald heeft een lijvig stuk (iets te, m.i.) geschreven over de
bestorming van Capitol Hill afgelopen 6 januari en dan m.n. over de moord op
een politieagent met een brandblusser, plus de rol die de media
daarin spelen. Uiteraard veroordeelt Greenwald het gebruikte geweld,
echter er dient wel gekeken te worden wie de slachtoffers waren.....
Greenwald stelt dat elke
kritiek die men levert op de berichtgeving over wat
er al meer dan een maand lang werd geschreven, wordt of afgedaan als een excuus voor
de bestorming van Capitol Hill, dan wel je bent een aanhanger van de
Trump supporters......
In
tegenspraak met de berichtgeving, werden 4 van de 5 doden niet om het
leven gebracht door de relschoppers, terwijl de enige dode die met
geweld om het leven werd gebracht een ongewapende Trump
supporter was: Ashli Babbitt, die van dichtbij door de
politie werd neergeschoten ofwel vermoord......
Echter
niet volgens de media in de VS, die kennen nog een dode, politieagent
Brian Sicknick, de New York Times (NYT) was het eerste medium dat met
het verhaal kwam dat Sicknick werd vermoord met een brandblusser en
dan natuurlijk door een Trump aanhanger......
Echter
tot op de dag van vandaag is er geen autopsie uitgevoerd op het
lichaam van Sicknick en ondanks dat er gigantische veel beelden zijn
'geschoten' door veiligheidscamera's en smartphones, is er niet één
beeld dat het verhaal van de NYT bevestigt...... Uhh van de NYT? Al
heel snel na het artikel van dat nieuwsmedium nam zo ongeveer de hele
reguliere (massa-) media in de VS dit verhaal over en hoe........ De
hysterie was en is nog steeds compleet over dit valse verhaal.....
Je
kan er dan ook donder op zeggen dat dit is ingegeven door de
politiek, immers e.e.a. gebeurde nog voor de impeachment poging tegen
Trump..... Tja kijk, als je met een vermoorde politieagent op de
proppen komt krijgt zo'n zaak natuurlijk veel meer gewicht......
Lees
het artikel van Glenn Greenwald en zie hoe de massamedia in de VS het publiek bespelen, natuurlijk geholpen door de politiek (daarnaast politici voeden niet zelden de media met leugens om zo zaken
voor elkaar te krijgen, zeker in de VS.....) Ach gelul, dat is hier
ook al heel lang zo en de media doen er maar wat graag aan
mee!! (zie ook hoe de media hier keer op keer de blunders op het Coronadossier goedlullen, blunders begaan door de grijnzende VVD hufter en premier Rutte, CDA blunderkoning de Jonge en diens partijcollega en minister, de al even hard blunderende hufter Grapperhaus.....) Eén ding is zeker, deze rellen werden vooral aangegrepen door de Democraten in een poging Trump een impeachment te bezorgen zodat hij in de toekomst niet nog eens kan opgaan voor het presidentschap (en zo'n impeachment kan wel degelijk worden doorgezet nadat de nieuwe president is aangetreden).
The False and
Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol
Riot
Insisting
on factual accuracy does not make one an apologist for the
protesters. False reporting is never justified, especially to inflate
threat and fear levels.
Damage
is seen inside the US Capitol building early on January 7, 2021 in
Washington, DC (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
By
Glenn Greenwald
February 17, 2021
"Information
Clearing House"
-
What took place
at the Capitol on January 6 was undoubtedly a politically motivated
riot. As such, it should not be controversial to regard it as a
dangerous episode. Any time force or violence is introduced into what
ought to be the peaceful resolution of political conflicts, it should
be lamented and condemned.
But none of that
justifies lying about what happened that day, especially by the news
media. Condemning that riot does not allow, let alone require,
echoing false claims in order to render the event more menacing and
serious than it actually was. There is no circumstance or motive that
justifies the dissemination of false claims by journalists. The more
consequential the event, the less justified, and more harmful, serial
journalistic falsehoods are.
Yet this is exactly
what has happened, and continues to happen, since that riot almost
seven weeks ago. And anyone who tries to correct these falsehoods is
instantly attacked with the cynical accusation that if you want only
truthful reporting about what happened, then you’re trying to
“minimize” what happened and are likely an apologist for if not a
full-fledged supporter of the protesters themselves.
One of the most
significant of these falsehoods was the tale — endorsed over and
over without any caveats by the media for more than a month — that
Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by the pro-Trump
mob when they beat him to death with a fire extinguisher. That claim
was first published by The
New York Times
on January 8 in an
article headlined “Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in
Pro-Trump Rampage.” It cited “two [anonymous] law enforcement
officials” to claim that Sicknick died “with the mob rampaging
through the halls of Congress” and after he “was struck with a
fire extinguisher.”
A second New
York Timesarticle
from later that day — bearing the more dramatic headline: “He
Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump
Mob” — elaborated
on that story:
The
New York Times, in a now-”updated”
article, Jan. 8, 2021
After
publication of these two articles, this horrifying story about a
pro-Trump mob beating a police officer to death with a fire
extinguisher was repeated over and over, by multiple journalists on
television, in print, and on social media. It became arguably the
single most-emphasized and known story of this event, and
understandably so — it was a savage and barbaric act that resulted
in the harrowing killing by a pro-Trump mob of a young Capitol police
officer.
It
took on such importance for a clear reason: Sicknick’s death was
the only
example the media had of the pro-Trump mob deliberately killing
anyone. In a January 11 article
detailing the five people who died on the day of the Capitol protest,
the New
York Times again
told the Sicknick story: “Law enforcement officials said he had
been ‘physically engaging with protesters’ and was struck in the
head with a fire extinguisher.”
But none of the other
four deaths were at the hands of the protesters: the only other
person killed with deliberate violence was a pro-Trump protester,
Ashli Babbitt, unarmed when shot in the neck by a police officer at
close range. The other three deaths were all pro-Trump protesters:
Kevin Greeson, who died of a heart attack outside the Capitol;
Benjamin Philips, 50, “the founder of a pro-Trump website called
Trumparoo,” who died of a stroke that day; and Rosanne Boyland, a
fanatical Trump supporter whom the Times
says was inadvertently “killed in a crush of fellow rioters during
their attempt to fight through a police line.”
This is why the fire
extinguisher story became so vital to those intent on depicting these
events in the most violent and menacing light possible. Without
Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher, there
were no
deaths
that day that could be attributed to deliberate violence by pro-Trump
protesters. Three weeks later, The
Washington Postsaid
dozens of officers (a total of 140) had various degrees of injuries,
but none reported as life-threatening, and at least two police
officers committed suicide after the riot. So Sicknick was the only
person killed who was not a pro-Trump protester, and the only one
deliberately killed by the mob itself.
It is hard to
overstate how pervasive this fire extinguisher story became. Over and
over, major media outlets and mainstream journalists used this story
to dramatize what happened:
Clockwise:
Tweet of Associated Press, Jan. 29; Tweet of NBC’s
Richard Engel, Jan. 9; Tweet of the Lincoln Project’s Fred Willman,
Jan. 29; Tweet of The
New York Times’ Nicholas Kirstof, Jan.
9
Television hosts
gravely intoned when telling this story, manipulating viewers’
emotions by making them believe the mob had done something
unspeakably barbaric:
After the media
bombarded Americans with this story for a full month without pause,
it took center stage at Trump’s impeachment process. As former
federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy noted,
the article of impeachment itself stated that “Trump supporters
‘injured and killed law enforcement personnel.’” The House
impeachment managers explicitly claimed on page 28 of their
pretrial memorandum that “the insurrectionists killed a Capitol
Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher.”
Once the impeachment
trial ended in an acquittal, President Joe Biden issued a statement
and referenced this claim in the very first paragraph. Sicknick, said
the President, lost “his life while protecting the Capitol from a
violent, riotous mob on January 6, 2021.”
The problem
with this story
is that it is false in all respects. From the start, there was almost
no evidence to substantiate it. The only basis were the two original
New
York Times
articles asserting that this happened based on the claim of anonymous
law enforcement officials.
Despite this alleged
brutal murder taking place in one of the most surveilled buildings on
the planet, filled that day with hundreds of cellphones taping the
events, nobody saw video of it. No photographs depicted it. To this
day, no autopsy report has been released. No details from any
official source have been provided.
Not only was there no
reason to believe this happened from the start, the little that was
known should have caused doubt. On the same day the Times
published
its two articles with the “fire extinguisher” story, ProPublica
published
one that should have raised serious doubts about it.
The outlet interviewed
Sicknick’s brother, who said that “Sicknick had texted [the
family] Wednesday night to say that while he had been pepper-sprayed,
he was in good spirits.” That obviously conflicted with the Times’
story that the mob “overpowered Sicknick” and “struck him in
the head with a fire extinguisher,” after which, “with a bloody
gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed
on life support.”
But no matter. The
fire extinguisher story was now a matter of lore. Nobody could
question it. And nobody did: until after a February 2 CNN
article
that asked why nobody has been arrested for what clearly was the most
serious crime committed that day: the brutal murder of Officer
Sicknick with a fire extinguisher. Though the headline gave no hint
of this, the middle of the article provided evidence which
essentially declared the original New
York Times
story false:
In Sicknick's
case, it's still not known publicly what caused him to collapse the
night of the insurrection. Findings from a medical examiner's review
have not yet been released and authorities have not made any
announcements about that ongoing process.
According to
one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs
that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators
believe that early
reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not
true.
The CNN story
speculates that perhaps Sicknick inhaled “bear spray,” but like
the ProPublica
interview
with his brother who said he inhaled pepper spray, does not say
whether it came from the police or protesters. It is also just a
theory. CNN
noted that investigators are “vexed by a lack of evidence that
could prove someone caused his death as he defended the Capitol
during last month's insurrection.” Beyond that, “to date, little
information has been shared publicly about the circumstances of the
death of the 13-year veteran of the police force, including any
findings from an autopsy that was conducted by DC's medical
examiner.”
Few noticed this
remarkable admission buried in this article. None of this was
seriously questioned until a relatively new outlet called Revolver
News on
February 9 compiled
and analyzed all the contradictions and lack of evidence in the
prevailing story, after which Fox
News’
Tucker Carlson, citing that article, devoted the first eight minutes
of his February 10 program to examining
these massive evidentiary holes.
That caused right-wing
media outlets to begin questioning what happened, but mainstream
liberal outlets — those who spread the story aggressively in the
first place — largely and predictably ignored it all.
This week, the paper
that first published the false story — in lieu of a retraction or
an explanation of how and why it got the story wrong — simply went
back to the first two articles, more than five weeks later, and
quietly posted what it called an “update” at the top of both
five-week-old articles:
Caption
that now sits atop both New
York Times articles
from Jan. 8 about Officer SIcknick’s death.
With the impeachment
trial now over, the articles are now rewritten to reflect that the
original story was false. But there was nothing done by The
New York Times to
explain an error of this magnitude, let alone to try to undo the
damage it did by misleading the public. They did not expressly
retract or even “correct” the story. Worse, there is at least one
article of theirs, the January
11 one that purports to describe how the five people died that
day, which continues to include the false “fire extinguisher”
story with no correction or update.
The fire
extinguisher tale
was far from the only false or dubious claim that the media caused to
circulate about the events that day. In some cases, they continue to
circulate them.
In the days after the
protest, numerousviraltweets
pointed to a photograph of Eric Munchel with zip-ties. The photo was
used continually to suggest
that he took those zip-ties into
the Capitol because of a premeditated
plot to detain lawmakers and hold them hostage.
Politicodescribed
Munchel as “the man who allegedly entered the Senate chamber during
the Capitol riot while carrying a taser and zip-tie handcuffs.”
The Washington
Post
used the images to refer
to “chatters in far-right forums explicitly discussing how to storm
the building, handcuff lawmakers with zip ties.” That the zip-tie
photo of Munchel made the Capitol riot far more than a mere riot
carried out by a band of disorganized misfits, but rather a nefarious
and well-coordinated plot to kidnap members of Congress, became
almost as widespread
as the fire extinguisher story. Yet again, it was The
New York Times
that led the way in consecrating maximalist claims. “FBI Arrests
Man Who Carried Zip Ties Into Capitol,” blared
the paper’s headline on January 10, featuring the now-iconic photo
of Munchel at the top.
But on January 21, the
“zip-tie man’s” own prosecutors admitted
none of that was true. He did not take zip-ties with him from home or
carry them into the Capitol. Instead, he found them on a table, and
took them to prevent their use by the police:
Eric Munchel,
a pro-Trump rioter who stormed the Capitol building while holding
plastic handcuffs, took the restraints from a table inside the
Capitol building, prosecutors
said in a court filing Wednesday.
Munchel, who
broke into the building with his mom, was labeled "zip-tie
guy" after he was photographed barreling down the Senate chamber
holding the restraints. His appearance raised questions about whether
the insurrectionists who sought to stop Congress from counting
Electoral College votes on January 6 also intended to take lawmakers
hostage.
But according
to the new filing, Munchel and his mother took the handcuffs from
within the Capitol building - apparently to ensure the Capitol Police
couldn't use them on the insurrectionists - rather than bring them in
when they initially breached the building.
(A second man whose
photo with zip-ties later surfaced similarly
told Ronan Farrow that he found them on the floor, and the FBI
has acknowledged
it has no evidence to the contrary).
Why does this matter?
For the same reason media outlets so excitedly seized on this claim.
If Munchel had brought zip-ties with him, that would be suggestive of
a premeditated plot to detain people: quite terrorizing, as it
suggests malicious and well-planned intent. But he instead just found
them on a table by happenstance and, according
to his own prosecutors,
grabbed them with benign intent.
Then, perhaps most
importantly, is the ongoing insistence on calling the Capitol riot an
armed
insurrection.
Under the law, an insurrection is one of the most serious crises that
can arise. It allows virtually
unlimited presidential powers — which is why there was so much
angst when Tom Cotton proposed it in his New
York Times
op-ed over the summer, publication of which resulted in the departure
of two editors. Insurrection even allows for the suspension
by the president of habeas corpus: the right to be heard in court if
you are detained.
So it matters a great
deal legally, but also politically, if the U.S. really did suffer an
armed insurrection and continues to face one. Though there is no
controlling, clear definition, that term usually connotes not a
three-hour riot but an ongoing, serious plot by a faction of the
citizenry to overthrow or otherwise subvert the government.
Just today, PolitiFactpurported
to “fact-check” a statement from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) made on
Monday. Sen. Johnson told a local radio station:
"The
fact of the matter is this didn’t seem like an armed insurrection
to me. I mean armed, when you hear armed, don’t you think of
firearms? Here’s the questions I would have liked to ask. How many
firearms were confiscated? How many shots were fired? I’m only
aware of one, and I’ll defend that law enforcement officer for
taking that shot.
The fact-checking site
assigned the Senator its “Pants on Fire” designation for that
statement, calling it “ridiculous revisionist history.” But the
“fact-checkers” cannot refute a single claim he made. At least
from what is known publicly, there is no evidence of a single
protester wielding let alone using a firearm inside the Capitol on
that day. As indicated, the only person to have been shot was a
pro-Trump protester killed by a Capitol police officer, and the only
person said to have been killed by the protesters, Officer Sicknick,
died under circumstances that are still completely unclear.
That protesters were
found before and after the riot with weapons does not mean they
intended to use them as part of the protest. For better or worse, the
U.S. is a country where firearm possession is common and legal. And
what we know for certain is that there is no evidence of anyone
brandishing a gun in that building. That fact makes a pretty large
dent in the attempt to characterize this as an “armed insurrection”
rather than a riot.
Indeed, the most
dramatic claims spread by the media to raise fear levels as high as
possible and depict this as a violent insurrection have turned out to
be unfounded or were affirmatively disproven.
On January 15, Reuters
published
an article about the arrest of the “Q-Shaman,” Jacob Chansley,
headlined “U.S. says Capitol rioters meant to 'capture and
assassinate' officials.” It claimed that “federal prosecutors
offered an ominous new assessment of last week’s siege of the U.S.
Capitol by President Donald Trump’s supporters on Thursday, saying
in a court filing that rioters intended ‘to capture and assassinate
elected officials.’” Predictably, that caused viral social media
postings from mainstream
reporters and prominent pundits, such as Harvard Law’s Laurence
Tribe, manifesting in the most ominous tones possible:
Shortly thereafter,
however, a
DOJ “official walked back a federal claim that Capitol rioters
‘intended capture and assassinate elected officials.’"
Specifically, “Washington's acting U.S. Attorney, Michael Sherwin,
said in a telephone briefing, ‘There is no direct evidence at this
point of kill-capture teams and assassination.’"
NBC
News,
Jan. 15, 2021
Over and over, no
evidence has emerged for the most melodramatic media claims — torn
out Panic Buttons and plots to kill Vice President Mike Pence or
Mitt
Romney. What we know for certain, as The
Washington Postnoted
this week, is that “Despite
warnings of violent plots around Inauguration Day, only
a smattering of right-wing protesters appeared at the
nation’s statehouses.” That does not sound like an ongoing
insurrection, to put it mildly.
All this matters
because it inherently matters if the media is recklessly circulating
falsehoods about the most inflammatory and significant news stories.
As was true for their series of Russiagate
debacles, even if each “mistake” standing alone can be
dismissed as relatively insignificant or understandable, when they
pile up — always in the same narrative direction — people rightly
conclude the propaganda is deliberate and trust in journalism erodes
further.
But in this case, this
matters for reasons far more significant than corporate media’s
attempt to salvage the last vestiges of their credibility.
Washington, D.C. remains indefinitely militarized. The establishment
wings of both parties are still exploiting the emotions surrounding
the Capitol breach to justify a new domestic War on Terror. The FBI
is on
the prowl for dissidents on the right and the left, and online
censorship in the name of combatting domestic terrorism continues to
rise.
One can — and should
— condemn the January 6 riot without inflating the threat it posed.
And one can — and should — insist on both factual accuracy and
sober restraint without standing accused of sympathy for the rioters.
Glenn
Greenwald is a journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four
New York Times bestselling books on politics and law. His most recent
book, “No Place to Hide,” is about the U.S. surveillance state
and his experiences reporting on the Snowden documents around the
world. Prior to co-founding The Intercept, Greenwald’s column was
featured in The Guardian and Salon.
Algoritmes worden ook als een vorm van censuur ingezet, zodat je sites en blogs als dit blog niet kan vinden, neem daarom altijd een link over van de sites of blogs die je graag bezoekt, meestal kan dat door simpelweg de naam te slepen naar je werkblak, zo kan je de foto van mijn inmiddels overleden katten Indy en Donnie bovenaan deze pagina naar je werkbalk slepen, je ziet dan een rode 'B' van blogger staan plus een paar woorden, door met je rechtermuisknop (of de rechter kliktoets op je laptop dan wel op je notebook) daarop te klikken, kan je die woorden verwijderen en daar bijvoorbeeld A, of Ap invullen (van Azijnpisser) vervolgens word je door daarop te klikken direct naar dit blog geleid.
Muziek 'likes' van mijn lieve zoon Loek via Spotify en mijn 'likes' op Spotify, Shazam en YouTube
Allereerst een lijst met nummers die mijn lieve zoon Loek maakte voordat hij op12 mei 2023 deze wereld verliet: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/773aEa9s9gx7FBYsdqrkWN (lees door voor de gebruiksaanwijzing >>), daarna een lijst met meer dan 11.000 nummers van mijn 'likes' die via Shazam op Spotify werd geplaatst (als je geen Spotify account hebt zie dan de lijst daarna op Shazam) Je krijgt bij de eerste lijsten, als die van Loek, lullig genoeg geen automatische koppeling, selecteer de link (blauw maken en daarna met de rechter muistoets of de rechter toets van de touchpad/trackpad op je laptop of notebook klikken, vervolgens in het menu bovenaan op 'koppeling openen' klikken en je zit op de bewuste lijst. Hier eerst de link naar mijn lijst op Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/3hwttmZUT17ITKimZq6e2V
Vervolgens de link naar mijn Shazam nummers (hier kunnen dubbele nummers op staan): https://www.shazam.com/nl/myshazam En tot slot de link naar vooral albums op YouTube (let op een aantal links werken niet meer of niet goed, zoek dan zelf op YouTube met gebruikmaking van de naam van de band of muzikant): Lewis Black, Zappa (Frank is not dead, he just smells funny), Shpongle, Brian Eno, Ween, Fay Lovsky, Spike Jones, Björk, The Fugs, Alabama 3, Faithless, Dreadzone, Anubian Lights, Lydia Lunch, Amy Winehouse (niet het 'dronken' filmpje), Enter Shikarihttps://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=enter+shikari+full+albums;"> voor muziek van dr. Pisser, klik op: 'recept' waarna u >400 van deze 'Muzikale recepten' met links naar YouTube kan vinden. Na een aantal recepten ziet u het laatst gelezen recept telkens weer herhaald worden, klik op het label 'recept' onder het laatste recept dat u las, waarna u weer nieuwe recepten te zien krijgt.
TABAKSACCIJNS EN CORRUPTIE
Tips voor 'vapers': veel gezeur anno 2019 over vapen en een 'vreemde longziekte'. Gebruik je e-sigaret niet als een gewone sigaret, immers die brand op en je moet dus blijven roken tot je het zat bent of tot de sigaret op is. Dit hoeft niet met de e-sigaret, deze werkt, mits opgeladen en gevuld met vloeistof, direct en je kan deze na een paar trekken wegleggen. Nogmaals: gebruik de e-sigaret dan ook niet als een sigaret. Daarover gesproken: als je aan een e-sigaret trekt doe dit dan niet direct op je longen, maar als een sigaret, dus eerst in je mond en dan pas inademen. Het laatste zie je maar weinig mensen doen (althans ik zie dat weinig). Directe inademing is overigens ook al niet nodig als je wiet of hasj rookt, ook het in je longen houden van de rook met wiet of hasj is totaal overbodig, je kan dit gewoon als een sigaret roken, 'stoned' wordt je toch wel en even snel. Houd je aan deze zaken en je zal zien dat je met vapen heel veel minder tabak rookt, of daar zelfs helemaal mee kan stoppen! Dan nog het volgende: vape alleen met vloeistof die van tabak is gemaakt, de extra smaken voegen meer overbodige schadelijke stoffen toe. Het is een misvatting dat vapen even slecht is als tabak, er zitten aanzienlijk minder schadelijke stoffen in en in vergelijking met de gewone sigaret, bevat de vape vloeistof maar één verslavende stof en dat is nicotine (in de gewone sigaret zitten meerdere verslavende stoffen waar de minst verslavende nicotine is !!!).Tot slot, rook je nog niet? Begin er niet aan en ga ajb niet vapen! Verslaving aan tabak is een vervelende en uiterst kostbare ziekte.
Per 1 maart 2011 werden de tabaksaccijns verhoogd. Voor shag ging de prijs met 0,26 cent per pakje van 45 gram omhoog.
Per 1 juli 2012 verhoogden de fabrikanten de prijs van tabak, voor een pakje shag met 15 cent. Per 1 januari 2013 wordt de prijs van tabak door de regering nog eens verhoogd, voor shag maar liefst 60 cent per pakje!
Maar er is meer, de belastingdienst heeft gezorgd voor minimum accijns: het absolute bedrag dat wordt geheven, is per 1 maart 2011 zodanig verhoogd, dat deze ten alle tijde gelijk is aan het bedrag dat als accijns wordt geheven op de hoogste prijsklasse. Een leuk cadeau in 2011, van de zeer 'integere' CDA tabakslobbyist Hillen en het laatste kabinet Balkenende, voor de grote tabaksfabrikanten, waar zoals gezegd in 2012 nog een cadeau van het disfunctionerende demissionaire kabinet Rutte bijkwam in 2013, met hulp van 'oppositiepartijen D66, GL en CU.
Daarnaast zijn al die prijsverhogingen een mooi cadeau voor de georganiseerde misdaad, die jaarlijks miljarden sigaretten smokkelen. Niets nieuws, want het CDA heeft via de EVP toch al hechte banden met de maffia, bij de VVD is het al niet veel anders en zoals blijkt ook bij D66, GL en CU.
Begin februari 2011 werd bekend, dat een onderdeel van defensie zich bezighield met misdaad, o.a. werd de smokkel van illegale sigaretten genoemd....
Vooralsnog weigert (september 2012) demissionair minister van Volksgezondheid Schippers de tabaksindustrie te dwingen de samenstelling van 'geheime' stoffen in tabak prijs te geven, stoffen die de verslaving aan tabak verzwaren en die de gezondheid nog meer schaden...
Het is zelfs zo zot, dat de minst verslavende stof in tabak nicotine is...... Nadat D66 hufter Borst weigerde de extra verslavende stoffen in tabak te verbieden, daar dit het roken zou bevorderen, hebben alle regeringen daarna deze meer dan schunnige houding
gevolgd.....
Totale opbrengst van tabaksaccijns in 2011: twaalf miljard euro!!!!!!!!!!! Dus als u nog eens wilt zeuren over de hoge kosten die rokers voor de gezondheidszorg opleveren..............
Het is intussen 2019 en nog steeds liegt men in de politiek dat prijsverhogingen het enige middel is om roken tegen te gaan. Daarvoor wijst men naar Australië, zonder te melden dat daar het aantal gerookte illegale sigaretten volgens deskundigen het aantal legaal verkochte sigaretten benadert...... Overigens is het nu al een paar jaar zo dat het aantal rokers in Nederland niet daalt, ondanks de enorme prijsverhogingen (waarvan vooral arme Nederlanders het slachtoffer zijn en zoals je weet: financiële problemen zijn geen stimulans om te stoppen met roken....).......
Correcties en aanvulling gedaan op 16 oktober 2019.
Muziektip van uw Azijnpisser bij de koppen en aanhangsels van Wilders en andere fascisten
Zit u zich te ergeren aan Wilders of andere politici met aanhangsels, beluister dan bijvoorbeeld Alabama 3 met het nummer 'Woody Guthrie' van de cd 'Power in the blood'. En u weet het: geluidsniveau 80 en de bas op abn (aardbevingsniveau). U zult merken dat u daar weer wat rustiger van wordt. Wetenschappelijk is het al vaker bewezen: muziek kan geneeskrachtig werken!
Atoom-stroom
Er werd tot voor kort veel reclame gemaakt voor atoomstroom. Als u in het bezit bent van 2 hersencellen of meer, zal u de leugens onmiddellijk herkennen. Voor de 1 hersen-celligen of andere dombo's het volgende: atoom-stroom is allesbehalve co2 vrij, kijk naar de bouw van zo'n centrale, afbraak is nog nooit gedaan en is praktisch bijna onhaalbaar. Bij de winning van uranium ontstaat een gigantische milieuvervuiling. Van ellende weten we niet waar we met het afval naar toe moeten. Dan de leugen subsidievrij: er is geen manier van energie opwekken, waar zoveel subsidie voor is gebruikt en gebruikt wordt dan voor kernenergie. Nog belangrijker: u scheept de wereld, uw kinderen en kindskinderen op met een gevaarlijk afval probleem, niet alleen het kernafval, ook de gebouwen die blijven staan zijn levensgevaarlijk afval! Het is inmiddels april 2013 en zijn we de ramp met de kerncentrales in het Japanse Fukushima 'rijker', intussen is het ongeveer een jaar geleden, dat de pro-kernenergie reclames te horen waren, maar waakzaamheid blijft geboden. De lobbyisten voor deze peperdure en levensgevaarlijke technologie werken dag en nacht door..... Samsom, de PvdA windvaan was voor de ramp in Japan, al 'voorzichtig' voor kernenergie, een mening die 180 graden draaide na de ramp in Fukushima, maar kijk niet op, als hij later zijn mening weer eens omdraait... Aanvulling op de veiligheid: volgens IT specialist Ronald Prins van Fox-IT, kan een elektriciteitscentrale via internet worden aangevallen, zelfs als de systemen niet op dat net zijn aangesloten (zie mijn bericht van 10 december 2010)
Het is bij de laatste aanpassing van deze boodschap april 2013 en binnenkort wordt de kerncentrale van Borssele stilgelegd voor de jaarlijkse controle, Essent en Delta hebben met de overheid afgesproken niet het hele reactorvat op haarscheurtjes te controleren.... (zie o.a. mijn berichten van 11 april 2013 en 4 maart 2015).
Hans Crombag in Oba Live (Radio 5) vrijdag 26 maart 2010
FBI headquarters in Washington on Feb. 2, 2018. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images) 
