Showing posts with label Sedition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sedition. Show all posts

Friday 19 July 2013

OKC / 2/26 : Terry the Farmer




Late 1992-Early 1993 and Late 1994:
Future Oklahoma City Bomber Said to Meet with Ramzi Yousef in Philippines


Terry Nichols makes a number of trips to the Phillippines, apparently to meet with al-Qaeda bomber Ramzi Yousef and other radical Islamists. Nichols will later help plan and execute the Oklahoma City bombing

Nichols’s wife is a mail-order bride from Cebu City; Nichols spends an extensive amount of time on the island of Mindanao, where many Islamist terror cells operate. This information comes from a Philippine undercover operative, Edwin Angeles, and one of his wives. Angeles is the second in command in the militant group Abu Sayyaf from 1991 to 1995 while secretly working for Philippine intelligence at the same time

After the Oklahoma City bombing, Angeles will claim in a videotaped interrogation that in late 1992 and early 1993 Nichols meets with Yousef and a second would-be American terrorist, John Lepney. In 1994, Nichols meets with Yousef, Lepney, and others. For about a week, Angeles, Yousef, Nichols, and Lepney are joined by Abdurajak Janjalani, the leader of Abu Sayyaf; two members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF); Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah, both of whom are working with Yousef on the Bojinka plot ; and a half-brother of Yousef known only by the alias Ahmad Hassim (this is a probable reference to Yousef’s brother Abd al-Karim Yousef, who is living in the Philippines at this time).

Elmina Abdul, Angeles’s third wife, will add additional details about these 1994 meetings in a taped 2002 hospital confession to a Philippines reporter days before her death. She only remembers Nichols as “Terry” or “The Farmer,” and doesn’t remember the name of the other American.

She says: “They talked about bombings. They mentioned bombing government buildings in San Francisco, St. Louis, and in Oklahoma. The Americans wanted instructions on how to make and to explode bombs. [Angeles] told me that Janjalani was very interested in paying them much money to explode the buildings. The money was coming from Yousef and the other Arab.”
[GULF NEWS, 4/3/2002; INSIGHT, 4/19/2002; MANILA TIMES, 4/26/2002; INSIGHT, 6/22/2002; NICOLE NICHOLS, 2003]

(“The other Arab” may be a reference to the Arab Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law, because Janjalani’s younger brother later claims Abu Sayyaf was funded in its early years by Yousef and Khalifa.) [CNN, 1/31/2007]

Abdul claims Nichols and Lepney are sent to an unnamed place for more instructions on bomb-making to destroy a building in the US. She also says that Angeles and others in Abu Sayyaf believe Yousef works for the Iraqi government. [INSIGHT, 6/22/2002]

The Manila Times later reports that “Lepney did indeed reside and do business in Davao City [in the Southern Philippines] during 1990 to 1996.” One bar owner recalls that when Lepney got drunk he liked to brag about his adventures with local rebel groups. [MANILA TIMES, 4/26/2002]

In 2003, Nicole Nichols (no relation to Terry Nichols), the director of the watchdog organization Citizens against Hate, will explain why an American white supremacist would make common cause with Islamist terrorists. Two unifying factors exist, she writes: an overarching hatred of Jews and Israel, and a similarly deep-seated hatred of the US government. [NICOLE NICHOLS, 2003]

After Nichols takes part in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Wali Khan Amin Shah will attempt to take the credit for plotting the bombing for himself and Yousef, a claim federal authorities will not accept.


April 19, 1995:
Bojinka Plotter Takes Credit for Oklahoma City Bombing;
Claim Later Discredited


Abdul Hakim Murad is in a US prison awaiting trial for his alleged role in the Bojinka plot. 


Told about the Oklahoma City bombing that took place earlier in the day, he immediately takes credit for the bombing on behalf of his associate Ramzi Yousef. However, Yousef, also in US custody at the time, makes no such claim. 

An FBI report detailing Murad’s claim will be submitted to FBI headquarters the next day. [LANCE, 2006, PP. 163-164] 

A Philippine undercover operative will later claim that Terry Nichols, who will be convicted for a major role in the Oklahoma City bombing, met with Murad, Yousef, and others in the Philippines in 1994, and discussed blowing up a building in Oklahoma and several other locations.

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will later comment: “Could [Yousef] have been introduced to [Nichols]? We do not know, despite some FBI investigation. We do know that Nichols’s bombs did not work before his Philippine stay and were deadly when he returned.” 
[CLARKE, 2004, PP. 127] 

Mike Johnston, a lawyer representing the Oklahoma City bombing victims’ families, will later comment: “Why should Murad be believed? For one thing, Murad made his ‘confession’ voluntarily and spontaneously. Most important, Murad tied Ramzi Yousef to the Oklahoma City bombing long before Terry Nichols was publicly identified as a suspect.” 
[INSIGHT, 6/22/2002] 

Also on this day, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, an associate of Yousef and Murad who is being held in the US, is moved from a low security prison to a maximum security prison. 
[LANCE, 2006, PP. 164] 

But despite these potential links to Muslim militants, only five days after the Oklahoma City bombing the New York Times will report, “Federal officials said today that there was no evidence linking people of the Muslim faith or of Arab descent to the bombing here.” 
[NEW YORK TIMES, 4/24/1995] 

Murad’s claim apparently will not be reported in any newspaper until two years later [ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, 6/17/1995] , when lawyers for Nichols’s bombing partner, Timothy McVeigh, tell reporters that their defense strategy will be to claim that the bombing was the work of “foreign terrorists” led by “a Middle Eastern bombing engineer.” 

The lawyers will claim that the bombing was “contracted out” through an Iraqi intelligence base in the Philippines, and it is “possible that those who carried out the bombing were unaware of the true sponsor.” 

The lawyers also say it is possible, though less likely, that the bombing was carried out by right-wing white supremacists, perhaps from the Elohim City compound.
[NEW YORK TIMES, 3/26/1997] 

The claims of foreign involvement will be discredited.

OKC: Seditious Conspiracy and the Aryan Nations




Late 1987 - April 8, 1998: White Separatists Tried, Acquitted of Sedition 
 
Richard Butler, the head of the white separatist and neo-Nazi organization Aryan Nations, is indicted, along with 12 of his followers and fellow racists, by a federal grand jury for seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government by violence, conspiring to kill federal officials, and transporting stolen money across state lines. The sedition was allegedly developed at a 1983 Aryan Nations Congress meeting.

The case is tried in Fort Smith, Arkansas, before an all-white jury.

The goverment is unable to prove the case, and Butler and his fellow defendants are all acquitted.

 The judge refuses to accept the jury’s statement that it is deadlocked on two counts, a ruling that leads to the blanket acquittals. Other white supremacists acquitted in the trial are Louis Beam, Richard Wayne Snell (see 9:00 p.m. April 19, 1995), and Robert Miles. US Attorney J. Michael Fitzhugh says he believes the prosecution proved its case, but “we accept the verdict of the jury.” 

Six of the defendants are serving prison terms for other crimes. 

The prosecution says Butler, Beam, Miles, and the other 10 defendants had robbed banks and armored trucks of $4.1 million, including about $1 million that still is missing. 

The defense countered that the prosecution’s case was based on conspiracy theories given by the prosecution’s chief witness, James Ellison, an Arkansas white supremacist serving 20 years for racketeering. 

During the proceedings, Butler undergoes quadruple bypass surgery and a second surgery to unblock his carotid artery, all at government expense. 

[ASSOCIATED PRESS, 4/8/1998; 
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, 2010; 
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, 2010] 

Some time after the trial, one of the jurors marries one of the defendants, David McGuire. 
[KAPLAN, 2000, PP. 19]

Monday 27 May 2013

A Catastrophic, Catalysing Event



Webster Griffin Tarpley reviews the history of various catastrophic. catalysing events (with special emphasis given to this most famous one of all) and challenges them with reference to the common and fundamental attribution error inherent in all revisionist histories of them:

That the President of the United States runs the country.

It is, of course, unambiguously true that Japan shot first and committed the first overt act.

In 1937.





Tuesday 7 May 2013

Benghazi: Mutiny and Sedition


"Why doth Treason never prosper...?

...for if it prospered, none dare call it "Treason"...."


Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)





ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION


(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Note: For specific details concerning this offense, including elements of proof, maximum punishments, and detailed explanation, see  "Punitive Articles of the UCMJ"





Punitive Articles of the UCMJ 


Article 106a—Espionage


(a)

“(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

 (2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is—

(A) a foreign government;

(B) a faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States; or

 (C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such a government, faction, party, or force.


(3) A thing referred to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense.

(b)

(1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless—

(A) the m bers of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and

(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c).

(2) Findings under this subsection may be based on— (A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence; (B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or

(C) all such evidence. (3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.

(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:

(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.

(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.

(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.

(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).”


Elements.
 

(1) Espionage.

(a) That the accused communicated, delivered, or transmitted any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense;
 

(b) That this matter was communicated, delivered, or transmitted to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly; and

(c) That the accused did so with intent or reason to believe that such matter would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.

(2) Attempted espionage.
(a) That the accused did a certain overt act;

(b) That the act was done with the intent to commit the offense of espionage;

(c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and

(d) That the act apparently tended to bring about the offense of espionage.


(3) Espionage as a capital offense.

(a) That the accused committed espionage or attempted espionage; and

(b) That the offense directly concerned (1) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (2) war plans, (3) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (4) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

Explanation.

(1) Intent. “Intent or reason to believe” that the information “is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation” means that the accused acted in bad faith and with-out lawful authority with respect to information that is not lawfully accessible to the public.


(2) National defense information. “Instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense” includes the full range of modern technology and matter that may be developed in the future, including chemical or biological agents, computer technology, and other matter related to the national defense.

(3) Espionage as a capital offense. Capital punishment is authorized if the government alleges and proves that the offense directly concerned (1) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (2) war plans, (3) communications intelligence or cryptographic in-formation, or (4) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy. See R.C.M. 1004 concerning sentencing proceedings in capital cases.


Lesser included offense. Although no lesser included offenses are set forth in the Code, federal civilian offenses on this matter may be incorporated through the third clause of Article 134.


Maximum punishment.


(1) Espionage as a capital offense. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. See R.C.M. 1003.


(2) Espionage or attempted espionage. Any punishment, other than death, that a court-martial may direct. See R.C.M. 1003.


Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 94—Mutiny and sedition


a) "Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct."


Elements.

(1) Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance.



(a) That the accused created violence or a disturbance; and(b) That the accused created this violence or disturbance with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority.


(2) Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duty.

(a) That the accused refused to obey orders or otherwise do the accused's duty;


(b) That the accused in refusing to obey orders or perform duty acted in concert with another person or persons; and(c) That the accused did so with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority.


(3) Sedition.

(a) That the accused created revolt, violence, or disturbance against lawful civil authority;(b) That the accused acted in concert with another person or persons; and(c) That the accused did so with the intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of that authority.


(4) Failure to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition.

(a) That an offense of mutiny or sedition was committed in the presence of the accused; and(b) That the accused failed to do the accused's utmost to prevent and suppress the mutiny or sedition.


(5) Failure to report a mutiny or sedition.

(a) That an offense of mutiny or sedition occurred;(b) That the accused knew or had reason to believe that the offense was taking place; and(c) That the accused failed to take all reasonable means to inform the accused's superior commissioned officer or commander of the offense.


(6) Attempted mutiny.

(a) That the accused committed a certain overt act;(b) That the act was done with specific intent to commit the offense of mutiny;(c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and(d) That the act apparently tended to effect the commission of the offense of mutiny.


Explanation.


(1) Mutiny. Article 94( a)(1) defines two types of mutiny, both requiring an intent to usurp or override military authority.

(a) Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance. Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance may be committed by one person acting alone or by more than one acting together.(b) Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties. Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties requires collective insubordination and necessarily includes some combination of two or more persons in resisting lawful military authority. This concert of insubordination need not be preconceived, nor is it necessary that the insubordination be active or violent. It may consist simply of a persistent and concerted refusal or omission to obey orders, or to do duty, with an insubordinate intent, that is, with an intent to usurp or override lawful military authority. The intent may be declared in words or inferred from acts, omissions, or surrounding circumstances.


(2) Sedition. Sedition requires a concert of action in resistance to civil authority. This differs from mutiny by creating violence or disturbance. See subparagraph c(1)( a) above.

(3) Failure to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition. "Utmost" means taking those measures to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition which may properly be called for by the circumstances, including the rank, responsibilities, or employment of the person concerned. "Utmost" includes the use of such force, including deadly force, as may be reasonably necessary under the circumstances to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition.

(4) Failure to report a mutiny or sedition. Failure to "take all reasonable means to inform" includes failure to take the most expeditious means available. When the circumstances known to the accused would have caused a reasonable person in similar circumstances to believe that a mutiny or sedition was occurring, this may establish that the accused had such "reason to believe" that mutiny or sedition was occurring. Failure to report an impending mutiny or sedition is not an offense in violation of Article 94. But see paragraph 16c(3), (dereliction of duty).

(5) Attempted mutiny. For a discussion of attempts, see paragraph 4.


Lesser included offenses.

(1) Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance.
 

(a) Article 90--assault on commissioned officer(b) Article 91--assault on warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer(c) Article 94--attempted mutiny(d) Article 116--riot; breach of peace(e) Article 128--assault(f) Article 134--disorderly conduct


(2) Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties.

(a) Article 90--willful disobedience of commissioned officer(b) Article 91--willful disobedience of warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer(c) Article 92--failure to obey lawful order(d) Article 94--attempted mutiny


(3) Sedition.


(a) Article 116--riot; breach of peace(b) Article 128--assault(c) Article 134--disorderly conduct(d) Article 80--attempts



Maximum punishment. 

For all offenses under Article 94, death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.