California governor signs law defying cooperation with NDAA indefinite detention

End Of Days News

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed a law barring state cooperation with any attempt by the federal government to indefinitely detain people. The legislation targets the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Brown signed into law AB351, which goes beyond any other state in rejecting federal indefinite detention power, according to the Tenth Amendment Center. The law reads, in part, “It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California.”
 
The NDAA allows the US military to indefinitely detain anyone - sans charges or a trial - on the basis of “national security” concerns. The legislation has drawn a series of legal challenges and attempts in several states to limit its strength.

California’s new law not only targets the NDAA provisions, but also any future federal law that grants officials open-ended detention powers.

Though the NDAA has not been used to date, both administrations of Presidents Obama and George W. Bush have claimed power to detain indefinitely without charge “enemy combatants” caught in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world at Guantanamo Bay and other prisons. More

YET if Israel does not make "PEACE" with these folks, they are the bad guys...RIGHT? When have you ever heard Israel say someone does not have the right to exsist?

End Of Days News

In Gaza, Islamic cleric rejects Israel’s existence

prominent Islamic scholar declared Thursday that Israel has no right to exist, during a landmark visit to the Gaza Strip in which he was feted as the “imam of the Arab Spring.”

“This land has never once been a Jewish land. Palestine is for the Arab Islamic nation,” Yusuf al-Qaradawi said.

Read More: http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-gaza-islamic-cleric-rejects-israels-existence/

Exclusive: FBI Informant Claims Taliban Members Are Living In America

End Of Days News

MIAMI (CBS4) – “I am an informant and all I can tell you is that Talibans are walking freely right here in the soil of America right now, right now.”

That’s the haunting worry of South Floridian David Mahmood Siddiqui. He was the confidential FBI informant who has a rare view of  of trying to infiltrate a largely secreted  world of what the U.S. government considers terrorist sympathizers.

He met with CBS’4 Chief Investigator Michele Gillen saying he wants to tell his story to  share what he’s uncovered and explain why he has concerns for the safety of the United States.

Read More: http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/04/25/exclusive-fbi-informant-claims-taliban-members-are-living-in-america/

Commentary & Analysis by L. A. Marzulli

FBI Fake Terror Plot History: Judge Napolitano – YouTube

Judge Napolitano is one of my hero’s.  His show was taken off FOX News, in my opinion, for being too much on the cutting edge and acting as an opposing voice to the bloated government we now have.

I don’t know what really happened in Boston, but I posted this video as the Judge makes a very cogent case that our own government was involved in staging terror plots.  I am also bothered by the military response to one lone 19-year-old punk.  Boston was on lock down and SWAT teams held people at gun-point. MARTIAL LAW: Boston SWAT Teams FORCE Americans Out Of Homes At GUNPOINT [POLICE STATE] – YouTube

Where do we go from here?

  With the recent events in Boston, we must ask ourselves, where do we go from here?  How can we possibly legislate our safety?  We stand in lines at the airports and submit to full body scanners, TSA pat-downs, searching of our private possessions without a warrant, and as demonstrated by the tragedy in Boston, none of this has made us safer.  How do we respond to a mother who supposedly states she will praise Allah for the death of Americans and the death of her sons? WHOA!… Zubeidat Tsarnaeva Tells CNN: “I Don’t Care if My Youngest Son Is Killed. I Don’t Care If I Am Killed. I Will Say Allahu Akbar!” (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

The mind-set reflected in this brief phone call to Zubeidat Tsarnaeva reveals a world view which is foreign to most of us.  This ideology is the same which spawned the birth of the suicide bomber.  In my opinion, it is a twisted logic which most of us here in the west find repugnant.  It is a death wish.  To say God is great for killing Americans, her sons and herself, is beyond the pale.  It is contrary to what we see in the Bible when Jesus tells us: I have come that you might have life and have it more abundantly!

Yesterday Rand Paul seemingly flip-flopped on his stance against the use of drones on American citizens, which I’m sure will be used to hunt down terrorists.  Activist Post: Rand Paul flip-flops, says drone strikes on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without charge or trial are okay

He now appears to condone the use of drones in “certain circumstances.”  We are moving to a police state that would make George Orwell, blush.

So what do we do?  Do we ban all Immigrants whose backgrounds are Middle Eastern, or Islamic?   Do we deport everyone who holds to Islam.  At least one Imam has denounced the bombings so there is a ray of hope.

Read More: http://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/where-do-we-go-from-here/

White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

End Of Days News

 

Two leading figures within the Obama administration now insist that the president of the United States does not have the authority to launch drone strikes on US soil.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) received a response from the Obama administration on Thursday afternoon after spending 13 hours demanding answers about the possible use of drones inside of the United States.

During a briefing Thursday afternoon, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, "The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil.”

Mr. Carney also elected to read a statement penned by Attorney General Eric Holder earlier that day that had been sent to Sen. Paul. Mr. Holder’s entire statement, only 43 words, confirmed Mr. Carney’s remark.

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no,” wrote the attorney general.

Read More: http://rt.com/usa/white-house-admits-it-cant-drone-americans-976/

US justifies terrorism by blocking Damascus bombing condemnation - Russia

End Of Days News

 

Russia has accused the US of blocking a draft UN Security Council statement condemning the suicide bombings in the Syrian capital, which were among the deadliest in the two years of the armed conflict. The US blamed Russia in return.

The draft document submitted by Russia was aiming to express condolences to the victims of the Thursday attack on Damascus, which killed at least 53 people and wounded more than 250, and to condemn terrorism in any form. The anti-regime London-based Observatory for Human Rights put the death toll even higher, saying Friday that the coordinated bombings killed a total of 90 people, including some 60 in the most powerful blast in the Mazraa district.

But the adoption was blocked by the US and its allies, which wanted to add language condemning the Syrian President Bashar Assad, a move that Russia could not accept.

“Unfortunately, such an indispensable reaction by the Security Council to this terrorist attack has been once again blocked by the US delegation linking it with other questions,”the office of, Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s envoy to the UN, said.

“We consider unacceptable this search for justifications for terrorist actions. It is obvious that by doing so the US delegation encourages those who have been repeatedly targeting American interests, including US diplomatic missions,” the statement added.

The words are a thinly-veiled reference to the September 2012 attack on the US diplomatic mission in Libya’s Benghazi, in which America’s ambassador to the country and three other staff members were killed by Al-Qaeda-linked militants. Russia’s embassy in Damascus was among the buildings damaged by the suicide bombings, which Syria says were also carried out by Al-Qaeda-linked militants.

Spokeswoman for the US mission to the UN, Erin Peltin, said“We strongly condemn all indiscriminate terrorist attacks against civilians or against diplomatic facilities.

“We agreed with the Russian draft of a statement from the Security Council and only sought to add similar language on the regime’s brutal attacks against the Syrian people. Unfortunately, Russia refused to engage on a credible text.”

Opponents of the Syrian regime both among the rebel fighters and the international backers of the opposition have been pressuring Assad to step down. They accuse Russia of supporting him despite the thousands of lives the confrontation has claimed, saying most of the violence is his and his government’s fault.

“The problem is that the opposition saying every five minutes that they don’t want to talk to Bashar Assad,” told RT in an interview UN and Arab League special envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi.

The latest opposition demand for Assad to step down comes in a political statement from the Western-, Arab- and Turkish-backed Syrian National Coalition, which the body adopted after a late session on Thursday in Cairo.

The statement was passed after an angry debate, in which some members both Islamist and liberal camps of the 70-strong body criticized their chief Moaz Khatib for his earlier proposal of talks without setting a “clear goal”, as the critics said.

“We have adopted a political document that sets the parameters for any talks. The main addition to the draft is a clause about the necessity of Assad stepping step down,” said Abdelbasset Sida, a member of the coalition's 12-member politburo and one of Khatib’s critics.

Russia has on many occasions insisted that the personal fate of Assad is not Moscow’s concern. But Moscow insists that Assad staying in power or stepping down can only be discussed after the violence is stopped and a diplomatic solution to the conflict in found, and cannot be a precondition for negotiations. It offers itself as mediator for possible talks between Damascus and the opposition, including hosting such a meeting in Moscow.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem is due for talks in Moscow. Russia hopes that Khatib will also visit soon in search of a breakthrough.

 

http://rt.com/news/syria-terrorism-un-row-264/



Malian army gains ground in conflict as UN warns of mass refugee exodus

The Malian army has beaten back Islamist rebels entrenched in a strategically important town in central Mali. Meanwhile, the UN has predicted a potential exodus of up to 700,000 refugees amid fears the conflict could spill into neighboring countries.

Fighting was reported in the town of Konna in central Mali on Thursday. Islamist rebels seized the strategically important town on January 10, prompting the Malian government to request aid from France to push the rebels back.
"We have wrested total control of Konna after inflicting heavy losses on the enemy," the Malian army said in a brief statement. Regional security agencies confirmed the claims.
The international community fears that if the rebels reach the capital Bamako they will form "a terrorist safe haven in the heart of Africa.”
A hundred Togolese and Nigerian soldiers arrived in Mali late on Thursday to reinforce the 1,400 French soldiers already deployed in the country.
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has pledged 3,000 troops to the conflict, but the initial date for their deployment was September of this year. As a result, many of the nine regional allies have said they cannot send immediate help.
French President Francois Hollande has repeatedly promised that the French presence in Mali will be short-lived, and will end when the Islamist rebels have been eradicated. However, concerns have been raised that France will be there for the long haul, given that the rebels were well-armed and better-prepared than originally believed.
The UN refugee agency warned on Friday that if the conflict becomes drawn-out, as many as 700,000 people could end up fleeing the area.
"We believe there could be in the near future an additional 300,000 displaced inside Mali and up to 400,000 additional displaced [refugees] in neighboring countries," UN refugee agency spokesperson Melissa Fleming said at a news briefing.
Around 147,000 Malians have sought refuge in neighboring countries since Islamist militants seized control of the north of the country nine months ago. The UN estimates that since France began its aerial bombardment last Friday, more than 2,700 people have fled the region.
­

France architect of conflict that could ‘burn Africa’

President Hollande has claimed that France’s intervention in Mali is justified because of the hostage crisis in Algeria propagated by Malian rebels.
"What's happening in Algeria provides further evidence that my decision to intervene in Mali was justified," the French President told business leaders in Paris.
Peace activist Reiner Braun painted a different picture when he told RT “the French government is responsible for the crisis.”
“There is no argument for sending these troops to Mali, you cannot solve the problems of Mali with military intervention,” Braun said.
He stressed that France’s move was “immoral,” and will result in a similar situation to Afghanistan that will kill hundreds of thousands and “burn Africa.”

Nigerian soldiers arrive at the airport in Bamako on January 17, 2013.(AFP Photo / Issouf Sanogo)

Togolese Army soldiers stand in preparation to leave for deployment to Mali from Togo's capital Lome January 17, 2013.

(Reuters / Stringer)

Nigerian soldiers prepare to load weapons stored in boxes into a military plane before leaving for Mali, at the airport in Nigeria's northern state of Kaduna January 17, 2013.(Reuters / Afolabi Sotunde)

US urges EU to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization

 

 

WASHINGTON (JTA) – The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution urging the European Union and its member states to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization and impose sanctions on the group.

The bipartisan resolution, which passed Wednesday, would prevent Hezbollah from using EU territories for fundraising, recruitment, training and propaganda.

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) authored the resolution, which was co-sponsored by 85 representatives.

“Once called the ‘A Team of terrorists’ by a senior State Department official, Hezbollah has a well-documented and undeniable record of terrorist activity that demands recognition by the international community,” Kelly said on the House floor. “For decades, Hezbollah has committed murderous acts on Americans and our allies in both Europe and the Middle East.”

The United States has designated the Lebanon-based Islamist group as a terrorist organization since the late 1990s.

In 2006, Israel conducted a wide scale operation known as the Second Lebanon War against Hezbollah terrorists, after members of the group attacked a patrol on the Israel-Lebanon border and fired rockets on military outposts and border towns.

 

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-urges-eu-to-designate-hezbollah-as-a-terrorist-organization/

Video: Morsi calls Jews 'bloodsuckers, apes, pigs'

 

 

Footage of Mohammed Morsi, now President of Egypt, has emerged showing his inflammatory and hateful comments against the State of Israel. ...

He states, "No reasonable person can expect any progress on this track. Either [you accept] the Zionists and everything they want, or else it is war. This is what these occupiers of the land of Palestine know — these blood-suckers, who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs. ..."

Morsi, lauded for his role in brokering a peace between Hamas and Israel last year, also states that there is categorically no place for Israel in the region and that the country should not exist. He says, "There is no place for them on the land of Palestine.

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/morsi-video-surfaces-israelis-blood-suckers-and-apes#ixzz2Gynbru3R

White House wins fight to keep drone killings of Americans secret

 

 

A federal judge issued a 75-page ruling on Wednesday that declares that the US Justice Department does not have a legal obligation to explain the rationale behind killing Americans with targeted drone strikes.
United States District Court Judge Colleen McMahon wrote in her finding this week that the Obama administration was largely in the right by rejecting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times for materials pertaining to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to execute three US citizens abroad in late 2011 [pdf].
Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both US nationals with alleged ties to al-Qaeda, were killed on September 30 of that year using drone aircraft; days later, al-Awlaki’s teenage son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was executed in the same manner. Although the Obama administration has remained largely quiet about the killings in the year since, a handful of statements made from senior White House officials, including Pres. Barack Obama himself, have provided some but little insight into the Executive Branch’s insistence that the killings were all justified and constitutionally-sound. Attempts from the ACLU and the Times via FOIA requests to find out more have been unfruitful, though, which spawned a federal lawsuit that has only now been decided in court.
Siding with the defendants in what can easily be considered as cloaked in skepticism, Judge McMahon writes that the Obama White House has been correct in refusing the FOIA requests filed by the plaintiffs.
"There are indeed legitimate reasons, historical and legal, to question the legality of killings unilaterally authorized by the Executive that take place otherwise than on a 'hot' field of battle," McMahon writes in her ruling. Because her decision must only weigh whether or not the Obama administration has been right in rejecting the FOIA requests, though, her ruling cannot take into consideration what sort of questions — be it historical, legal, ethical or moral — are raised by the ongoing practice of using remote-controlled drones to kill insurgents and, in these instances, US citizens.
"The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable Catch-22,” she writes. “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret.”
Throughout her ruling, Judge McMahon cites speeches from both Pres. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder in which the al-Awlaki killings are vaguely discussed, but appear to do little more than excuse the administration’s behavior with their own secretive explanations.
“The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential — but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war — even if that individual happens to be a US citizen,” McMahon quotes Mr. Holder as saying during a March 2012 address at Chicago’s Northwestern University. “Holder did not identify which recent court decisions so held,” the judge replies, “Nor did he explain exactly what process was given to the victims of targeted killings at locations far from ‘hot’ battlefields…”
And while both Mr. Holder and Pres. Obama have discussed the killings in public, including one appearance by the president on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, the Justice Department insists that going further by releasing any legal evidence that supports the executions would be detrimental to national security.
While Judge McMahon ends up agreeing with the White House, she does so by making known her own weariness over how the Obama administration has forced the court to rely on their own insistence that information about the attacks simply cannot be discussed.
“As they gathered to draft a Constitution for their newly liberated country, the Founders — fresh from a war of independence from the rule of a King they styled a tyrant — were fearful of concentrating power in the hands of any single person or institution, and most particular in the executive,” McMahon writes.
Responding to the decision on Wednesday, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer issued a statement condemning the White House’s just-won ability to relieve itself from any fair and honest explanation as to the justification of Americans.
“This ruling denies the public access to crucial information about the government’s extrajudicial killing of US citizens and also effectively green-lights its practice of making selective and self-serving disclosures,” Jameel writes. “As the judge acknowledges, the targeted killing program raises profound questions about the appropriate limits on government power in our constitutional democracy. The public has a right to know more about the circumstances in which the government believes it can lawfully kill people, including US citizens, who are far from any battlefield and have never been charged with a crime.”
The ACLU says they plan to appeal Judge McMahon’s decision and are currently awaiting news regarding a separate lawsuit filed alongside the Center for Constitutional Rights that directly challenges the constitutionality of the targeted kills.
“The government has argued that case should also be dismissed,” the ACLU notes.
In a Wednesday afternoon statement from the Times, assistant general counsel David McCraw says the paper will appeal the ruling as well.
"We began this litigation because we believed our readers deserved to know more about the US government's legal position on the use of targeted killings against persons having ties to terrorism, including US citizens," McCraw says.
Although she ruled against the plaintiffs, Judge McMahon, says McCraw, explained "eloquently … why in a democracy the government should be addressing those questions openly and fully."

http://rt.com/usa/news/drone-kill-mcmahon-obama-245/