In order to offset the government propaganda being aired on the National Geographic channel this week leading up to the anniversary of 9-11. What is obviously left out is the Vatican/Jesuit connection, as usual!
Report On Man Who Faces Life Sentence for Recording Cops
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 30, 2011
For the crime of recording police during a citation and taking a tape recorder into the courtroom, 41-year old mechanic Michael Allison faces a life sentence in prison. The state of Illinois has charged Allison with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison.
The case reveals how far the authorities will go in their efforts to squelch the rights of citizens and prevent them from documenting the abuses of police and other government officials.
The above news report aired in June. It appeared on YouTube last week.
As Radley Balko noted on his blog in June, the report filed by a Terre Haute news station is riddled with misinformation:
This isn’t a distinction without a difference. When a media outlet reports that recording cops is “illegal” in these states (and the Terre Haute station is not the first to do so), it adds to the public perception that doing so is, in fact, illegal. This makes it more difficult to hold police officers accountable when they disregard the law. In order to overcome a police officer’s qualified immunity in a lawsuit for wrongful arrest, you have to show that a reasonable person (not a reasonable police officer) should have known that the arrest was in violation of clearly established law. When media outlets continue to incorrectly report that recording cops is illegal in these states, they contribute to public confusion about the law—and thus make it more difficult for people who have been wrongly arrested to argue in court that a reasonable person should have known that the arrest was illegal.
Intel Hub Note: Filming police brutality and sometimes murder should NOT be illegal and should be done to protect citizens. Police have no right to privacy on public streets!
The idea that filming police beating the crap out of people is as bad as rape is absolutely 100% insane and no valid argument can change this fact.
A growing number of police officers in America have turned into mafia style thugs, charging people with resisting arrest after beating them up and then declaring the person who filmed their beating as bad as a rapist.
Take this for example. A police officer who was filmed MURDERING a man is serving two years in jail while an Illinois citizen is facing life in jail for filming a police officer in public.
When it comes to capital punishment (commonly referred to as the death penalty), there’s often a great deal of debate surrounding morality and ethics.
The intriguing opinions that characterize the discussion become even more complicated when exploring how Christianity’s tenets can be employed to either support or debunk the legal practice. That being said, where does the nation stand on the whole?
In 2010, Gallup found that the majority (64 percent) of Americans support the death penalty for a person convicted of murder. Based on these polling numbers, only 29 percent oppose it. Since the 1930s, the issue has had some interesting graphical patterns, trending up, down, up, and then down again:
Additionally, 49 percent of Americans do not believe that the death penalty is imposed enough. And, when asked which option — capital punishment or life imprisonment with no possibility of parole — is better suited as a punishment for murder, 49 percent opt for the former, with 46 percent choosing the latter.
Needless to say, the majority of contemporary Americans support the death penalty, regardless of how the question is asked or framed. Now that we understand how public perceptions play out, one might wonder: How does faith impact personal opinions about the death penalty?
When considering the Christian interpretation of capital punishment, both supporters and opponents claim that the Bible corroborates their views. Of course, on the surface, there are elements present in the Bible that, taken independently, would backup both sides of the debate. But to start exploring where the faith community stands on this issue, let’s look at some 2004 data from Gallup:
Americans who attend religious services on a regular basis are slightly less likely to support the death penalty than those who attend less frequently. Although a majority of frequent and infrequent churchgoers support the death penalty, the data show that 65% of those who attend services weekly or nearly weekly favor capital punishment, compared with 69% of those who attend services monthly and 71% of those who seldom or never attend.
Gallup continues:
Protestants are somewhat more likely to endorse capital punishment than are Catholics and far more likely than those with no religious preference. More than 7 in 10 Protestants (71%) support the death penalty, while 66% of Catholics support it. Fifty-seven percent of those with no religious preference favor the death penalty for murder.
This in mind, among Protestants and Catholics, an intriguing trend emerges. The less often these individuals attend church, the more likely they are to support the death penalty. Opponents of capital punishment could seize upon this information to claim that, among Christians, church (and thus more Biblical teaching) tends to lower acceptance of the death penalty.
But majorities in both Christian categories still support the legal practice, regardless. And, there’s the unavoidable truth that people with no religion are less likely to support capital punishment than their Christian counterparts.
Liberal Christians like Rev. Jim Wallis have written to denounce the death penalty. On Wallis’ Sojourners web site, the organization says, “All life is a sacred gift from God, and public policies should reflect a consistent ethic of life.” The text continues:
A consistent ethic demands that our nation end capital punishment. We should not take life to punish wrongful death. There is no evidence that it deters murder. It is easy to make fatal mistakes, as DNA testing has shown. The death penalty is biased against the poor, who cannot afford adequate legal representation, and is racially disproportionate.
People like Wallis tend to believe that only God can decide when it’s time to take lives away (although Wallis also sees systematic issues which he decries). As About.com’s Tom Head writes:
The authors of the New Testament lived under Roman occupation and had no means by which to impose the death penalty, so it is difficult to know what their views on the matter would have been.
Head continues by explaining Jesus’ denunciations of violence in the Gospels. He makes it a point to note John 8:3-11, which shows Jesus stepping in to stop a would-be instance of capital punishment. Below, read this section of John for yourself:
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.
Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.
Further corroboration can be found in the Old Testament, where Genesis 9:6 reads, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” BBC further explains the history of the death penalty in the Christian church:
For much of history, the Christian Churches accepted that capital punishment was a necessary part of the mechanisms of society.
Pope Innocent III, for example, put forward the proposition: “The secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise judgment of blood, provided that it punishes with justice, not out of hatred, with prudence, not precipitation.”
The Roman Catechism, issued in 1566, stated that the power of life and death had been entrusted by God to the civil authorities. The use of this power did not embody the act of murder, but rather a supreme obedience to God’s commandments.
Of course, this issue is a complicated one. Exploring the faith-based breakdowns seems to expose an intriguing dynamic. Most Christians do, based on polling data, support the death penalty. That being said, there are some believers who claim that the Bible does not support capital punishment. While the majority of Americans — and Christians — agree with this legal option, the jury may still be out and opinions could certainly change.
What do you think? Take our poll and let us know your stance:
Dozens 'tortured and killed in Syria detention centres'
Amnesty International has said it believes that at least 88 people have died in detention in Syria during the past five months.
It says those who died, including 10 children, were subjected to beatings, burns, electric shocks and other abuse.
The group says it believes all of those who died were arrested after taking part in anti-government protests.
Foreign journalists have been blocked from entering Syria and the reports could not immediately be verified.
The allegations, published in a report, come shortly after the Syrian government denied persistent reports of at least one mass grave being uncovered in the restive southern city of Deraa.
"These deaths behind bars are reaching massive proportions, and appear to be an extension of the same brutal disdain for life that we are seeing daily on the streets of Syria," said Neil Sammonds, Amnesty's researcher on Syria.
Mr Sammonds told the BBC that they have the names of at least 3,000 people who are currently in detention.
"There are said to be 12-15,000 people detained in the country at the moment. We know that torture has been widespread over many years and it has got much much worse. Most people are held in incommunicado detention."
Torture allegations
He said the volume of abuses, many of which had been documented on video and occurred near the cities of Homs and Deraa, had returned almost to levels not seen since the 1980s.
Deraa was the first Syrian city to see pro-democracy protests, in mid-March, and became an epicentre of the unrest after security forces launched a major operation to crush any dissent there. Dozens of people are believed to have been killed and hundreds arrested.
In its report, Amnesty said that the victims were all men or boys and, in at least 52 of the cases, there was evidence that torture or ill-treatment caused or contributed to the deaths.
Deaths in detention have also been reported in five other governorates - Damascus and Rif Damashq, Idlib, Hama and Aleppo, Amnesty said.
Amnesty International says it has compiled the names of more than 1,800 people reported to have died since pro-reform protests began. Thousands of others have been arrested, with many held incommunicado at unknown locations, according to the group.
Residents said that in the early hours of Wednesday morning Syrian troops backed by tanks raided houses looking for activists in two main districts of Hama.
A local activist told Reuters that several tanks were parked at a bridge at the eastern entrance to the city and then hundreds of troops entered two neighbourhoods on foot.
On Tuesday, as people streamed out of mosques after prayers to mark the end of Ramadan and renewed protests against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, security forces shot dead four demonstrators.
Those who died, including a 13-year-old boy, were killed in the towns of al-Hara and Inkhil in the southern province of Deraa.
Are you in Syria? Do you have family or friends in Syria? Send us your comments and experiences.
Send your pictures and videos to yourpics@bbc.co.uk or text them to 61124 (UK) or +44 7624 800 100 (International). If you have a large file you can upload here.
Astronauts might have to abandon space station
By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer Marcia Dunn, Ap Aerospace Writer
AP – FILE - This May 23, 2011 file photo released by NASA, shows the International Space Station flying at …
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – Astronauts may need to take the unprecedented step of temporarily abandoning the International Space Station if last week's Russian launch accident prevents new crews from flying there this fall.
Until officials figure out what went wrong with Russia's essential Soyuz rockets, there will be no way to launch any more astronauts before the current residents have to leave in mid-November.
The unsettling predicament comes just weeks after NASA's final space shuttle flight.
"We have plenty of options," NASA's space station program manager, Mike Suffredini, assured reporters Monday. "We'll focus on crew safety as we always do."
Abandoning the space station, even for a short period, would be an unpleasant last resort for the world's five space agencies that have spent decades working on the project. Astronauts have been living aboard the space station since 2000, and the goal is to keep it going until 2020.
Suffredini said flight controllers could keep a deserted space station operating indefinitely, as long as all major systems are working properly. The risk to the station goes up, however, if no one is on board to fix equipment breakdowns.
Six astronauts from three countries presently are living on the orbiting complex. Three are due to leave next month; the other three are supposed to check out in mid-November. They can't stay any longer because of spacecraft and landing restrictions.
The Sept. 22 launch of the very next crew — the first to fly in this post-shuttle era — already has been delayed indefinitely. Russia's Soyuz spacecraft have been the sole means of getting full-time station residents up and down for two years. The capsule is parked at the station until they ride it home.
To keep the orbiting outpost with a full staff of six for as long as possible, the one American and two Russians due to return to Earth on Sept. 8 will remain on board at least an extra week.
As for supplies, the space station is well stocked and could go until next summer, Suffredini said. Atlantis dropped off a year's supply of goods just last month on the final space shuttle voyage. The unmanned craft destroyed Wednesday was carrying 3 tons of supplies.
For now, operations are normal in orbit, Suffredini noted, and the additional week on board for half the crew will mean additional science research.
The Soyuz has been extremely reliable over the decades; this was the first failure in 44 Russian supply hauls for the space station. Even with such a good track record, many in and outside NASA were concerned about retiring the space shuttles before a replacement was ready to fly astronauts.
Russian space officials have set up an investigation team and until it comes up with a cause for the accident and a repair plan, the launch and landing schedules remain in question. None of the spacecraft debris has been recovered yet; the wreckage fell into a remote, wooded section of Siberia. The third stage malfunctioned; a sudden loss of pressure apparently was noted between the engine and turbopump.
While a crew may well have survived such an accident because of safety precautions built into the manned version of the rocket, no one wants to take any chances.
One or two unmanned Soyuz launches are on tap for October, one commercial and the other another space station supply run. Those would serve as important test flights before putting humans on board, Suffredini said.
NASA considered vacating the space station before, following the space shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003. Back then, shuttles were still being used to ferry some station residents back and forth. Instead, the station got by with two-man crews for three years because of the significant cutback in supplies.
The space station's population doubled in 2009, to six. It wasn't until the space station was completed this year that science research finally took priority.
Even if the space shuttles still were flying, space station crews still would need Soyuz-launched capsules to serve as lifeboats, Suffredini said. The capsules are certified for no more than 6 1/2 months in space, thus the need to regularly rotate crews. Complicating matters is the need to land the capsules during daylight hours in Kazakhstan, resulting in weeks of blackout periods.
NASA wants American private companies to take over crew hauls, but that's three to five years away at best. Until then, Soyuz capsules are the only means of transporting astronauts to the space station.
Japan and Europe have their own cargo ships and rockets, for unmanned use only. Commercial front-runner Space Exploration Technologies Corp., or SpaceX, plans to launch a space station supply ship from Cape Canaveral at the end of November. That would be put on hold if no one is on board to receive the vessel.
Suffredini said he hasn't had time to consider the PR impact of abandoning the space station, especially coming so soon after the end of the 30-year shuttle program.
"Flying safely is much, much more important than anything else I can think about right this instant," he said. "I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to discuss any political implications if we spend a lot of time on the ground. But you know, we'll just have to deal with them because we're going to do what's safest for the crew and for the space station."
Online:
Read more at old.news.yahoo.com
 |
|
