Top Al-Qaeda figure = MI5

by **slimmouse** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm onboard, now, with antiaristo. Took me 4 years to get here but I came in late and without the libretto<hr></blockquote> Indeed One tal. Took me a while too, reading that huge catalogue of letters <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"> For DE, and others still wondering exactly how this works, it might be useful to put another piece of the puzzle in place by examining the history of your missing 13th amendment, and looking more closely at the model upon which much of your own justice system is built. It shouldnt come as any real surprise meanwhile to discover which of your politicians have been given honorary knighthoods - Guliani, Clinton, Bushies immediately spring to mind.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:00 pm

Qutb, Read between the lines here Lords halt challenge to treason law Thursday June 26, 2003 The Guardian's legal challenge to the 1848 Treason Felony Act, which makes it a criminal offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to advocate abolition of the monarchy in print, even by peaceful means, was today dismissed by the House of Lords. Five law lords upheld an attempt by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, to halt the newspaper's attempt to declare section 3 of the 1848 act incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, on the grounds that the older legislation was an obstacle to freedom of speech. The lords ruled the Guardian's case unnecessary, as the paper had published articles that espoused republican views, and had not been prosecuted. The Guardian's challenge came after the launch of its campaign in December 2000 for the establishment of a republic by peaceful means in the UK. Before publishing a series of articles on the subject, the editor, Alan Rusbridger, asked the then attorney general, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to confirm that the paper and its staff would not face prosecution under the act. He wrote back: "It is not for any attorney general to disapply an act of parliament; that is a matter for parliament itself." The attorney general made no submission on his prosecution policy. But the Lords said if he had<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"> "It could only have been to accept that, at least since October 2 2000 when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, no one who advocates the abolition of the monarchy by peaceful and constitutional means has been at any risk of prosecution (other than a private prosecution) or of conviction." Lord Hutton said: "It is not the function of the courts to decide hypothetical questions which do not impact on the parties before them". The Human Rights Act 1998 enshrines freedom of expression, outweighing the provisions of Treason Felony Act, the Lords noted. The law must be interpreted in a way that allows for the peaceful advocacy of republicanism, the ruling said. Lord Steyn said: "The part of s3 of the 1848 Act which appears to criminalise the advocacy of republicanism is a relic of a bygone age, and does not fit into the fabric of our modern legal system. The idea that s3 could survive scrutiny under the Human Rights Act is unreal." But he warned that the courts should not be used as "an instrument ... [to] chivvy parliament into spring-cleaning the statute book." The attorney general had refused to say anything about his prosecution policy regarding the 1848 Act - a move that might have avoided this litigation. But Lord Scott of Foscote said: "No one who advocates the peaceful abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a republican form of government is at any risk of prosecution. "No attorney general or director of public prosecutions would or could authorise a prosecution for such advocacy without becoming a laughing stock. To do so would be an unlawful act under s6 (1) of the 1998 Act." Their Lordships all agreed that the 1848 Act is "a provision whose time has long passed". Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe said: "It is most undesirable that obsolete statutes should remain unrepealed. Quaint language and interesting historical associations are no justification for preserving obsolete statutes in a mummified state. But ... it is still the role of the legislature, rather than that of the courts, to decide whether to repeal or retain legislation." Mr Rusbridger said: "Although the attorney general has won this appeal, we are delighted that the House of Lords' ruling unanimously vindicates the Guardian's position: that this anachronistic law is incompatible with the Human Rights Act and should be repealed by parliament." "This judgment makes clear that advocating a republic can no longer be considered a treasonable act. The government should now scrap this law, which is still cited by thugs like Robert Mugabe in clamping down on the press. "If the attorney general had made a statement of the obvious two years ago, the litigation would not have been necessary."<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4699888,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/Print/...88,00.html</a> This law has not been used to prosecute since 1883. The attorney general made no submission to the court. The judges chose to put words in his mouth, then refused to rule on a “hypothetical matter” and refused appeal to Europe. The only person who complains is Robert Mugabe. Can you say “secret law, enforced in secret”? I’ll give the obvious example, which was the attorney general (Lord Goldsmith) on the legality of the Iraq war. The infamous meeting on 13 March 2003 with Baroness Morgan and Lord Falconer (both vested with royal prerogative powers). This law was used to reverse the AG Opinion. 1 tal, The role of the SAS includes intelligence gathering, behind enemy lines target attacks, counter revolutionary warfare, guarding of senior British dignitaries, conducting military missions without official British Government involvement, training special forces of other nationalities, and counter-terrorism operations And therein lie the roots of the shoot-to-kill policy in the hands of the SAS. The SAS do not report to the Ministry of Defence but direct to the Commander-in Chief in Buckingham Palace. Menezes was the trial run for shoot first, ask later. (Qutb, I lost the post and am reconstructing. I don’t have a reference for this – it’s one of those things you pick up and it sticks with you. But I’m not making it up) Rapt, Hi there. Didn’t know if you had made the connection. Qutb, Do you not know about the long history of warfare between Sir James Goldsmith and Private Eye? He was known by them as "goldenballs", and I think there was a period of about five years when not a minute went by without a libel writ in force. To put it bluntly, he was a complete selfish bastard who looked out only for himself. I'm sure Richars Ingrams could tell some stories! All, I think it is a mistake to talk about who outranks whom. It is an alliance in which each party brings something to the table. The bankers in the City have the money, but the Queen has the law. She can use the Treason Felony Act to invert any law on the statute book, because she uses it pre-emptively (as in the Peter Goldsmith example). She can use the Treason Felony Act to stay any action (as in the case of BCCI) that law requires. Think about it from the bankers' perspective. They all have a ton of dirty money they need to launder. Sitting there in the City is this law that magically transforms dirty money into clean money. And it's a surprise they all choose to headquarter in London???? An associated fact: six of the ten largest and most profitable law firms in the world are based not in New York, as you would expect, but in LONDON. THIS LAW PERVERTS EVERYTHING IT (SECRETLY) TOUCHES

by **dbeach** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:24 pm

Sun NEVER sets on the british empire quennie owns the USA ..believe what ya want . bush is her viceroy..eevryboddy is conditioned to call these commenstas fake or lies or ravings BUT Dave Icke and I do grant you he is a ego centered shwoman but nonetheless his books are shocking and eye opening..The reptilain brain is part of all himans BUT reptoids like her nibs,bliar and bush are activating that reptilain brain and its scary Qutb Like you say my good friend ..we are definilty NOT in Kansas. Its the major leagues for you lightworkers... they are fiends in evry sense of the word and you are the last promise of freedom for our mother earth. Gotta go just saw Elvis flying by. PEACE

by **Qutb** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:49 pm

"To put it bluntly, he was a complete selfish bastard who looked out only for himself." So why was he backing Friends of the Earth? Why is his money funding anti-globalization movements? Why are at least two of his close family members devoted to environmental and anti-globalization causes? That's why I'm interested in him. I want to know if there's an ulterior agenda here, if it's Cointelpro or intel related, or if they are simply backing causes they believe in. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **slimmouse** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So why was he backing Friends of the Earth? Why is his money funding anti-globalization movements? Why are at least two of his close family members devoted to environmental and anti-globalization causes? That's why I'm interested in him. I want to know if there's an ulterior agenda here, if it's Cointelpro or intel related, or if they are simply backing causes they believe in.<hr></blockquote> Heres the bottom line with people like Goldsmith, and the same elites at the top of just about every "Good" movement you care to mention. Where do they stand on 9/11 ? Get the answer to that, and you'll discover within 10 seconds whose side they are really on.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:27 pm

Heres the bottom line with people like Goldsmith, and the same elites at the top of just about every "Good" movement you care to mention. Where do they stand on 9/11 ? slim. Spot on. You may have heard about the "disappointing" outcome to the trials of "al Qaeda" members "linked to 9/11" here in Spain. The fact is that they were convicted on charges of associating with a terrorist organisation. But EVERy CHARGE related to 9/11 was thrown out. The rest of the world knows the truth about 9/11. You can see it in the court cases.

by **proldic** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:37 pm

Wondering about the term 'anti-globalization activists' as applied to the current post-Seattle Euro-American left-wing coalition. Talking about accurately generalizing about perceptions here, and accurate labels. Especially nowadays, I'm questioning whether they really qualify as anti-globalization. Sure, they're against a certain form of globalization. But they also tend to share a common vision of a benevolent global government, 'one world', as the ultimate solution to the problems facing the world. Most of the groups are pro-globalists, wearing a linguistic mask of anti-globalization. Even very few of the grass-roots hold what could be called genuinely 'anti-globalist' views. Sure, they'll defend nationalist sentiments ocassionally when it suits their framework, but they refuse to go that counter-intuitive-to-them (very difficult for everybody I admit) extra final step, towards processing the deepest of inevitability: that of having to accept and work upon impure nationalism, as an important part of holding a bulwark against Global Government NWO-style. They call for UN-'NGO'-led globalization every day now -- whether it's to deal w/ 'peacekeeping', the current environmental catastrophe, 'arms control', Israel-Palestine, you name it. And it's their tunnel-vision regarding Bush led by those crazy hawk-Neo-cons that are driving them into the hands of the 'good cop'. Push-pull. So don't call the neo-cons 'Trotskyites' without seeing the flip side of the 'New Left', the 'Trotskyite' mantle most of y'all have inherited, whether you know it or not yet. In fact, unless a person has a really long view, they're probably going to see globalization as an inevitablity. Therefore, I think it's a (purposefully) misleading semantic trap to refer to them as 'anti-globalization' activists.

by **robertdreed** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:11 pm

proldic, what's your "really long view" that doesn't see some forms of globalization as an eventual inevitability- if not an outright fact already? Any specifics you could provide would be welcome.

by **proldic** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:40 pm

I didn't really phrase that correctly to reflect what I'm considering. How do I say what I mean? That unless someone can see the long-term consquences of not supporting national sovereignty in the here-and-now, and instead end up supporting 'good cop' globalization as part of those post-inevitability negotiations, they're giving up those 'negotiations' before they even get to the table. I'm not trying to argue right now, do you understand what I was trying to get across overall in the post? They're not anti-globalists.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:59 pm

Qutb, Have you finished absorbing that story from the Guardian? The part I’d like to stress is how hard the attorney general fought against revealing his prosecution policy with respect to this law. The Guardian brought the case to court because Lord Williams would not reveal the policy. When the court case was heard Lord Goldsmith would say nothing. Indeed the court intervened to put words into his mouth (how else to have a trial?) Why so coy about a law that has not been used to prosecute anybody since 1883? Does it not strike you that the elucidation of ANY policy by the attorney general in and of itself is illegal, as it serves to “put any force or constraint upon her”? Can you not see that this law is the foundation on which the New World Order is being built? Added on edit Let me add this. Do you remember the trial of Paul Burrell? Do you remember that the trial was abandoned when Burrell wanted to call the Queen as a witness? Can you see that this is illegal, since it will "put any force or constraint upon her". That is what forced the abandonment. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 9/30/05 6:14 pm

by **Qutb** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:27 pm

While I don't know about the "New World Order", the silence of two AGs on the matter of their prosecution policy with respect to the TFA is indeed curious. It does look like you're on to something. A somewhat related question - the AG of the UK must be a member of the House of Lords, right? Who appoints the AG? Do you have to be a Lord to be eligible, or can you get knighted (or whatever) after you've been appointed? Regarding the TFA - no one has been prosecuted since 1883. The Law Lords insist that it's antiquated. Would the Queen actually be able to use that law to get Her will? What would happen to the person who refused her orders? Wouldn't it result in a huge debate which would end with Parliament repealing the law and perhaps even abolishing the monarchy? After all, the absence of a constitution theoretically makes Parliament sovereign, doesn't it? Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:46 pm

Qutb, 1) The AG does NOT have to be in the Lords. He can as easily (and more democratically) come from the Commons He is appointed by the Queen "on the advice of the prime minister". But the Prime Minister swears an oath to the Queen! 2) She uses that law to get her way ALL THE TIME. It is the basis of the d-notice and the public interest immunity certificate. 3) This has been going on for a very long time. You don't get to a position of power without a willingness to obey, which is what you re-affirm when vested with power. The Labour Party was taken over by Freemasons with the death of John Smith, and the party has been hollowed out. 4) There actually IS a constitution. It is called the Act of Settlement. But it has been suppressed by successive queens using the TFA. 5) Your comments on Parliament. When an elected member comes to take up his seat he MUST swear an oath to the Queen. That is why Sinn Fein, though elected by huge majorities, are not allowed to represent their constituents.

by **Qutb** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 9:05 pm

Thanks for your reply, Antiaristo. Much of this is new to me. I used to think the role of the Queen and the royals was purely ceremonial in this day and age, but I'm starting to realize I may have been wrong about that. I also never understood why so many European royals attend the Bilderberg meetings... Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:28 pm

prol-- Your point is a good one. Here's a sample dilemna...a country is in the midst of a civil war and real genocide is taking place. Perhaps intel games and various neo-colonialist policies have led to this, but it's really happening. What's the position to take? UN should NOT intervene given that the real powers in UN made the mess in the first place and will use intervention for their own ends? Surely this is true, and yet what are the alternatives? Call for the UN intervention but only with regional troops? Expose the real roots of the conflict...but have no way to step in? These are not rhetorical questions. It's really hard to figure out how to stay "pure" or at least as uncontaminated as possible without simply writing off extremely important battles as already lost.

by **thumperton** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:34 pm

"NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order" ---Henry Kissinger

Top Al-Qaeda figure = MI5

Re: Top Al-Qaeda figure = MI5

Re: Top Al-Qaeda figure = MI5

Re: Top Al-Qaeda figure = MI5

Re: James Goldsmith

Re: James Goldsmith

Re: James Goldsmith

NAFTA is so '80's, Kyoto's In

Globalism

"Globalization" - talking about stages

Treason Felony Act

Re: Treason Felony Act

Re: Treason Felony Act

Re: Treason Felony Act

Re: Treason Felony Act

Re: Treason Felony Act

Who is online