Tag Archives: civilians

U.S. approves UN use of force to protect civilians in conflict

635985884163480459-United-Nations-Civil.jpg

 

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at 6:34 p.m. EDT May 11, 2016.

UNITED NATIONS — The United States has announced its support for a set of principles that give a green light for U.N. peacekeeping troops and police to use force to protect civilians in armed conflicts.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told a high-level U.N. meeting Wednesday focusing on the responsibility to protect civilians that the United States was “proud” and “humbled” to join 28 other countries that have pledged to abide by the 18 pledges.

U.N. peacekeepers from these 29 countries are now required to act in cases where civilians are in danger.

CONTINUE READING…

 

UN use of force

FOLLOW LINK ABOVE TO VIEW VIDEO…

AND FINALLY, HERE IS A PDF LINK TO THE

CONCEPT NOTE

The Future of Civilian Protection in Peace Operations

Endorsing and Implementing the Kigali Principles

May 11th 2016, UNHQ NY

US Senate Report: Chemtrails Are Real And Killing Us

Published on Oct 25, 2015

Here Is A US Senate Report Proving That Your Government Is Spraying YOU And It Is Harming The Soil, Agriculture, Livestock, And Humans. Since This Is A US Senate Report It Is No Longer Conspiracy But Fact. The US Govt IS Conducting Geo Engineering For 68 Years.

Operation Jade Helm

The following is information concerning the Military Operation “JADE HELM 15”.

 

 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9WH4g6wxfg

http://d38zt8ehae1tnt.cloudfront.net/swf/player.swf?v=1166

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/200467/operation_jade_helm_15_huge_info__interview_with_militia_professor_doom/

 

A couple months ago the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) and FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) stated that the number one threat to the United States is none other than its own citizenry. This isn’t some small group of spun out nuts or even groups of people that the government feels are too religious such as Waco Texas and The Branch Davidians. As far as Islam, they were not even mentioned in the report.  Instead, huge swaths of American culture and people were listed as the most likely threat to our country. These were some of the groups listed; Christians, Home Schoolers, Members of the Tea Party, Constitutionalists, Preppers (people who can food), Militia and the terrorist group they are most concerned about is returning combat veterans of the United States of America.  http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/operation-jade-helm-military-trains-martial-law-american-south-west/

The news of JADE HELM 15 has caught the internet on fire. Now, coming out of the woodwork are the nay sayers, propagandists, and straight out liars. Yes, I am calling them exactly what they are, liars. Political Correctness stops here. The truth may hurt, but it is the truth. If you don’t like that, then either go to a different site or change your behavior.

There have been individuals from “trolls” to others that “claim” they are ex-Special Operations Command stating “this is not a real drill,” Or that “the documents have been modified.” These statements are not true, and are only being used in another “PSYOP” upon the American People. I will prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt this operation is, in fact, true, and call these people out for what they are, liars! Anyone who tells you this is not a planned drill is lying to you either blatantly or by complete ignorance, neither of which is acceptable.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/jade-helm-15-is-real-heres-the-proof/#PYf4GTytdyUeOEwz.99

From July 15th to September 15th, over a thousand armed American soldiers will maneuver through the Southwest United States as part of a vast operation with a single motto: “Master the Human Domain.” Internet conspiracy theorists wait their whole lives for a moment this rich.

“JADE HELM 15” is a real military exercise cooked up by the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC). It’s also, if you ask a certain cohort of internet dweller who thinks each day will be the one when Barack Obama personally carries away his guns, the first phase of martial law in America. When I was first forwarded this slideshow—apparently a preliminary briefing on Jade Helm marked marked “For Official Use Only”—the conspiracy theorists were the only ones talking about the exercise.

AllNewsPipeLine.com considers this the beginning of the end:

With September of 2015 consistently being warned of as a potential timeframe for the global collapse and World War 3, are these exercises more proof that something huge will happen near that date or just more ongoing drills as posse comitatus no longer applies upon American soil and America turns into a ‘no longer’ invisible dictatorship?

The site adds that FEMA-operated “death domes” are already being erected across Texas to prepare for civilian abductions during Jade Helm. InfoWars, the New York Times of right-wing paranoia, notes that “Although nations can benefit from joint drills, the exercises also serve to blur the lines of national sovereignty, slowly leading to the formation of a North American Union.”

FreedomOutpost.com is equally suspicious:

For years now, our veterans, Christians, patriots, gun owners, constitutionalists, pro-life advocates, small government supporters, small businesses, real journalists in the press, anti-corruption activists, anti-UN Agenda 21 advocates, anti-global warming supporters, anti-war patriots, anti-criminal immigration supporters, have all been targeted by this administration as enemies of the United States, even within government documents. Are we supposed to trust that they have pure intentions now?

Realizing that ignoring the paranoid will do nothing to quiet them, Army spokespeople are trying to ease everyone’s nerves with some military boilerplate. From ArmyTimes.com:

The Army says Jade Helm is a real exercise and will take place in the Southwest, as the slides indicate. But USASOC spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria said that’s the extent of the reports’ accuracy.

“It’s a training exercise. Just a regular training exercise,” Lastoria said of Jade Helm, which USASOC documentation references as a training exercise in at least one previous year as well.

It’s funny how even an extremely mundane denial sounds ominous coming from the Pentagon. Lastoria also spoke to Stars & Stripes:

“This exercise is routine training to maintain a high level of readiness for Army Special Operations Forces because they must be ready to support potential missions anywhere in the world on a moment’s notice.”

But you don’t need to believe in FEMA death domes or an Islamofascist White House to find Jade Helm a little bit unsettling—even if it just a routine exercise meant to simulate a future Middle Eastern war zone inside America. One particular slide, which divides up the Southwest into “hostile” or “insurgent” pockets, has been the epicenter or message board frothing:

Jade Helm: The Pretend Invasion of Texas That's Driving the Web Crazy

http://gawker.com/jade-helm-the-pretend-invasion-of-texas-thats-driving-1693863561

The following is a downloadable PDF of the US Army Special Operations Command:

Jade-Helm-Martial-Law-WW3-Prep-Document-1

Also see this:

For More Information See: 

White House Memorandum: https://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/25/presidential-memorandum-delegation-authority-pursuant-section-1236b2-nat

Jade Helm: http://www.scribd.com/doc/258605525/Jade-Helm-Martial-Law-WW3-Prep-Document-1

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/25/administration-declassifies-top-secret-doc-that-reveals-israels-nuclear-secrets/

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/03/25/kerry-heading-back-to-switzerland-for-nuke-talks-with-iran

http://rt.com/news/244117-saudi-arabia-bombs-yemen-houthis/

NDAA: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-113HPRT92738/pdf/CPRT-113HPRT92738.pdf

California governor vetoes bill requiring warrants for police drones

Reuters / Mike Segar

Despite widely clearing both the state’s Senate and Assembly, California Governor Jerry Brown shot down a bill on Sunday that would have imposed restrictions on when law enforcement agencies can use drones for surveillance.

Brown, a Democrat, said in a statement over the weekend that he was vetoing the drone accountability act that, had it been signed into law, would require police agencies to obtain a warrant before using an unmanned vehicle, or drone, for aerial surveillance.

“There are undoubtedly circumstances where a warrant is appropriate. The bill’s exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the Fourth Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution,” Brown said on Sunday.

One of the bill’s authors, Republican Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, said in a tweet on Sunday that “The era of govt. surveillance continues” after the governor’s veto was announced.

CONTINUE READING…

Chemerinsky: Hurt by a government official? SCOTUS is making it harder and harder to sue

Posted Jun 24, 2014 8:40 AM CDT
By Erwin Chemerinsky

In a series of cases this term, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it much more difficult for plaintiffs to recover for civil rights violations. These decisions continue a pattern in recent years of the Supreme Court significantly expanding the immunity accorded to government officials sued for violating the Constitution.

Suing individual government officers is often the only way that an injured person can recover for constitutional violations. Yet suits against government entities are often difficult, if not impossible, to win. Both the federal and state governments are protected by sovereign immunity, which greatly limits suits against them for damages. Local governments may be held liable for civil rights violations only if there is a municipal policy or custom that led to the injury.

State and local government officials may be sued for constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S. Code Sec. 1983, and federal officers may be sued pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 1971 decision, Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The Supreme Court, however, has said that all government officials sued for money damages may raise immunity as a defense. Some government officers have absolute immunity to suits for money damages: among them are judges performing judicial tasks, prosecutors performing prosecutorial tasks, legislators performing legislative tasks, police officers testifying as witness, and the president for acts taken in office.

All other government officers have qualified immunity. In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held in 1982 that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

In the 30 years since Harlow, courts have struggled with how to determine if there is a clearly established law that the “reasonable person would have known.” Must there be a case on point to say that there is such clearly established law?

In Hope v. Pelzer, the court in 2002 seemingly resolved this and held that there need not be a prior decision on point for the plaintiff to show the existence of clearly established law. Rather, officers may be held liable so long as they had fair warning that their conduct was impermissible.

The case involved a prisoner who was tied to a hitching post and left in the hot sun. The federal court of appeals found that this was cruel and unusual punishment, but that the officers were protected by qualified immunity because there was no case on point holding that such use of the hitching post violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed and said that a case on point is sufficient to show clearly established law, but it is not necessary.

In the decade since Hope v. Pelzer, including three cases this term, the Supreme Court repeatedly has found qualified immunity based on the absence of a case on point. The court has not overruled Hope v. Pelzer or even distinguished it; the court has simply ignored it. In the process, the court has made it much harder for plaintiffs to overcome qualified immunity and hold government officers liable for constitutional violations.

In Lane v. Franks, issued June 19, the court unanimously held that a government employee’s First Amendment rights were violated when he was fired for truthful testimony he gave pursuant to a subpoena. This result seems so obvious: of course it is wrong to fire a person for testifying honestly in a criminal trial, especially when the individual had no choice but to testify because of a subpoena.

Nonetheless, the court found that the defendant responsible for the firing was protected from liability by qualified immunity. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court, said that “[t]he relevant question for qualified immunity purposes is this: Could Franks reasonably have believed, at the time he fired Lane, that a government employer could fire an employee on account of testimony the employee gave, under oath and outside the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities?” The court reviewed precedents, especially from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which earlier ruled on the case, and found that none had clearly held that this violates the First Amendment. But Hope v. Pelzer said that a case on point is not necessary: Shouldn’t every government officer know that it is wrong to fire a person for truthfully testifying in court?

In Plumhoff v. Rickard, decided on May 27, the court again found that government officials were protected by qualified immunity. Police officers pulled over a white Honda Accord because the car had only one operating headlight. Donald Rickard was the driver of the Accord, and Kelly Allen was in the passenger seat. The officer asked Rickard if he had been drinking, and Rickard responded that he had not. Because Rickard failed to produce his driver’s license upon request and appeared nervous, the officer asked Rickard to step out of the car. Rather than comply with the officer’s request, Rickard sped away.

A high-speed chase then occurred that lasted five minutes and reached speeds greater than 100 mph. At one point, the officers appeared to have Rickard’s car pinned. But when the car pulled away, officers fired three shots into the car. As the car attempted to speed away, another 12 shots were fired by the police. Both the driver and the passenger were killed. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the police used excess force and violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, ruling in favor of the police. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court and held that there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court said that the driver’s conduct posed a “grave public safety risk” and that the police were justified in shooting at the car to stop it. The court said “it stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.” Moreover, the court said that even if there were a Fourth Amendment violation, the officers were protected by qualified immunity, in that the law had not clearly established that the conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.

This is a disturbing holding. The Supreme Court now has said that whenever there is a high-speed chase that the officers perceive could injure others–and that would seem to be true of virtually all high speed chases–the police can shoot at the vehicle and keep shooting until it stops. The car was stopped for having only one working headlight. If the driver refused to stop, why not just let the car go and then track the driver down later? Why should death be the punishment for making the extremely poor choice to begin a high-speed chase?

Finally, in Wood v. Moss, also decided on May 27, the court found that Secret Service agents were protected by qualified immunity when they engaged in viewpoint discrimination with regard to speakers. President George W. Bush was in Oregon and the Secret Service agents allowed supporters of President Bush to be closer and pushed the opponents further away. The law is clear that the government cannot discriminate among speakers based on their views unless strict scrutiny is met.

Nonetheless, the court, in a unanimous decision with the majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, found that the Secret Service agents were protected by qualified immunity because there were no cases on point concerning when Secret Service agents may violate the First Amendment. But why do there need to be specific cases since the law is clearly established that viewpoint discrimination violates the First Amendment?

All of these cases were unanimous. All found qualified immunity because of the absence of a case on point. Together they show a court that is very protective of government officials who are sued and that has made it very difficult for victims of constitutional violations to recover.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, is one of the nation’s top experts in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He is the author of seven books, the latest being The Conservative Assault on the Constitution (Simon & Schuster, 2010). His casebook, Constitutional Law, is one of the most widely read law textbooks in the country. Chemerinsky has also written nearly 200 law review articles in journals such as the Harvard Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Stanford Law Review and Yale Law Journal. He frequently argues appellate cases, including matters before the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeal, and regularly serves as a commentator on legal issues for national and local media. He holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a B.S. from Northwestern University.