Posts
since Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:04:17.
Since 9/11 the US government has been avidly recreating Yale Professor Stanley Milgram's studies of authoritarianism. The renowned social psychologist demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of people in a properly contrived situation would commit atrocities, i.e, administer harmful or fatal electroshocks, under the command of an authority figure perceived as legitimate. Even though Milgram's research proved not to be useful in entrapment defense, it has strong relevance to the plethora of show trials that the FBI and the DOJ have produced to pleasure of Zionists and to the disgust of those concerned with civil liberties and with the rule of law.
In the past prosecutors neutralized Milgram's analysis by claiming there was a world of difference between Milgram's legitimate authority scenario and a sting in which a government agent poses as a would-be criminal in order to persuade criminally-minded individuals to take part in a conspiracy to break the law.
The prosecutors' argument is less effective when the government agent poses as respectable businessman or religious authority,
In the past prosecutors neutralized Milgram's analysis by claiming there was a world of difference between Milgram's legitimate authority scenario and a sting in which a government agent poses as a would-be criminal in order to persuade criminally-minded individuals to take part in a conspiracy to break the law.
The prosecutors' argument is less effective when the government agent poses as respectable businessman or religious authority,
- who is seeking aid from fellow Muslims for an operation to transfer weapons to Lashkar-i-Tayyiba to battle the Indian military, which oppresses Kashmiri Muslims or
- who wants to mount an attack on a synagogue whose members are providing material support to the Zionist state, which routinely commits terrorist acts like the Gaza Rampage or the Flotilla Massacre.
While the application of Milgram's work is helpful to understanding the dynamics of Islamophobic sting operations, the Islamophobic courtroom drama much more faithfully reproduces the Milgram experiments, for the US government in the person of prosecutors, FBI agents, and other government officials posing as legitimate authorities persuade the judge and the jury to commit legal atrocities that destroy good and decent men and women as well as their families.
Such manipulation is particularly easy for three reasons:
Such manipulation is particularly easy for three reasons:
- American judges tend to defer to the government in matters of foreign policy,
- Americans generally believe that the US government pursues a rational foreign policy in the best interests of the USA, and
- far too many Americans believe that US is blameless in its dealings with Arab and Muslim states or people.
As a result, judges tend to accept US attorney assertions related to national security while Arab and Muslim defendants face a jury already with two strikes against them in the minds of the jurors.
Thus in Islamophobic show trials prosecutors and the US government are well-positioned to commit great wrongs and to undermine the constitutional legal system of the USA as happened in the earliest cases like that of Hemant Lakhani and as has consistently taken place in more recent trials like the Aref-Hossain case.
To win in such a situation, the defendants' legal team must view itself not merely as a group of collaborating lawyers or as advocates but as the last line of defense for the American way of life. The attorneys for the accused must act as if they belong to highly coordinated special forces unit. Every step of the trial must be carefully choreographed from the jury selection through closing arguments.
During the jury selection, the defense has to look for potential jurors that are less likely to obey an authority perceived as legitimate. In the Aref case, Judge McAvoy told the jury that the government had good reason to be suspicious of Aref. He implicitly recommended that the jurors should convict. Such a statement in the mouth of the judge hardly differs from the request of Milgram's authority figure to raise the electroshock stimulation to harmful or fatal levels.
The defense lawyer must use peremptory challenges to favor jury candidates, who come out extremely low on the Milgram authoritarianism profile and who would react to such judicial claims by wondering whether there is a good reason to be suspicious of the government.
Because of post-9/11 atmosphere where terms like Islamonazi or Islamofascist pervade political discourse, the defense lawyer must ask the prospective juror whether he believe Muslims could be Nazis and whether he believe it was inflammatory to accuse a Jew of Nazism. If philo-Semitism is the front side of a coin, Islamophobia is the reverse.
The defense must make every effort to exclude any Jews from jury except for those that are extremely anti-Zionist.
As soon as possible after the trial starts, the defense team must attack the inclination to foreign policy deference and claims of national security. In 2006 and 2007 the argument may have been more difficult, but in 2010 an increasing number of Americans are becoming aware that US ME foreign policy has no connection to US national interest but is created in order to maximize political contributions from hyperwealthy Jewish Zionists like Haim Saban or Sheldon Adelson (or in the case of Obama from Penny Pritzker and Lester Crown).
While it is understandable that US judges would try to avoid making decisions to harm US national interest, there is no reason for them to help Democratic and Republican leaders to get their hands on Jewish Zionist money.
The argument may be more relevant to the closing of the trial, but If the defense lawyer manages to get this far, he should try to undermine any belief in the righteousness of the US government by emphasizing that if the president has to choose between Saban's or Adelson's political contributions and thousands of Muslim or of American lives, the president, whether Obama or Bush, will not hesitate to sacrifice American citizens of any religion (except perhaps Jews) along with non-citizen Muslims.
If the defense can manage it, it might try to look at the connections between the trial participants and high ranking Jewish Zionist government officials. In the Aref-Hossain case these links may have been particularly important because Shamshad Ahmad, Ph.D., reported in his personal account of the proceedings (Rounded Up, Artificial Terrorists and Muslim Entrapment after 9/11) that the highest levels in the White House were following the trial.
Here is a link chart of an important portion of the web of corrupt Zionist influence:
Thus in Islamophobic show trials prosecutors and the US government are well-positioned to commit great wrongs and to undermine the constitutional legal system of the USA as happened in the earliest cases like that of Hemant Lakhani and as has consistently taken place in more recent trials like the Aref-Hossain case.
To win in such a situation, the defendants' legal team must view itself not merely as a group of collaborating lawyers or as advocates but as the last line of defense for the American way of life. The attorneys for the accused must act as if they belong to highly coordinated special forces unit. Every step of the trial must be carefully choreographed from the jury selection through closing arguments.
During the jury selection, the defense has to look for potential jurors that are less likely to obey an authority perceived as legitimate. In the Aref case, Judge McAvoy told the jury that the government had good reason to be suspicious of Aref. He implicitly recommended that the jurors should convict. Such a statement in the mouth of the judge hardly differs from the request of Milgram's authority figure to raise the electroshock stimulation to harmful or fatal levels.
The defense lawyer must use peremptory challenges to favor jury candidates, who come out extremely low on the Milgram authoritarianism profile and who would react to such judicial claims by wondering whether there is a good reason to be suspicious of the government.
Because of post-9/11 atmosphere where terms like Islamonazi or Islamofascist pervade political discourse, the defense lawyer must ask the prospective juror whether he believe Muslims could be Nazis and whether he believe it was inflammatory to accuse a Jew of Nazism. If philo-Semitism is the front side of a coin, Islamophobia is the reverse.
The defense must make every effort to exclude any Jews from jury except for those that are extremely anti-Zionist.
As soon as possible after the trial starts, the defense team must attack the inclination to foreign policy deference and claims of national security. In 2006 and 2007 the argument may have been more difficult, but in 2010 an increasing number of Americans are becoming aware that US ME foreign policy has no connection to US national interest but is created in order to maximize political contributions from hyperwealthy Jewish Zionists like Haim Saban or Sheldon Adelson (or in the case of Obama from Penny Pritzker and Lester Crown).
While it is understandable that US judges would try to avoid making decisions to harm US national interest, there is no reason for them to help Democratic and Republican leaders to get their hands on Jewish Zionist money.
The argument may be more relevant to the closing of the trial, but If the defense lawyer manages to get this far, he should try to undermine any belief in the righteousness of the US government by emphasizing that if the president has to choose between Saban's or Adelson's political contributions and thousands of Muslim or of American lives, the president, whether Obama or Bush, will not hesitate to sacrifice American citizens of any religion (except perhaps Jews) along with non-citizen Muslims.
If the defense can manage it, it might try to look at the connections between the trial participants and high ranking Jewish Zionist government officials. In the Aref-Hossain case these links may have been particularly important because Shamshad Ahmad, Ph.D., reported in his personal account of the proceedings (Rounded Up, Artificial Terrorists and Muslim Entrapment after 9/11) that the highest levels in the White House were following the trial.
Here is a link chart of an important portion of the web of corrupt Zionist influence:
Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, and Charles Jacobs are three prominent American Jewish Zionist Islamophobes. Jacobs and Pipes often work together while Jacobs hired Emerson and his Investigative Project organization to fabricate evidence against the Islamic Society of Boston when the David Project tried to halt construction of the Roxbury Mosque.
In an act of pure cynicism or perhaps as a sick joke, George W. Bush appointed Daniel Pipes as a director of the US National Institute of Peace. Jewish Zionists Stuart Levey, Jonathan Schanzer, and Matthew Levitt all worked at the upper levels of the Treasury Department in theory to stop terrorist cash flows but in reality to staunch the increasing political clout of wealthy Muslims and Muslim countries. Stuart Levey has continued in the same role under the Obama administration.
Jewish Zionist Evan Kohlmann, who seems to have become acquainted with Matthew Levitt while they worked on FBI terrorism projects, served as a prosecution expert witness during the Aref-Hossain trial and many other Islamophobic political prosecutions.
As Dr. Ahmad points out, Kohlmann spoke none of the languages in Bangla-Desh, Pakistan, or Iraq and was completely clueless with regard to the politics. He seems to have regurgitated a theory that Schanzer and Levitt had put together to justify the attack on Iraq. These two Jewish racists fantasized an impossible collaboration between the Islamic Movement for Kurdistan, Ansar al-Islam, al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussain. Within the framework of this ridiculous idea, Jewish Neocons could argue that Aref-Hossain sting operation demonstrated the existence of a combined Saddam Hussein al-Qaeda threat within the borders of the continental USA.
When Judge McAvoy prevented Aref's and Hossain's attorneys from challenging Kohlmann's credentials, the defense should have aggressively concentrated on Kohlmann's agenda.
Now that the Department of Homeland Security, unlike the FBI, has ceased to collaborate with the ADL because of this Jewish organization's obvious ethnopolitical agenda, there is no reason for the defense to be diffident about discussing the ethnopolitical agenda of Jewish Zionist officials or expert witnesses like Kohlmann or Levitt (in the Holy Land Foundation trial).
After introducing the Jewish Zionist subtext of the Islamophobic show trials, the defense can address issues relating to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and the 1886 Yick Wo precedent, in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was just as unconstitutional to enforce federal law in a discriminatory way as it was for a law to be discriminatory.
After the Gaza Rampage and the Flotilla Massacre, no one rational can doubt that Israel is a terrorist state and that Jewish Zionists provide material support for terrorism. Yet the Federal government has yet to arrest one Jewish Zionist on terrorism charges.
During summation, after having completely delegitimized the authority of the FBI and the Department of Justice because of deep penetration Jewish Zionist subversion, the defense should ask the jurors whether they will act as the stooges of a cabal that sacrifices American blood and treasure "because it is good for the Jews."
In conclusion the defense should demand that the jury find the accused innocent for the good of the USA.
If this strategy proves effective, it could enter mainstream politics as a demand that US laws be enforced uniformly for Jews and non-Jews. If it gets traction internationally, foreign governments like Pakistan pressured by the US government to suppress Islamist groups might be motivated to demand reciprocal crack-downs on American Jewish Zionist groups. At that point Zionists inside and outside of government will have lost any shred of legitimate authority in Milgram's sense. As a result grass roots national and international political activists might have a shot at convincing (non-Jewish non-Zionist) US foreign policy makers that the US will only be able to keep any moral standing on human rights issues if the president pardons all the Muslim political prisoners incarcerated after Islamophobic political show trials and then apologizes to the Islamic world for participating in Zionist crimes for the last 63 years.
Arresting, trying, convicting and incarcerating leading Zionists (like Haim Saban, Sheldon Adelson, Penny Pritzker, Lester Crown, the Bronfmans, Martin Peretz, Stuart Levey, Matthew Levitt, Charles Jacobs, et al.) for materially aiding Zionist terrorism, Conspiracy Against Rights, and Seditious Conspiracy would help restore American credibility.
In an act of pure cynicism or perhaps as a sick joke, George W. Bush appointed Daniel Pipes as a director of the US National Institute of Peace. Jewish Zionists Stuart Levey, Jonathan Schanzer, and Matthew Levitt all worked at the upper levels of the Treasury Department in theory to stop terrorist cash flows but in reality to staunch the increasing political clout of wealthy Muslims and Muslim countries. Stuart Levey has continued in the same role under the Obama administration.
Jewish Zionist Evan Kohlmann, who seems to have become acquainted with Matthew Levitt while they worked on FBI terrorism projects, served as a prosecution expert witness during the Aref-Hossain trial and many other Islamophobic political prosecutions.
As Dr. Ahmad points out, Kohlmann spoke none of the languages in Bangla-Desh, Pakistan, or Iraq and was completely clueless with regard to the politics. He seems to have regurgitated a theory that Schanzer and Levitt had put together to justify the attack on Iraq. These two Jewish racists fantasized an impossible collaboration between the Islamic Movement for Kurdistan, Ansar al-Islam, al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussain. Within the framework of this ridiculous idea, Jewish Neocons could argue that Aref-Hossain sting operation demonstrated the existence of a combined Saddam Hussein al-Qaeda threat within the borders of the continental USA.
When Judge McAvoy prevented Aref's and Hossain's attorneys from challenging Kohlmann's credentials, the defense should have aggressively concentrated on Kohlmann's agenda.
Now that the Department of Homeland Security, unlike the FBI, has ceased to collaborate with the ADL because of this Jewish organization's obvious ethnopolitical agenda, there is no reason for the defense to be diffident about discussing the ethnopolitical agenda of Jewish Zionist officials or expert witnesses like Kohlmann or Levitt (in the Holy Land Foundation trial).
After introducing the Jewish Zionist subtext of the Islamophobic show trials, the defense can address issues relating to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and the 1886 Yick Wo precedent, in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was just as unconstitutional to enforce federal law in a discriminatory way as it was for a law to be discriminatory.
After the Gaza Rampage and the Flotilla Massacre, no one rational can doubt that Israel is a terrorist state and that Jewish Zionists provide material support for terrorism. Yet the Federal government has yet to arrest one Jewish Zionist on terrorism charges.
During summation, after having completely delegitimized the authority of the FBI and the Department of Justice because of deep penetration Jewish Zionist subversion, the defense should ask the jurors whether they will act as the stooges of a cabal that sacrifices American blood and treasure "because it is good for the Jews."
In conclusion the defense should demand that the jury find the accused innocent for the good of the USA.
If this strategy proves effective, it could enter mainstream politics as a demand that US laws be enforced uniformly for Jews and non-Jews. If it gets traction internationally, foreign governments like Pakistan pressured by the US government to suppress Islamist groups might be motivated to demand reciprocal crack-downs on American Jewish Zionist groups. At that point Zionists inside and outside of government will have lost any shred of legitimate authority in Milgram's sense. As a result grass roots national and international political activists might have a shot at convincing (non-Jewish non-Zionist) US foreign policy makers that the US will only be able to keep any moral standing on human rights issues if the president pardons all the Muslim political prisoners incarcerated after Islamophobic political show trials and then apologizes to the Islamic world for participating in Zionist crimes for the last 63 years.
Arresting, trying, convicting and incarcerating leading Zionists (like Haim Saban, Sheldon Adelson, Penny Pritzker, Lester Crown, the Bronfmans, Martin Peretz, Stuart Levey, Matthew Levitt, Charles Jacobs, et al.) for materially aiding Zionist terrorism, Conspiracy Against Rights, and Seditious Conspiracy would help restore American credibility.
Sphere: Related Content
