by Janet Phelan

While the country was riveted on the fall-out from the election results—one of the most divisive Presidential elections in recent history—as well as engaged with concerns about more Covid lockdowns, the DOJ  quietly went to a court in a significant civil rights case and declared that the US can kill anyone, anywhere and claim “state secrets,” thus avoiding any judicial review or due process.

Bilal Abdul Kareem, who is a US born journalist and has worked for the BBC and CNN, filed a case in federal court in 2017 alleging that he had been put on a US government kill list. The pleadings cite at least four attempts on Kareem’s life in the Middle East, where he has been covering the conflict for a number of years. These attempts involve targeted drone strikes as well as one attack on his personal vehicle apparently by a Hell Fire missile. The citation of the Hell Fire is significant as this is a US weapon.

In September of 2019, Judge Rosemary Collyer in US District Court dismissed Kareem’s case after the DOJ cited “state secrets.” Oral arguments appealing Collyer’s decision took place in DC Court of Appeals on November 16, which you can listen to here.

Kareem’s attorney, Tara Plochocki, was first questioned as to the plausibility of the claim that Kareem himself was the target of the strikes, given that Kareem was working in a war zone. The questioning then focused on the attorney for the Department of Justice, Brad Hinshelwood. The judges asked him what potential remedy exists for a US citizen who is put on the kill list. The question also arose if this “state secrets” privilege would also pertain for a target on US soil.

Asserting the absolute privilege associated with “state secrets,” Mr. Hinshelwood suggests that Congress might want to pass some legislation. At  that  time, circa 37 minutes in, one can hear one of the judges say, somewhat incredulously, “He should try to get a bill passed?”

The judge persists, saying  “My car keeps blowing up and I keep getting shot at…and the government’s position is, tough luck, you have no rights, you have no capacity to get yourself off the list…The government may execute me and there is nothing I can do about it?”

DOJ attorney Hinshelwood responds: “So an individual on the kill list…in that circumstance…given the courts competence to adjudicate claims…there is no recourse.”

The implications of this stance are staggering. As those working on legal reform issues know, American citizens are already being murdered through decisions handed down in probate guardianship proceedings. The head count of those murdered by police, annually, has also spiked considerably and justice for the victims is rarely delivered.  Immunity given to nursing homes over the high Covid death rate in these facilities also points to a perception that certain populations have less rights than others, including apparently the right to exist.

“State secrets” constitutes an evidentiary rule rather than an Act of Congress. It was used first in the 1953 landmark legal case, USA vs. Reynolds, that saw the formal recognition of the state secrets privilege, a judicially recognized extension of presidential power.

Since that time, there have been several attempts to introduce an official “state secrets act.” The most recent, HR 3332, was introduced by Representative Jerrold Nadler and provided mechanisms by which the courts could determine if the claim of state secrets would affect a particular case. The Nadler legislation “Allows the government to: (1) assert the privilege in connection with any claim in a civil action to which it is a party, or (2) intervene in a civil action to which it is not a party in order to do so.” The legislation also gives the court some latitude in making this determination, stating that the court shall  “(1) undertake a preliminary review of the information in question, and (2) provide the government an opportunity to seek protective measures under this Act.”

This bill was referred to  the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in January of 2014 and no action has been taken since.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision on the Kareem case is pending.

So while we are celebrating Thanksgiving this year, we might want to be mindful that, as far as our government is concerned, we have no more rights than the turkey on the table.

(This article first appeared here: https://www.activistpost.com/2020/11/doj-asserts-it-can-kill-anyone-anywhere-and-claim-state-secrets.html)

by Janet Phelan

There are  mounting concerns that the coronavirus has launched a hyperbolic response. The infection mortality rate of the virus is quite low—currently running at .26%, according to one official study: What Is The Death Rate For Covid-19 Coronavirus? What This Study Found.   The death toll is also under examination, following the release of information in late August from the CDC that only about 9000 deaths were from coronavirus alone, with co-morbidities contributing to the  balance of the deaths:  Fauci: COVID-19 is the Killer; CDC’s Low 6% Blame on Coronavirus is ‘Confusing.”  Questions about the integrity of the testing for the virus also persist: Thousands may be in pointless lockdown as major flaw found in coronavirus test.

To lock down an entire world, to destroy local economies and devastate the finances of millions, if not billions, of wage earners might be called for under a plague-like scenario, with a death rate much higher than what we are seeing reported. Unfortunately, disputes about the virtues and efficacy of mask-wearing appear to predominate in the discussion. Masks are a symptom but not the disease. They are a symptom of the effort to control and to mandate obedience. For the actual threat, we need to look further.

If the pandemic were to eventuate in a real, honest to God plague-like event, it may very well “ride in” on the purported virus, rather than have any real ties to the virus itself.

There are three potential vectors which hold out this possibility. The first one, which deals with the inherent dangers in vaccines, has been discussed thoroughly in the independent media. Vaccine horror stories indeed abound, from concerns that the adjutants used in vaccines produce neurological damage to reports of vaccine-related deaths in India: Controversial vaccine studies: Why is Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation under fire from critics in India?  Given this history, the fact that the Gates Foundation is so heartily pushing the development of a coronavirus vaccine has many people understandably spooked.

While articles discussing vaccinations as a potential vector for harm now flood the independent media, there are two other portals which, given the pandemic scare at play, also need to be part of the discussion.

One vector is the effect of a quarantine, given the weaponization of the water system: US Water Systems May Be Used for a WMD Attack – Activist Post.  By enforcing a stay at home quarantine on healthy people, one could argue that an attack through the water system could be facilitated — and who would ever know?

The third vector for an attack would be what are called “impostor” or “doppelganger” pharmaceuticals. This has gotten very little press coverage, due very likely to the difficulty in documenting what chemical or chemicals these impostors actually contain. It is known that the intelligence agencies in both the old USSR and in the West maintained a stash of pills that would induce death on consumption by an unwitting target. However, these doubles are now far more widely manufactured and distributed and may account for deaths not only of political targets but also the “dispensables” in nursing homes and other care facilities. Given the nature of a high-profile conservatee’s death along with the revelation that the toxicology report was removed from the coroner’s file, it is a matter of concern that Charles Castle may have expired from an “impostor”: Questions Arise as to Coroner’s Cover up in Sudden Death – Activist Post.

This reporter has a number of bottles of the “impostors” in her possession and has made strenuous outreaches to laboratories asking for an analysis. To date, no lab has agreed to tackle this.

To center the debate on “to mask” or “not to mask” is, in light of these concerns, a significant diversion. Rather than focusing on the instruments of ensuring obedience and control, the population should consider how best to survive — not only the virus itself, but the three riders coming in on these dark horses. There will likely be no official acknowledgment of any of these riders as potential weapons, as the developing narrative is repetitively geared towards “protection.”

To admit that the countermeasures — vaccines, lockdowns and your everyday pharmaceuticals — for this viral pandemic are the actual seat of the danger would be to shatter the narrative at the very juncture when it is entering high gear.

(This article originally appeared here: https://www.activistpost.com/2020/11/a-pandemic-future-may-contain-a-triangulation-of-attacks.html)