Instant Nowhere Korporation Ltd are alternative kulture specialists. We provide creative space solutions for the local community and produce our own works.
The former University of Colorado graduate student accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 others in a shooting rampage at a cinema last week had been under the care of a psychiatrist who was part of a campus threat-assessment team.
The disclosure came in court documents filed yesterday by lawyers for James Holmes, 24, who is accused of opening fire last Friday on a packed showing of the latest Batman movie, “The Dark Knight Rises,” in the Denver suburb of Aurora.
The defence attorneys, in their request to an Arapahoe County district judge, are seeking a court order requiring prosecutors to turn over the contents of a package that Holmes sent to Dr. Lynne Fenton and was later seized by investigators.
“Mr. Holmes was a psychiatric patient of Dr. Fenton, and his communications with her are protected,” the filing said.
CNN: Fenton has held many jobs over the years. She worked as a physician in private practice in Denver from 1994 to 2005, and was chief of physical medicine with the U.S. Air Force in San Antonio, Texas, in the early 1990s, according to the resume. Since 2008, she’s won various grants and contracts to study schizophrenia.
Patrick Henningsen and Daisy Jones Infowars.com July 27, 2012
It’s official: an Englishman’s home is no longer his castle.
In a move that is hardly witnessed in wartime, let alone in peacetime, the UK’s military establishment has been given the green light to quarter residential homes without any permission or notice.
In the run-up to the 2012 Olympics in London, the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) has taken the unprecedented step of erecting surface-to-air missile batteries on top of multiple residential locations around East London.
A group of local council tenants from Leytonstone, East London, lost their high court battle to prevent the military missile encampment from being stationed on the roof of their tower block before and during the Olympics. The action to use their residential block as a military base was signed off by the British Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Home Secretary and Defence Secretary in ‘Defence of the Realm’.
Residents were then also refused permission and blocked from applying for an appeal via judicial review because the case falls under the guise of national security.
The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, was accused by the residents of the block of Breaching Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European convention on Human Rights. These protect an individual’s right to a private life and peaceful enjoyment of their home.
At no point beforehand were any of the residents given consultation by the MOD. Moreover, the ruling against the residents has set a number of new legal precedents in favour of the military, including a ‘zero notice’ policy whereby the MOD has no obligation to inform or consult residents beforehand, nor do they have any legal obligation to offer any compensation if they choose to commandeer a private property to set-up a forward operating base.
David Enright, a human rights lawyer and Partner of Howe and Co. who represented the residents, explains the danger of this new ruling, “Let’s be clear. Whenever the government (or military) takes a power over the civilian population – they never give it back.”
Critics are pointing out that the both MOD and the government agencies had 7 years to prepare and plan their operations, but intentionally left it until only three months before the games before revealing their operation – limiting the time to launch any legal challenge against them.
The residents of the Fred Wigg tower block were concerned, amongst many other issues, that surface-to-air missiles on their tower block could make them a terrorist target. The MOD rejected their claim by saying that missile deployment as part of the security measures for the Games was ‘legitimate and proportionate’. David Forsdick, who appeared in court on behalf of the MOD, said “The MOD, intelligence agencies and the Metropolitan Police do not consider there is any credible threat to the Fred Wigg tower from terrorism”.
It is somewhat ironic that the MOD, intelligence agencies and the Metropolitan Police do not consider there is any credible threat to the Fred Wigg Tower from terrorism. This was probably the case before they put missiles on the roof, but few would argue that this is still the case.
The Judge presiding over the case, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, maintained that the MOD had no duty to consult with residents, nor would they responsible for their relocation or any compensation as a result of the domestic military operation.
Prior to the case hearing, it was also revealed that Judge Haddon-Cave who was appointed to the case, had clear links with MOD. He had worked for, maintained ties with and even lectured for the MOD. He declared his interests at the beginning of the trial but for reasons unknown, his conflict of interest was not contested.
In what has been described as patronising at its worst, Judge Haddon-Cave claimed that although the residents of Fred Wigg tower had expressed ‘shock, anxiety and worry’ over the prospect of missiles being stations on top of their building, they had been under ‘something of a misapprehension’ about the nature of the equipment to be deployed and the risks deployment would bring.
Judge Haddon-Cave justified the MOD’s brash move by claiming there was no need for the MOD to negotiate with residents, as there were ‘no other alternative site for missiles’. Residents and citizen advocates have since rubbished the Judge’s spurious claims pointing out that there are literally thousands of huge open spaces- parks, vacant office buildings, industrial waste land, car parks, construction sites, school playing fields, and ships on the Thames, all of which would suffice if indeed, ‘air defence’ was indeed the primary issue at play here. In addition to all these other options, there are also hundreds of secure government buildings all over London which could be available for use in military operations. Instead, the decision by the MOD to opt instead for residents’ homes as domestic military staging areas places residents firmly into the category of ‘human shield’.
Journalist Brian Whelan, 28, previously posted a video on Telegraph website showing the British Army leaving crates of missiles, rockets and other military equipment outside the entrance of his home, Lexington Tower in Bow – completely unguarded. The MOD responded to the report by insisting that they were ‘dummy missiles’ and no risk was incurred by residents. Whelan was then promptly evicted from his council home after his report went public.
The result of Whelan’s early eviction from his home in Bow, has been that residents in the Fred Wigg Tower in Leytonstone have been afraid to speak to the media regarding their plight for fear that they too might be made homeless for speaking out against the state’s power structure – a disturbing new trend which can only be described as institutional intimidation. This new reality was confirmed by Infowars.com reporters, who were met with a wall of silence when trying to gain comment from multiple residents this past weekend.
In addition to the MOD, British state-run television apparatus BBC has also taken over a number of council properties in East London for its media operations around the Olympic games, clashing with residents and even denying residents entry into their own homes in at least one instance. Demotix.com reported this week:
Following a request from BBC Security, police denied a family access to their tower block home overlooking the Olympic site in Stratford for well over an hour, before having to acknowledge they had no power to do so.
Colin, a resident in Lund Point on the Carpenters Estate in Stratford had invited a group viewing the estate in a tour organised by CARP (Carpenters Estate Against Regeneration) to come to his flat to see the high standard of accommodation in the 1966 tower block and the views across the estate.
The BBC have rented the vacant areas of the top five floors of the 22 story block as a base for their Olympic and Paralympic coverage. The group included a number of UK and foreign journalists, photographers and TV crews with an interest in the area.
This is the thick end of the wedge, where eminent domain and martial law automatically usurp any rights or redress a citizen would normally be entitled to, but can’t because national security has been invoked by the state.
Clearly, one can certainly deduce from these events that Britain is officially in a permanent state of war.
For those who’ve been wondering how the domestic gun grabbers or the United Nations think they’re going to get away with gun control here at home, one need look no further than Article 15 of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty.
Many American troops are patriots who understand their oaths to uphold the Constitution, so they can’t be counted upon to confiscate guns. But foreign troops are another story.
Article 15 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, if ratified, provides for foreign “assistance to implement the Treaty,” and mandates that nations who can provide requested support must do so if requested by member nations. That includes legal, financial, technical as well as “material” assistance to enforce a treaty that declares “recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities” to be the “exclusively” recognized reasons for lawful private ownership, and which further recognizes the “inherent rights” of the State (i.e. nations under the treaty) to self-defense, but makes no mention of the rights of the individual.
Read the language of Article 15 for yourself:
Will foreign troops be going door-to-door to ensure compliance with new gun registry policies, imposed limits on ammunition and magazines, or in enforcing outright confiscation? Joint training exercises conducted between U.S. armed forces and various foreign armies have trained to do just that.
In 2010, the Infowars crew covered Operation Vigilant Guard, a joint training exercise in Chicago, in which U.S. troops drilled with Eastern bloc troops to partner in stopping terrorism, dealing with meth dealers and WMDs, as well as in gun confiscation. Countless other exercises have taken place on U.S. soil involving similar joint operations for a martial law occupation with the participation of foreign troops:
Foreign Troops Training To Confiscate Guns of Americans
American troops were ordered to conduct door-to-door gun confiscation sweeps after Hurricane Katrina, and while it has emerged that at least one unit stood down and refused the order, many more carried out the unconstitutional mission. That precedent has been followed by other exercises training American soldiers for gun seizures, along with other martial law measures.
Infowars Nightly News co-host Rob Dew underscored the history of training to take American guns in his recent viral report:
Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns
Meanwhile, the United Nations itself has forcibly disarmed numerous African nations using foreign troops, and the vacuum of power has led in several cases to genocidal atrocities as a direct result of taking away arms. The genocide in Rwanda was enabled by forcible disarmament. As Republic Magazine writes, the mass murder was “carried out by government-aligned Hutu tribal militias against a targeted ethnic population – the Tutsis – who had been disarmed with the help of UN “peacekeeping” forces under the supervision of future UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.” The Darfur crisis in Sudan also has its roots in UN-led population disarmament, as does the Burma (Myanmar) massacre, again the result of disarmament. Armed troops representing international interests including the World Bank burned down homes and killed children in effort to forcibly evict some 40,000 Ugandans on the basis of conserving lands to combat climate change.
Indeed, genocide and disarmed populations go hand-in-hand through history– just look at the history of Democide (death by government). R.J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii is the leading academic on the subject, and has estimated that more than 262 million unnatural deaths in the 20th Century alone were caused by government, and most were at the hands of despots preying upon their helpless peoples. From Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, to Turkey, Armenia and beyond, gun bans have created a shift in the balance of power towards the state, creating an atmosphere of victim disarmament.
Blue helmets or foreign uniforms have no place on foreign soil, yet the UN Arms Trade Treaty text reveals a mechanism to impose just that type of control– even in America.
French, British and Turkish military sources have suggested that elite British soldiers have entered Northern Syria and are operating ten kilometers inside the country in what is thought to be the first offensive western intervention against the Assad regime.
“Our military sources estimate that the British military drive into Syria, if confirmed, is designed to establish the first safe zone along the Syrian-Turkish border, to be followed by more Western military incursions to establish additional zones of safe asylum in other parts of Syria.” reports the Israeli intelligence website Debkafile.
The site notes that sources have indicated that any such further coordinated action is to be determined based upon “Syrian, Russian and Iranian (+ Hizballah) responses to the initial stage of the operation.”
The same sources also indicate that Syrian government forces and the rebel opposition are fighting in two Damascus suburbs, Qudsaya and Hammah.
The sources have indicated that the attacks are targeted at the presidential palace of Bashar al-Assad and the compound of the presidential guard.
Reports of clashes and overnight shelling in the capital have been corroborated by the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Tuesday morning that Western military intervention in Syria would not be tolerated by Moscow, and that Russia would act decisively to prevent it.
Debkafile also notes that the perceived double offensive against Assad began just hours before the NATO “consultation” in Brussels on the shooting down of a Turkish warplane by Syria last Friday.
“The two-pronged operation – the reported British incursion and major clash at the front door of Assad’s presidential palace – would appear to be designed to widen the cracks in his regime and speed its final breakup.” the report states.
The website’s sources have proven accurate in the past.
Back in February reports emerged suggesting that British and Qatari troops were operating inside Syria, directing rebel ammunition deliveries and overseeing the battle for the strategic city of Homs.
Debkafile, reported that British troops are already in Syria leading armed groups, and that the MI6 has established four centers of operation in the city.
The British government denied that it was carrying out any clandestine operations within the country. “These reports are untrue. There are absolutely no British troops on Syrian territory at the moment,” an embassy official said at the time.
Earlier this month more reports emerged indicating that Britain was planning to set up refugee camps inside Syria under a humanitarian pretext, when in reality the operation was a cover for assisting armed rebels fighting against the government.
It also emerged this month that Emissaries from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) have held meetings with high level U.S. government officials in Washington. The CIA, MI6 and Mossad supported rebels consulted with Obama’s National Security Council and presented a shopping list of heavy weapons, including surface-to-air missiles.
Debkafile also reported that Barack Obama has told the US Navy and Air Force to prepare air strikes on Syria as part of a “no fly zone” that will be enforced with the aid of British and French military power.
“Their mission will be to knock out Assad’s central regime and military command centers so as to shake regime stability and restrict Syrian army and air force activity for subduing rebel action and wreaking violence on civilian populations,” the report reads.
If launched, US air strikes on Syria will be undertaken without Congressional approval, just as Obama green lighted the attack on Libya with a churlish disregard for the constitutional process. US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has repeatedly stated that Congressional authorization for a military assault on Syria will not be sought by the Obama administration, which considers NATO and the UN to be the supreme authority.
For those who’ve been wondering how the domestic gun grabbers or the United Nations think they’re going to get away with gun control here at home, one need look no further than Article 15 of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty.