Obama’s Stability Police Force AKA S.P.F. Brownshirt Police AKA Gestapo is real

The Rand Corporation was asked by the US Army to prepare a report recommending whether or not the US Needed a National Stability Police force. Basically a call for American “Brown Shirts” Rand’s answer was a resounding yes.

Our analysis clearly indicates that the United States needs an SPF or some other way to accomplish the SPF mission. Stability operations have become an inescapable reality of U.S. foreign policy. Establishing security with soldiers and police is critical because it is difficult to achieve other objectives—such as rebuilding political and economic systems—without it.

The cost of not fixing this gap is significant. The United States will continue to experience major challenges in stability operations if it does not have this policing capacity. These challenges include creating the ability to establish basic law and order, as well as defeat or deter criminal organizations, terrorists, and insurgents. In some cases, allied countries may be able to fill this gap. Allies did this effectively in Bosnia and Kosovo, both of which were successful in establishing security. In other cases, the United States may not be able to count on allied support. The United States should not depend on allies to supply these capabilities, because doing so would limit U.S. freedom of action on the international stage. Consequently, the United States should seriously consider building a high-end police capacity.

via yidwithlid.blogspot.com

it gets worse….

Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?   [Andy McCarthy]

You just can’t make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.

Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld. Specifically, Interpol’s property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.

On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America’s defense).

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?

via corner.nationalreview.com

Are these Jews in Jerusalem in 1948 the occupier?

Looting in burning Jerusalem, John Phillips. June 1948

An Israeli NGO has sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatening a class action lawsuit if she continues to call Jewish cities and towns in Judea and Samaria ‘illegal settlements.’ The letter, which was also sent to Prime Minister Netanyahu, argues that the ‘settlement freeze’ is illegal under a 1924 treaty in which the United States recognized that Judea and Samaria were part of the British Mandate for ‘Palestine.’

The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law, a non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law
via
israelmatzav.blogspot.com
“The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West Bank within its borders.”

Jewish girl, Rachel Levy, 7, fleeing from street w. burning bldgs. as the Arabs sack Jerusalem after its surrender. May 28, 1948. John Phillips

Jewish families leaving the old city through Zion’s Gate. June 1948. John Phillips

Jewish people attempting to leave portion of city surrendered to Arab forces. Jerusalem, Israel. June 1948. John Phillips

Israel should build the tallest building in the world in Jerusalem

Click to Play

The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West Bank within its borders.

Israeli Settlements are legal and legitimate under US law

by JACOB KANTER , THE JERUSALEM POST

The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law, a non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law.

The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West Bank within its borders.

“The treaty has been hidden,” said OFICL director Mark Kaplan. “But if you look at the House [of Representatives] deliberations during World War I, people are saying, ‘Look, we’ve invested a lot of money in Palestine, and we expect that this treaty will be upheld.’”

Though the United Nations’ 1947 partition plan declared the West Bank an Arab territory, the mandate’s borders still hold today.

“The mandate expired in 1948 when Israel got its independence,” Kaplan said. “But the American-Anglo convention was a treaty that was connected to the mandate. Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.”

“The UN partition plan was just that-a plan,” said OFICL chairman Michael Snidecor in a statement. “The General Assembly has no authority to create countries or change borders.”

Clinton’s rhetoric, according to Kaplan, has become more and more troubling.

“Our letter was sent as a result of so many comments that have been made by the secretary of state,” he said. “It’s part of a process that we’ve been involved with for a number of months, but we’re speeding things up because of the acceleration of recent events.”

A few days after praising Israel for its “unprecedented” actions in freezing settlement activity, Clinton reemphasized the supposedly illegal status of the settlements.

“The United States believes that settlements are not legitimate,” she said. “That has been the policy of our government for 40 years. That is the policy of President [Barack] Obama today and going forward.”

According to Kaplan, the IDF presence in the West Bank has added to this misconception of illegal activity.

“Israel chose to adopt a policy of military rule in 1967, which makes it smell of occupation,” Kaplan said. “And the world says it is illegal occupation because of all the propaganda that’s been out there. Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria does not qualify as an occupation under international law because of the Anglo-American Convention, and if you look at the Hague and Geneva conventions.”

The OFICL letter also warned Clinton that if her office does not comply with the civil rights recognized in the Anglo-American convention, OFICL will file a class-action suit in a US district court.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze last Wednesday, but the letter, which was also sent to Netanyahu’s office, states that under the legal principle of estoppel – which precludes someone from denying the truth of a fact which has been determined in an official proceeding or by an authoritative body – any demand on Israel to freeze construction within the mandated borders is illegal under US law.

According to one adviser, Netanyahu’s staff is reviewing the documents and will discuss the issues before replying to OFICL’s planned actions.

via thejidf.org

Chicken Music

http://facebook.com/ChickenSoup

Obama’s Attack on America

Photo left is Khalid Sheik Muhammad upon his capture by US forces . Years later, the photo right is the new and improved just released photo of LSM. I have a couple of questions. Why isn’t he in prison garb? Why is he wearing the keffiyeh, the icon of Islamic jihad? WHO bought his keffiyeh. you? Me? What’s with the photo op? Looks lie he is advertising for one of the Muslim dating sites.

via atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com

I’m confused. is this the same guy?