 |
|
| Published 01/14/2010, by Allen Starbury |
|
|
|
|
One of the images that got people talking was a crucifix placed between two bullets, as well as Jay's long-used diamond hand sign. Radio personality, Angie Martinez, recently questioned the rap superstar about the rumors, which he laughed them off. "I don't know where it came from, I don't know where it started ... NO, not me," Jay said when asked if he added images deliberately in his music videos to mess with people. "No, never done that before. Why would I do that? That's retarded. "I can't even get into a golf club in Palm Springs. I'm from Marcy Projects. Just think about that ..." he added. While Jay says the secret society rumors are funny, he admits that he believes, somewhat, in "cliques of friends" running world affairs. "I think there's cliques of friends who control things," he explained. "I don't know if its a devil worshipping sec ... I think that's a little Tom Hanks. But, I believe there's cliques of people who control the world. Like Jeezy's my man, I got Atlanta. If I go down to Atlanta, I got that thing. When he come to Brooklyn, he got that thing. That's just natural process. I'm sure Obama has his people who he's good with. As far as how far people are taking it ... I guess I'm an entertainer. People are entertained. That's not my thing ... People make up their own things, and just run with it." And just to clear the air about allegations that he worships the devil, Jay explained that he believes in one God, but not organized religion, and everything else you're reading on gossip blogs are silly. "To be honest with you. I really think it's really silly," he said. "For the record, I, of course, believe in God. I believe in one God. If people must know my religious belief, I believe in one God. I don't believe in religion. I don't believe in Christians or Muslims. I think all that separates people. I think it's one God, I think it's all the same God. I don't believe in hell ... Am I a part of some cult? That sounds stupid to me. That's ignorant to even say. That'll be the last time I address that." In addition to addressing the Illuminati rumors, Jay was also asked about his falling out with former protege Beanie Sigel. While he says he was somewhat surprised to see him align himself with 50 Cent to throw disses at him, he explained that artists will do anything to market themselves these days. "I can honestly say that one was a shocker. When you're cut from a certain cloth, there are things that are off limits," Jay said. "If you cross that line, it puts you in a different box. It comes from the same thing. I think people are running out of ideas and it's all marketing at this point. In the beginning it was competition. It was just like, 'Lets see who's better. Let's go to the square and see who's better.' It's all just marketing now. That's their whole marketing plan -- Jiggaman." Shortly after Beans' campaign with 50, he later admitted that the G-Unit general used him to drum up interest for his Before I Self Destruct album. |
Friday, February 26, 2010
Jay-Z Denies Illuminati Rumors, Says Beanie Sigel Disses Were 'A Shocker'
Blogs and conspiracy theorists went crazy when Jay-Z 
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
GOVERNMENT TRICKS
This is perhaps the most important page on this web-site.
First Trick:
The first 'trick' of the Government is the re-definition of certain critical words in each Statute (Act). They (the Government) want you to presume the ordinary meaning of the word so as to trick you into reading and interpreting the Statute in their favour. Here is a summary of some of the Trick Words. Two key words that are re-defined in almost every Statute are the words "person" and "individual". There are at least two "person" in law:
A natural-person is a legal entity for the human-being.
An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human being.
Here are the exact definitions from Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, fourth edition (ISBN 0-7641-0616-3):
* natural person. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties.
* artificial person. A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom certain legal rights and duties may attached - e.g. a body corporate.
You will observe that the natural-person has the "capacity" (i.e. ability) for rights and duties, but not necessarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached (i.e. assigned) by laws.
Second Trick:
The second 'trick' of the Government is to use the Interpretation Act to define words that apply to all Statutes, unless re-defined within a particular Statute. Without this knowledge, you could presume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been defined by the Interpretation Act. Unless these words have been re-defined in another Statute, the underlying definitions for the two most important words still apply, either from the Interpretation Act, or the Canadian Law Dictionary. Basically, they are defined as follows:
from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
individual means a natural person,
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition:
individual means an artificial person.
from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
person means an individual (natural person) or incorporated group (artificial person),
from the Interpretation Act we find the re-definition:
person means a corporation (an artificial- person),
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition again:
person means an artificial person (amongst other things).
In the Canadian Human Rights Act you will see how individual and person are used and how they apply to natural and artificial persons.
Third Trick:
The third 'trick' of the Government is to use both the word "means" and the word "includes" in the definition (interpretation) section of the act. They do this in some critical definitions that they want you to misinterpret. It is important to understand the difference between "means" and "includes" when used in definitions. Previously we believed that "means" and "includes" were interchangeable, however after much study of many statutes, we now have a revised belief, as contained herein.
Here is the interpretation of "means" within statutes:
Basic Form: subject means objects;
Effect:
1. means implies a substitution of words.
2. means creates a new definition for the subject.
3. the subject does not need to be pre-defined.
4. the objects need to be pre-defined.
5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects.
Example from the Bank Act:
"person" means a natural person, an entity or a personal representative;
Interpretation of the above Example from the Bank Act:
Any pre-existing definition for "person" is substituted with the given objects, so when person is stated in the Bank Act, any or all of the objects are used in place of the word person.
Here is the interpretation of "includes" within statutes:
Basic Form: subject includes players;
Effect:
1. includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the subject.
2. includes does not create a new definition for the subject.
3. the subject needs to be pre-defined.
4. the players need to be pre-defined.
5. any pre-existing definition of subject is still effective.
6. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the subject.
7. a subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player.
8. includes implies attachment for role-playing - the players may play the subject's role in the Act but not vice versa.
Example from the Income Tax Act:
"employee" includes officer;
"corporation" includes an incorporated company;
"insurance policy" includes a life insurance policy;
"taxpayer" includes any person whether or not liable to pay tax;
"person", or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any corporation, and any entity exempt, because of subsection 149(1), from tax under Part I on all or part of the entity's taxable income and the heirs, executors, liquidators of a succession, administrators or other legal representatives of such a person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends;
Interpretation of the above Examples from the Income Tax Act:
An officer may play the role of an employee, but not vice versa. For example, any employee (pre-defined - may be a waitress) may not play the role of a Judicial Office (an officer). Within the Income Tax Act, both employee and officer are pre-defined by the use of the verb means.
An incorporated company may act as a corporation but not vice versa. For example, any corporation (pre-defined - may be unincorporated) may not act as an incorporated company.
A life insurance policy may play the role of an insurance policy but not vice versa. For example, any insurance policy (pre-defined - may be house insurance policy) may not play the role of a life insurance policy.
A person (including a natural person) may act in the capacity of a taxpayer but not vice versa. For example, any taxpayer (pre-defined - may be a corporation) may not act in the capacity of any person (especially a natural person).
A corporation (including an incorporated company) may act as a person, but not vice versa. For example, any person (e.g. an individual, or a natural person) may not act as a corporation.
Here is the interpretation of "means and includes" within statutes:
Basic Form: subject means objects, and includes players;
Effect:
1. means creates a new definition for the subject from the objects.
2. the subject does not need to be pre-defined.
3. the objects need to be pre-defined.
4. the players need to be pre-defined.
5. any pre-existing definition of the subject is replaced by the objects.
6. and includes implies a one-way attachment of the players to the new subject.
7. any player can play the role of, or act as a replacement for, the new subject.
8. a new subject may not play the role of, or act as a replacement for, any player.
9. means and includes implies a new subject definition with an attachment for role-playing - the players may play the new subject's role in the Act but not vice versa.
Example from the Interpretation Act:
"province" means a province of Canada, and includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut;
Interpretation of the above Example from the Interpretation Act:
Any pre-existing definition for "province" is substituted with "a province of Canada", and any of the players (Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut) may play the role of a province, but not vice versa. For example, any province may not play the role of Nunavut.
The use of the word includes is key to understanding your potential loss of natural-person. This is the major trick used by the Government in an attempt to take away your natural-person rights. Unless you know this, you will voluntarily forfeit your rights. Now that includes is no longer believed to be restrictive, you have to look eslewhere in the statutes to find out where your rights, as a natural person, are preserved. Your rights will be upheld somewhere, you just have to find out where.
Fourth Trick:
The fourth 'trick' is directly attributable to a defect in the English language in respect of the verb 'to be'. In the English language there are many different meanings of the verb 'to be' and the reader/listener may misinterpret the intended (or 'trick') meaning and thereby draw the wrong conclusion from its use.
The two different and distinct meanings of the verb 'to be' which concern us are: the one meaning which relates to the essence of the subject (such as the table is made of wood; he is strong) and the other meaning which relates to a temporary location or position (such as the table is over there; he is a swimmer).
To be succinct, the two relevant meanings of interest, in this 'trick', may be summarized by the following simple definition:
to be, means 'to have the essence of, to exist or live' (in the sense of essence), or 'to occupy a place or position' (in the sense of location or position).
By the way, the noun 'essence' requires the helper verb 'to have'. Be careful with 'exist' because an artificial person can 'exist' on a piece of paper somewhere in a file, but an artifical person cannot exist as 'living'.
Now to utilize the Fourth Trick associated with 'to be', a judge may make a ruling as follows:
"a natural person is a taxpayer", or "a natural person is a driver"
which immediately translates into the valid conclusion, with regard to occupying a position (because someone has to do the paperwork), that:
"a natural person occupies the position of a taxpayer"
However, a judge cannot make a ruling that:
'a natural person has the essence of a taxpayer'
'a natural person lives as a taxpayer'
because human rights are immediately violated and slavery woud be condoned by the judge.
The conclusion, in respect of the Fourth Trick, is to be careful when reading the word "is" and check for 'essence' or 'location'. What you think you read may not be in fact what you really read.
You can very quickly get clarification by asking: "When you say is, do you mean occupies a position, or do you mean has the essence of (lives as)?" With this question you will immediately expose any 'trick' which is being utilized.
Spanish is one of the few languages which has maintained a distinction by having two separate verbs; the verb 'ser', derived from the Latin 'esse' (English 'essence'), is used 'to have essence'; and the verb 'estar', derived from the Latin 'stare' (English 'state'), is used for a 'temporary location or position'.
Fifth Trick:
The fifth 'trick' is for the benefit ouf our American readers. It relates to the definition of the term National Security and the use of that term as an excuse to hide information from the public. In fact, it appears that the term National Security really means 'to protect the government structure and its operatives', and has nothing to do with protecting the American people themselves, as they mistakenly believe.
"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"
(Preamble - Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Sunday, January 31, 2010
U.S. SPEEDING UP MISSILE DEFENCES IN PERSIAN GULF
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.
The deployments come at a critical turning point in President Obama’s dealings with Iran. After months of unsuccessful diplomatic outreach, the administration is trying to win broad international consensus for sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which Western nations say control a covert nuclear arms program.
Mr. Obama spoke of the shift in his State of the Union address, warning of “consequences” if Iran continued to defy United Nations demands to stop manufacturing nuclear fuel. And Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly warned China on Friday that its opposition to sanctions was shortsighted.
The news that the United States is deploying antimissile defenses — including a rare public discussion of them by Gen. David H. Petraeus — appears to be part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on Iran.
The deployments are also partly intended to counter the impression that Iran is fast becoming the most powerful military force in the Middle East, to forestall any Iranian escalation of its confrontation with the West if new sanctions are imposed. In addition, the administration is trying to show Israel that there is no immediate need for military strikes against Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, according to administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
By highlighting the defensive nature of the buildup, the administration was hoping to avoid a sharp response from Tehran.
Military officials said that the countries that accepted the defense systems were Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. They said the Kuwaitis had agreed to take the defensive weapons to supplement older, less capable models it has had for years. Saudi Arabia and Israel have long had similar equipment of their own.
General Petraeus has declined to say who was taking the American equipment, probably because many countries in the gulf region are hesitant to be publicly identified as accepting American military aid and the troops that come with it. In fact, the names of countries where the antimissile systems are deployed are classified, but many of them are an open secret.
The general spoke about the deployments at a conference at the Institute for the Study of War here on Jan. 22, saying that “Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the gulf front.”
General Petraeus said that the acceleration of defensive systems — which began when President George W. Bush was in office — included “eight Patriot missile batteries, two in each of four countries.” Patriot missiles are capable of shooting down short-range offensive missiles.
He also described a first line of defense: He said the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles. Those systems would not be useful against Iran’s long-range missile, the Shahab 3, but intelligence agencies believe that it will be years before Iran can solve the problems of placing a nuclear warhead atop that missile.
Iran contends that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons, and that its program is for energy production. The White House declined to comment on the deployments.
But administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the moves have several aims. “Our first goal is to deter the Iranians,” said one senior administration official. “A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don’t feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well.”
As Iran’s nuclear program proceeds — more slowly, American intelligence officials say, than the United States had once thought — Israel has hinted at various times that it might take military action against the country’s military facilities unless it is convinced that Mr. Obama and Western allies are succeeding in stopping the program.
Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, took an unannounced trip to Israel this month, partly to take the temperature of the Israeli government and to review both economic and covert programs now under way against the Iranian program, according to officials familiar with the meeting.
American officials argue that the willingness of Arab states to take the American emplacements, which usually come with a small deployment of American soldiers to operate, maintain and protect the equipment, illustrates the region’s growing unease about Iran’s ambitions and abilities.
Gulf countries are also taking steps of their own to harden their defenses. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have bought more than $15 billion in American arms in the past two years, including missile defense systems. The United States is helping support a plan by Saudi Arabia to triple the size, to 30,000 people, of a Saudi force that protects the kingdom’s ports, oil facilities and water-desalinization plants, a senior military officer said. The Washington Post reported both steps on its Web site on Saturday.
One senior military officer said that General Petraeus had started talking openly about the Patriot deployments about a month ago, when it became increasingly clear that international efforts toward imposing sanctions against Iran faced hurdles, and the administration’s efforts to engage Iran were being rebuffed by the Tehran government. In October, the two countries reached an agreement in principle to move a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear fuel out of the country, but Iran backed away from the deal.
In discussing the Patriots and missile-shooting ships, General Petraeus’s main message has been to reassure allies in the gulf that the United States is committed to helping defend the region, said the military officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the topic. But the general’s remarks were also a pointed reminder to the Iranians of American resolve, the officer said.
Friday, January 29, 2010
BERNANKE BACK AS HEAD OF FED RESERVE FOR ANOTHER 4 YEARS
Senate, Weakly, Backs New Term for Bernanke
WASHINGTON — The Senate gave Ben S. Bernanke a second four-year term as the head of the Federal Reserve on Thursday after critics excoriated the central bank’s conduct in the years leading up to the financial crisis.
The 70-to-30 vote was the weakest endorsement ever extended to a chairman in the Fed’s 96-year history.
The confirmation was a victory for President Obama, who had called Mr. Bernanke an architect of the recovery, but also signaled the extent to which the Fed, once little known to the public, has become the object of outrage over high unemployment and bank bailouts.
In several hours of debate, senators said that the Fed had abetted, then ignored, the housing and credit bubbles and allowed banks to keep dangerously low capital reserves and to make reckless lending decisions that ruined consumers. Some even blamed Mr. Bernanke for the falling dollar and questioned his commitment to free enterprise.
In contrast, Mr. Bernanke’s supporters were muted. They reiterated that the Fed had made mistakes but said that Mr. Bernanke had helped save the economy from a far worse recession.
After a week in which top White House officials and Mr. Bernanke met with Democratic leaders in the Senate to secure support, the Senate first voted 77 to 23 to end debate, with more than the 60 votes needed to overcome the threat of a filibuster.
On a second vote, to confirm, the 30 dissents came from 18 Republicans, 11 Democrats and one independent, Bernard Sanders of Vermont.
On Thursday evening, Mr. Obama congratulated Mr. Bernanke in a statement. “As the nation continues to face the consequences of the worst recession in a generation, Ben Bernanke has provided wisdom and steady leadership in the midst of the financial and economic crisis,” he said.
While an arm-twisting campaign by the administration limited the opposition, the outcry against the Fed will most likely continue rippling through economic policy generally, and Mr. Bernanke’s leadership of the Fed in particular. The effects could be felt first in the debate over how to reform financial regulations. The Obama administration has proposed consolidating risk regulation under the Fed, while some in Congress want to strip away its oversight authority.
“The institutional prestige of the Fed, even apart from this vote, had taken a hit, and it started back around the disaster of September 2008,” said Stephen H. Axilrod, who worked at the Fed for 34 years and wrote a history of its monetary policies. “I don’t think it has recovered. This is a low point in the Fed’s recent history, that’s for sure.”
The vote also made clear Congress’s insistence on transparency from a historically secretive institution that has made extraordinary interventions in the market since 2008.
“The Fed is going to have to work hard, for a long period, to regain the public confidence of the sort it enjoyed during the halcyon days when everything was going so swimmingly,” said Barry Eichengreen, professor of economics and political science at the University of California, Berkeley.
Senators from opposite ends of the spectrum formed unlikely alliances. After Mr. Sanders, who calls himself a socialist, finished denouncing Mr. Bernanke, Jeff Sessions, a conservative Republican from Alabama, rose to do the same.
Another Alabaman, Richard C. Shelby, the top Republican on the banking committee, which approved the nomination last month by a 16-to-7 vote, laid out a bill of particulars, saying Mr. Bernanke’s handling of the financial crisis did not make up for his failings before that time.
“Considerable economic devastation occurred as a result of Chairman Bernanke’s loose monetary policy and weak regulatory oversight,” Mr. Shelby said. “If we don’t hold Chairman Bernanke accountable, what precedent are we setting for future regulators?”
To an extent, the rhetoric against Mr. Bernanke reflected a spilling-over of frustration at two of his collaborators: the former Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., and the current one, Timothy F. Geithner.
And looming over it all was the role of Mr. Bernanke’s predecessor, Alan Greenspan, whose once-sterling reputation has been diminished as his decisions to keep interest rates low after the 2001 recession have been brought into question.
Mr. Bernanke, 56, was a member of the Fed’s board for part of that period, from 2002 to 2005, when President George W. Bush named him to lead his Council of Economic Advisers. He rejoined the Fed, as chairman, in 2006, and Mr. Obama renominated him last year. Mr. Bernanke is a Republican economist and an authority on the Depression.
“I knew that he would continue the legacy of Alan Greenspan, and I was right,” said Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, who was the lone vote against Mr. Bernanke in 2005.
Mr. Bunning cited a half-dozen statements from 2007 to 2009 in which Mr. Bernanke expressed optimism about the housing market, bank capital ratios, the capitalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the unemployment rate. Saying that Mr. Bernanke had been repeatedly wrong, he declared, “We shouldn’t be paying the Fed chairman to learn on the job.”
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, echoed that, saying Mr. Bernanke had shown “a troubling pattern of false confidence.” Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, went further, saying the Fed had “helped set the fire that destroyed our economy.”
While less passionate, supporters of Mr. Bernanke said he had acted deftly and decisively, at least since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.
“He basically allowed the Fed to become the lender of the nation,” said Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire. “Nobody had ever done that. The way he did it was extraordinary in its creativity, and the results were that the country’s financial system did not collapse.”
Monday, January 11, 2010
ISRAELIS REJECT US LOAN 'THREAT'
Israeli officials have shrugged off a suggestion that the US could withhold loan guarantees to pressure Israel over the Middle East peace process.
The finance minister said Israel did not need the guarantees, while the prime minister accused the Palestinians of holding up peace negotiations.
US envoy George Mitchell said this week the US could withhold loan guarantees to extract concessions from Israel.
The guarantees allow Israel to raise money cheaply overseas.
'Doing fine'
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz reacted by saying the Israeli economy was doing well.
George Mitchell US Middle East envoy
"We don't need to use these guarantees," he was quoted by Israeli media as saying.
"We are doing just fine. But several months ago we agreed with the American treasury on guarantees for 2010 and 2011, and there were no conditions."
In response to Mr Mitchell's comments, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said: "Everyone knows that the Palestinian Authority is refusing to renew the peace talks, while Israel has taken important and significant steps to kickstart the process."
Palestinian officials say Israel must completely halt settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it occupied during the 1967 Israeli-Arab war, before negotiations can resume.
Since he came to office in 2009, President Barack Obama has focused closely on trying to get Israeli-Palestinian peace talks moving, but with little success.
Mr Mitchell, who is due to return to the Middle East this month in his latest attempt to restart negotiations, was asked on Wednesday in an interview with America's PBS how the US could bring pressure to bear on Israel.
"Under American law, the United States can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel," he said.
Precedents
He noted that support for the guarantees had been reduced in 2003, but added that no sanctions were being considered and that he preferred persuasion.
Former US President George W Bush's administration whittled down backing for the guarantees after Israel built part of its West Bank barrier.
In 1991, $10bn of loan guarantees were withheld under former President George H W Bush to pressure Israel over the peace process.
The Israeli comments on the loan guarantees came after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signalled a shift in the US approach by saying that agreeing the borders of a future Palestinian state would deal with Palestinian concerns about settlement building.
Both sides should resume peace talks as soon as possible and without preconditions, she said.
But chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat played down the chances of peace talks, citing settlements.
The Israeli government has refused Palestinian demands for a complete halt to settlement building.
It has limited building work for 10 months in the West Bank, but not in East Jerusalem.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/8450715.stm
Published: 2010/01/10 15:47:04 GMT
© BBC MMX
Saturday, January 9, 2010
INVERTED BODY SCANNER IMAGE SHOWS NAKED BODY IN FULL LIVING COLOUR
Claim that devices did not show details of genitals exposed as a lie
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, January 8, 2010
The full body scanners that President Obama last night authorized to be rolled out in airports across the country at a cost of over $1 billion dollars not only produce detailed pictures of your genitals, but once inverted some of those images also display your naked body in full living color.
And you don’t need to be a graphics wizard using a $600 software suite like Photoshop to pull off the trick – inverting a photo is a simple process that takes one click and is an option available even in the most basic image editing software.
We were sent examples of the process by readers and then tested it for ourselves to confirm that simply inverting some of the pictures produced by the body scanners creates a near-perfect replica of a naked body in full color. (SOURCE OF IMAGE).
It is important to stress that this is a low resolution image. Airport screeners will have access to huge high definition images that, once inverted, will allow them to see every minute detail of your body.
The inversion trick doesn’t work for all the sample images produced by body scanners, but with or without its application, every image will still show details of your sexual organs. Even without being inverted, the images already break child porn laws in the UK.
Reassurances that airport screeners won’t be abe to save the images will provide little comfort to parents who know that the crystal clear image of their naked son or daughter being ogled by a TSA thug can merely be snapped with a handheld camera for their enjoyment later.
Apologists for the scanners have routinely described the images they produce as “ghostly” or “skeletal” in an effort to downplay the intrusion of privacy they really represent.
As we reported yesterday, claims that the body scanners did not provide details of genitals were disproven after a London Guardian journalist who was present at a trial for the machines earlier this week reported that the devices produce an image which make “genitals eerily visible.”
German Security advisor Hans-Detlef Dau, a representative for a company that sells the scanners, admits that the machines, “show intimate piercings, catheters and the form of breasts and penises”.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Indeed, as was admitted when the scanners were first being rolled out over a year ago, they don’t function properly if areas of the body are blurred out.
A report from October 2008, when the naked body scanners were first being introduced at Melbourne Airport in Australia, detailed how the X-ray backscatter devices don’t work properly unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.
“It will show the private parts of people, but what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities,” said Office of Transport Security manager Cheryl Johnson.
“It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they’re going through the machine,” she admitted.
TV news reports have been deliberately misleading viewers by blurring out faces and genitals of people in images produced by the scanners. When it comes to the real thing, your sexual organs and those of your children will be on full display to officials sat alone in back rooms, and with a simple inversion trick, your daughter’s naked body in full living high definition color will be there to be enjoyed by screeners.
Passenger forced off Detroit-bound plane after shouting 'I want to kill all the Jews'
By Wil Longbottom
Last updated at 9:50 AM on 08th January 2010
Abusive: Mansor Mohammad Asad is alleged to have shouted 'I want to kill all the Jews' on board a flight at Miami airport before he was arrested
An airline passenger has been forced off a Detroit-bound plane and arrested after shouting 'I want to kill all the Jews'.
Miami police said in a statement today that 43-year-old Mansor Mohammad Asad, of Toledo, Ohio, faces several charges including disorderly conduct.
Police say the Northwest Airlines flight was taxiing at Miami International Airport yesterday, but was turned around after Asad became abusive.
Witnesses told authorities he was loud, disruptive and claimed to be Palestinian. They believed he was sometimes speaking Arabic.
The Transportation Security Administration said three of his companions were also taken off the plane and questioned.
The flight later took off after it was searched.
It comes as EU nations remained sharply divided over the need to install full-body scanners at European airports, with some countries playing down the need for increased security measures.
Italy today joined Britain, the U.S. and the Netherlands in announcing plans to install the scanners following the alleged attempt on Christmas Day to blow up an airliner flying from Amsterdam to Detroit.
Washington is seeking enhanced security measures on all transatlantic flights heading to the U.S.
European airports see thousands of passengers on more than 800 flights a day making the trip across the lucrative North Atlantic route.
But Belgium's secretary of state for transport, Etienne Schouppe, described the measures as 'excessive' and said security requirements at European airports were already 'strict enough'.
Spain has also expressed scepticism about the need for body scanners, and the German and French governments remain uncomitted.
Until now, the EU has allowed members states to decide on whether to use body scanners at airport checkpoints.
Divided: EU nations remain undecided on whether it is necessary to install full body scanners at European airports
'Excessive': Some European countries say tight airport security is already strict enough and there are concerns over privacy with full body scanners
In 2008, the EU suspended work regulating the use of body scanners after the European Parliament demanded a more in-depth study of their impact on health and privacy.
Amsterdam's Schipol Airport, where Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a Detroit-bound plane allegedly carrying explosives sewn into his underwear, has 15 of the scanners and the Dutch have vowed to buy 60 more.
They are also retrofitting the scanners with software that projects a stylised human figure on to the computer rather than the actual body image to address privacy concerns.
Charges: Umar Abdulmutallab, 23, is alleged to have tried to detonate explosives in his underwear on board a Christmas Day flight to Detroit
Gordon Brown is pressing for Britain to add more scanners than the few they have been testing at London's Heathrow Airport, Europe's busiest terminal, Manchester and other sites.
In Italy, Interior Minister Roberto Maroni said today that full body scanners will be installed at Rome's Leonardo da Vinci airport, Milan's Malpensa airport and possibly in Venice within the next three months.
'The right not to be blown up on an airplane is a more important right than privacy,' Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said.
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration, which uses 40 scanners throughout the United States, has announced plans to order dozens more.
A report into intelligence failings that led to the failed attack is due to be made public today by the White House. President Barack Obama will also reveal new steps intended to strengthen security.
Since the attempted attack on Christmas Day, the EU has been reevaluating its security regulations. Aviation experts now must assess whether body scanners can fit into EU legislation, officials said.
'We have to reach agreement together with the (European) parliament and member states,' Antonio Tajani, European Commission Vice President, said today.
'It's best to have a European solution than having individual member states deciding on their own.'
Any significant action on the issue would have to be taken by the European Commission, and approved by the EU parliament - a process that could take several months even if all member states agreed on the need.
Mr Schouppe said: 'We must have a common position for all European Union members states so that there is a real transparency between measures taken on the European side and the U.S. side.
'I have the feeling that (the Americans) are exaggerating. I don't know what kinds of controls they were using previously, but here, in Belgium and in the large majority of European airports, security controls were strict enough.'
Abdulmutallab was indicted yesterday on charges including attempted murder and trying to use a weapon of mass destruction to kill nearly 300 people.
The 23-year-old Nigerian was on a database of people with links to terrorists and his father had warned U.S. officials that he may have been radicalised, but that threat was never fully identified by U.S. intelligence officials.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Scientist caught in spy sting
Washington
October 21, 2009 - 12:00AM
US AUTHORITIES have arrested a leading American scientist who had worked for the White House and NASA and charged him with attempting to sell top-secret information to Israel for $US11,000 ($A11,950).
Stewart Nozette, 52, was apprehended after a sting operation involving an undercover FBI agent, the Department of Justice said, adding that there was no wrongdoing by Israel.
Nozette, who was arrested in a Washington suburb and taken into custody, faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.
He developed an experiment that fuelled the discovery of water on the south pole of the moon, and previously held special security clearance at the Department of Energy on atomic materials.
In addition to stints at the US space agency NASA and the Department of Energy, Nozette worked at the White House on the National Space Council under then-president George Bush snr in 1989 and 1990.
In early September, Nozette received a phone call from a person ''purporting to be an Israeli intelligence officer, but who was in fact an undercover employee of the FBI'', the Justice Department said.
''Nozette met with the UCE [undercover employee] that day and discussed his willingness to work for Israeli intelligence,'' informing the agent that ''he had, in the past, held top security clearances and had access to US satellite information''.
First, Nozette answered questions for a $US2000 cash payment, including one answer that ''contained information classified as secret'', the Justice Department said.
Later in September, the suspect picked up a payment of $US9000 in cash and more questions, answers to which he returned to a drop-spot in a manila envelope this month.
AFP
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/world/scientist-caught-in-spy-sting-20091020-h6wg.html