Occupy Bangkok’s quest to de-Thaksinize Thailand
RT
Jan 23, 2014
Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of StopImperialism.com.
Anti-government protesters take part in a rally in Bangkok’s financial district January 23, 2014. (Reuters / Nir Elias)
As hundreds of thousands of protesters fill the streets of Bangkok demanding the ouster of the Shinawatra government, the Western media continue their one-sided portrayal of events in Thailand, misrepresenting the protests as anti-democratic.
On January 13, 2014, the largest Thai protests in decades officially came together under the banner ‘Occupy Bangkok’. Demanding an end to the regime of Thaksin and Yingluck Shinawatra, the protesters, who come from all social classes and all walks of life, have essentially brought the Bangkok metropolis to a standstill.
Filling the major boulevards and public spaces, Occupy Bangkok has come to represent more than a mere political uprising, it is a social movement aiming to rid the country of its corrupt leadership and restore some semblance of true democracy to Thailand.
Of course, the Western corporate media puts forward a very different narrative. Rather than a legitimate struggle against the current government, Occupy Bangkok is being framed as an assault on democracy by “royalists” intent upon restoring the traditional elite to power.
The disingenuousness of such an absurd narrative aside, the international media portrayal of events in Thailand is instructive, as it demonstrates unequivocally the way in which finance capital is attempting to use every weapon at its disposal to crush a burgeoning social movement.
Corporate media and the Thaksin mythology
In covering the Occupy Bangkok movement, some of the most prominent media outlets have engaged in a deliberate misinformation campaign designed to portray Thaksin Shinawatra, his sister and proxy Yingluck (the present prime minister), and their supporters as “defenders of democracy.”
In a TIME magazine article from Thursday January 16, 2014 deceptively titled ‘Bangkok Shutdown: Yingluck Supporters Prepare to Fight for Democracy’ the author writes, “Thaksin-backed parties have won the last five elections based upon huge support in Thailand’s rural northeast, where populist policies are credited for bringing millions out of poverty. However, Thaksin remains anathema to royalists and the traditional elite of Bangkok and the southern provinces, who accuse him of flagrant vote-buying…The opposition wants an unelected people’s council to replace the democratically chosen legislature for a period of up to two years, in order to usher through a series of reforms designed to permanently nullify Thaksin’s power.”
The article attempts to demonize the anti-Thaksin opposition by association with ‘royalists’ and ‘traditional elite’ in order to create the illusion that, rather than a genuine social movement, the protests are counter-revolutionary and reactionary in nature. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In reality, the opposition seeks to rid itself and the country of a political machine financed and controlled from abroad. Naturally the opposition, like political opposition in any country, seeks to gain political power. However, this in no way negates the legitimacy of their grievances or of those of the masses on the streets.
One of the principal talking points in the dominant Western media narrative has been that the Thaksin/Yingluck Shinawatra government is pro-democracy because it insists upon elections in the near term as a means of “resolving the crisis.” This is an utterly laughable notion considering that, by the party’s own reckoning, it is merely the proxy of Thaksin, who runs the day-to-day operations from abroad after having fled the country rather than face corruption and abuse of power charges.
VIDEO — ‘Foreign pressure on Ukraine will only make matters worse’
RT
Jan 23, 2014
The center of Kiev has become something of a battlefield over the past few days. This is Independence Square, known as Maidan, which is the main hub of the protests – that’s where the opposition camp is. But some of the most-fierce clashes on Wednesday broke out on this nearby street. Tires were set alight there – and you just heard RT’s Peter Oliver reporting from the scene. Two people were killed – both reportedly with bullet wounds. The authorities, however, say police on the streets do not have live ammunition. And there do appear to have been vigilantes with firearms among the protesters, as you can see in this picture. Let’s talk more on what’s happening in Ukraine, with Daniel McAdams – head of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air
[related video: Ukraine govt ready to resign, protests spread across country]
RADIO SHOW — Mark Passio interviews Jan Irvin on the Trivium – with Bob Tuskin
Trivium Education.com
January 23, 2012
What on Earth is Happening, episode #087.
Date: 2011-12-04
Guests: Jan Irvin (GnosticMedia.com & TriviumEducation.com) and Bob Tuskin (BobTuskin.com)
Topics: Trivium, Quadrivium, Logical Fallacies, Truth, Education, Wisdom, Solutions
http://whatonearthishappening.com/
We Have to Pass it to Find Out What’s in it: Michigan’s SB 94
by Dan Johnson
P.A.N.D.A. People Against The NDAA
Jan 16, 2014
Senate Bill 94, recently signed into law by Governor Snyder, purports to “Nullify” the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act’s detention provisions. It does nothing of the sort. Instead, this bill gives us a great example of, and tells us what to look for, in feel-good, false security legislation. Let’s break it down:
Bill Text as Enrolled:
“AN ACT to prohibit any agency of this state, any political subdivision of this state, any employee of any agency of this state or any political subdivision of this state, or any member of the Michigan national guard from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States under certain circumstances.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
Sec. 1. (1) Subject to subsection (2), notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no agency of this state, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the Michigan national guard on active state service shall aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012, if such aid would place that state agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the Michigan national guard in violation of the United States constitution, the state constitution of 1963, or any law of this state.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to participation by state or local law enforcement or the Michigan national guard in a joint task force, partnership, or other similar cooperative agreement with federal law enforcement if that joint task force, partnership, or similar cooperative agreement is not for the purpose of investigating, prosecuting, or detaining any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012.
Enacting section 1. This act takes effect upon the expiration of 90 days after the date it is enacted into law.
This act is ordered to take immediate effect.”
Assessing this legislation through the lens of an elected official or Judge Advocate General (JAG) Attorney attempting to get around it, and violate the rights of one or more citizens, we see several loopholes in this legislation, and some points that SB 94 does not even attempt to take on. First, we will go through those loopholes. We will then talk about crucial issues this bill does not address, and, finally, offer solutions.
Loopholes:
1. SB 94, Subsection 1, allows a state agent not acting in their “official capacity” to assist the Federal government in the violation of a person’s rights in Michigan.
The phrase “acting in his or her official capacity” requires that, in order for the action specified to be illegal, a state agent must be acting officially or “on the clock.” This will allow the Federal government to take a state agent out to a meal, or approach them on an off day, or work with them in any way that is out of their official capacity as an agent of the state. It also implies that assisting a federal extrajudicial military detention (kidnapping by any other name) is legal for a state agent to do. In essence, assisting a kidnapping is okay, so long as the agent is off the clock and the federal government is asking.
2. SB 94, Subsection1, allows state agents to assist any federal agency besides the U.S. Armed Forces in the violation of a person’s rights in Michigan.
Though the phrase “aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States,” provides a written red flag to help agents of the state determine who not to assist, it leaves the door wide open for any state agent to assist any other federal, or international, agency, or mercenary, when implementing the detention provisions, sections 1021 and 1022, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (2012 NDAA). Thus, a state agent could assist the Department of Homeland Security, Central Intelligence Agency, or any number of myriad agencies attempting to implement the 2012 NDAA’s detention provisions in Michigan. Essentially, as long as it’s not the Armed Forces asking, any state agent can assist any federal agent, international agent, or even international armed forces, with a kidnapping in the State of Michigan.
3. SB 94, Subsection 1, allows state agents to assist in applications of the laws of war outside detention, including torture and extrajudicial execution, in Michigan.
The phrase “in any investigation, prosecution, or detention” is an attempt to cover all the bases in the 2012 NDAA, but is far too narrow. According to Section 1021 (c), the 2012 NDAA authorizes the disposition of a covered person under the law of war, including, but not limited to:
“(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity (Emphasis added.)”
Of these, 1 roughly translates to detention, 2 to trial in a Military Court, and 3 and 4 to rendition. Further, as covered persons under the 2012 NDAA are considered “unprivileged enemy belligerents” under the law of war, anything permitted in wartime, including torture and extrajudicial execution, can be applied to persons in the U.S. It would be nearly impossible to enumerate the number of things a person could be subjected to on a battlefield, but the 2012 NDAA authorizes all of it.
SB094 fails to cover anything but an investigation, prosecution or detention. Were a state agent asked to help a federal task force torture or extrajudicially execute a person in Michigan under the 2012 NDAA, or even lock down a city in a scenario like that in Watertown, Massachusetts, nothing in this law would prevent it. Essentially, so long as the Federal government requests assistance with an action under the laws of war, whether that is a citywide lockdown (imposition of martial law) , an extraordinary rendition, or torture of a single person, that is not an “investigation, prosecution, or detention,” state agents in Michigan can easily assist.
4. SB 94, Subsection 1, permits a state agent to assist the Federal government in applying the laws of war, so long as the authority cited is not Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA.
The phrase “pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012” is a major loophole in this law, and seems to show the legislators’ ignorance of the real problem. Since it limits illegal actions to only those performed under this section, it brings two scenarios into play. Firstly, while Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA is the only statutory authority for the imposition of the laws of war on a person inside the United States or an American citizen abroad, several more have been claimed by both the Bush and Obama Administrations.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the Bush Administration claimed the power to detain an American citizen under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and under the Commander-In-Chief Authority in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In Hedges v. Obama, as well as in the official explanation for the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen abroad, the Obama Administration has claimed the AUMF as authority for detaining and executing American citizens. Were a federal agent to claim one of these powers, instead of the 2012 NDAA, as the reason a state agent should assist with imposing the law of war on a person in Michigan, SB94 does nothing to prevent that assistance.
The second scenario expands on the first. Since this law limits its prohibition to Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, if the sections were to simply change number, or even be inserted in another piece of legislation (as a few riders on an agricultural bill for example), SB94 would be rendered completely ineffective, and all the hard work put in by activists and legislators to pass it will have been rendered null.
Further, if the Federal government were to completely invent a nonexistent authority as a reason for detention, such as they did in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld when they claimed authority to detain an American citizen under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, SB 94 does nothing to prevent a state agent from assisting the federal government in the application of that pretend authority.
Essentially, so long as the Federal government cites anything other than Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, up to and including faeries and rainbows, as an excuse to apply the law of war in Michigan, SB94 does nothing to prevent a state agent from assisting.
Senate Bill 94, recently signed into law by Governor Snyder, purports to “Nullify” the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act’s detention provisions. It does nothing of the sort. Instead, this bill gives us a great example of, and tells us what to look for, in feel-good, false security legislation. Let’s break it down:
Bill Text as Enrolled:
“AN ACT to prohibit any agency of this state, any political subdivision of this state, any employee of any agency of this state or any political subdivision of this state, or any member of the Michigan national guard from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States under certain circumstances.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
Sec. 1. (1) Subject to subsection (2), notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no agency of this state, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the Michigan national guard on active state service shall aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012, if such aid would place that state agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the Michigan national guard in violation of the United States constitution, the state constitution of 1963, or any law of this state.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to participation by state or local law enforcement or the Michigan national guard in a joint task force, partnership, or other similar cooperative agreement with federal law enforcement if that joint task force, partnership, or similar cooperative agreement is not for the purpose of investigating, prosecuting, or detaining any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012.
Enacting section 1. This act takes effect upon the expiration of 90 days after the date it is enacted into law.
This act is ordered to take immediate effect.”
Assessing this legislation through the lens of an elected official or Judge Advocate General (JAG) Attorney attempting to get around it, and violate the rights of one or more citizens, we see several loopholes in this legislation, and some points that SB 94 does not even attempt to take on. First, we will go through those loopholes. We will then talk about crucial issues this bill does not address, and, finally, offer solutions.
Loopholes:
1. SB 94, Subsection 1, allows a state agent not acting in their “official capacity” to assist the Federal government in the violation of a person’s rights in Michigan.
The phrase “acting in his or her official capacity” requires that, in order for the action specified to be illegal, a state agent must be acting officially or “on the clock.” This will allow the Federal government to take a state agent out to a meal, or approach them on an off day, or work with them in any way that is out of their official capacity as an agent of the state. It also implies that assisting a federal extrajudicial military detention (kidnapping by any other name) is legal for a state agent to do. In essence, assisting a kidnapping is okay, so long as the agent is off the clock and the federal government is asking.
2. SB 94, Subsection1, allows state agents to assist any federal agency besides the U.S. Armed Forces in the violation of a person’s rights in Michigan.
Though the phrase “aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States,” provides a written red flag to help agents of the state determine who not to assist, it leaves the door wide open for any state agent to assist any other federal, or international, agency, or mercenary, when implementing the detention provisions, sections 1021 and 1022, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (2012 NDAA). Thus, a state agent could assist the Department of Homeland Security, Central Intelligence Agency, or any number of myriad agencies attempting to implement the 2012 NDAA’s detention provisions in Michigan. Essentially, as long as it’s not the Armed Forces asking, any state agent can assist any federal agent, international agent, or even international armed forces, with a kidnapping in the State of Michigan.
3. SB 94, Subsection 1, allows state agents to assist in applications of the laws of war outside detention, including torture and extrajudicial execution, in Michigan.
The phrase “in any investigation, prosecution, or detention” is an attempt to cover all the bases in the 2012 NDAA, but is far too narrow. According to Section 1021 (c), the 2012 NDAA authorizes the disposition of a covered person under the law of war, including, but not limited to:
“(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity (Emphasis added.)”
Of these, 1 roughly translates to detention, 2 to trial in a Military Court, and 3 and 4 to rendition. Further, as covered persons under the 2012 NDAA are considered “unprivileged enemy belligerents” under the law of war, anything permitted in wartime, including torture and extrajudicial execution, can be applied to persons in the U.S. It would be nearly impossible to enumerate the number of things a person could be subjected to on a battlefield, but the 2012 NDAA authorizes all of it.
SB094 fails to cover anything but an investigation, prosecution or detention. Were a state agent asked to help a federal task force torture or extrajudicially execute a person in Michigan under the 2012 NDAA, or even lock down a city in a scenario like that in Watertown, Massachusetts, nothing in this law would prevent it. Essentially, so long as the Federal government requests assistance with an action under the laws of war, whether that is a citywide lockdown (imposition of martial law) , an extraordinary rendition, or torture of a single person, that is not an “investigation, prosecution, or detention,” state agents in Michigan can easily assist.
4. SB 94, Subsection 1, permits a state agent to assist the Federal government in applying the laws of war, so long as the authority cited is not Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA.
The phrase “pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012” is a major loophole in this law, and seems to show the legislators’ ignorance of the real problem. Since it limits illegal actions to only those performed under this section, it brings two scenarios into play. Firstly, while Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA is the only statutory authority for the imposition of the laws of war on a person inside the United States or an American citizen abroad, several more have been claimed by both the Bush and Obama Administrations.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the Bush Administration claimed the power to detain an American citizen under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and under the Commander-In-Chief Authority in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In Hedges v. Obama, as well as in the official explanation for the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen abroad, the Obama Administration has claimed the AUMF as authority for detaining and executing American citizens. Were a federal agent to claim one of these powers, instead of the 2012 NDAA, as the reason a state agent should assist with imposing the law of war on a person in Michigan, SB94 does nothing to prevent that assistance.
The second scenario expands on the first. Since this law limits its prohibition to Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, if the sections were to simply change number, or even be inserted in another piece of legislation (as a few riders on an agricultural bill for example), SB94 would be rendered completely ineffective, and all the hard work put in by activists and legislators to pass it will have been rendered null.
Further, if the Federal government were to completely invent a nonexistent authority as a reason for detention, such as they did in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld when they claimed authority to detain an American citizen under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, SB 94 does nothing to prevent a state agent from assisting the federal government in the application of that pretend authority.
Essentially, so long as the Federal government cites anything other than Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, up to and including faeries and rainbows, as an excuse to apply the law of war in Michigan, SB94 does nothing to prevent a state agent from assisting.
Read more at http://pandaunite.org/ndaa-we-have-to-pass-it-to-find-out-whats-in-it-michigans-sb-94/#dp72dU3F3Wmy1TtE.99
VIDEO — Trendy Bicycle Rentals Cost $75/day in Agenda 21 Austin
Truthstream Media
Jan 20, 2014
(Truthstream Media.com) Austin, Texas and many cities across America are being rebuilt to be lean, green and expensive as hell… In the name of concentrated “smart growth,” Austin is building up hi-rise apartments and condos that are quaint for trendy single people and damned small for any family. Meanwhile, driving is discouraged and even bicycles are rented out at an absurd rate — $12 for an hour, and up to $75 per day! Be sure to wear a helmet, obey every regulation and stay off the sidewalk so you can clog up traffic! When going green gets insane… and has everything to do with the money.
More on Austin, TX as a Model for the Agenda 21 city of the future:
http://truthstreammedia.com/orwells-d…
http://truthstreammedia.com/austin-le…
http://www.icleiusa.org/blog/star-bet…
SPECIAL REPORT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agMbya…
Megaregions Planned for America 2050:
http://www.america2050.org/sync/eleme…
http://www.america2050.org/megaregion…
Website: TruthstreamMedia.com
Twitter: @TruthstreamNews
FB: Facebook.com/TruthstreamMedia
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Syria and the Geneva 2 charade
Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT and TomDispatch, and a frequent contributor to websites and radio shows ranging from the US to East Asia.
RT
Jan 22, 2014
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (C) opens the so-called Geneva II peace talks next to UN-Arab League envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi (L) on January 22, 2014 in Montreux. (AFP Photo)
In the summertime, people flock to Montreux, Switzerland, to follow the jazz festival. This week, though, the ‘performance’ is by a positively un-swinging lot, part of the (in theory) very serious Geneva 2 conference on Syria.
What is Geneva 2 for? It has nothing to do with ‘peace’. It won’t yield an international deal to end the Syrian tragedy. The horrible war facts on the ground will remain facts, and horrible; many perpetrators won’t be gathering in Montreux. Syrian civil society has not even been invited.
And then the whole charade degenerated into pitiful parody even before it started.
This past Sunday, it seemed that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had decided to spring out of his trademark vegetable slumber, inviting Iran to Geneva 2. The invitation lasted less than 24 hours; after the requisite ‘pressure’ by Washington – instigated by those sterling democrats of the House of Saud – it was duly rescinded.
Thus we had Ban Ki-moon parroting the US State Department, according to which Tehran had not agreed to the principles of the Geneva 1 communiqué, which called for a sustained cessation of armed violence. Iranian diplomats strongly begged to differ, stressing how Tehran understands that the basis of the talks is the full implementation of the previous, June 2012 conference, even if Iran was not part of it.
Ban Ki-moon also invited the Holy See, as well as Australia, Luxembourg, Mexico and the Republic of Korea, among others, to Montreux; as if these actors had any clue about what’s going on in Syria.
But the apex of the farce is that Iran cannot go, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar – who continue to weaponize every Syrian ‘rebel’ in sight, from young adrenaline seekers to Western-supported Takfiris and beheaders – can. And will.
Trust in governments worldwide failing
Trust in elected leaders has fallen sharply, a global survey revealed Monday, citing the protracted budget battle in Washington that nearly saw the U.S. default on its debts and Europe’s stuttering response to its debt crisis as key reasons for the drop.
Ahead of the gathering of political and business leaders in the Swiss resort of Davos, the public relations firm Edelman found that only 44 per cent of university-educated people participating in the survey trusted government, down 4 percentage points from the previous year. As recently as 2011, trust in politicians stood at 52 per cent.
The 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer found the largest-ever gap in its 14-year history — 14 points — between trust in government and trust in business.
“This is a profound evolution in the landscape of trust from 2009, where business had to partner with government to regain trust,” agency CEO Richard Edelman said.
The U.S. saw a dramatic 16 percentage point fall in the level of political trust to 37 per cent, which Edelman attributed to a number of factors, including the debt ceiling standoff in Congress, the revelations of widespread snooping by the National Security Agency and the calamitous start of President Barack Obama’s health reform website.
In Europe, the numbers were similarly dispiriting for elected leaders.
One country that saw plunging trust in government was France, where there’s growing concern over the inability of President Francois Hollande’s government to get the economy going. According to the survey, only 32 per cent in France trust government, down 17 percentage points.
The online survey queried 27,000 people in 27 countries, and broke down results between the general population and a smaller sample of university-educated people. It was conducted last year between Oct. 16 and Nov. 29.
[h/t: James Corbett]
PN 