"WIPING OUT SYRIA'S AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM": HOLDING NY TIMES TO ACCOUNT FOR 'LEAKING' WHAT OBAMA CAN'T LEGALLY SAY. (16.09.2014)
The NY Times and the U.S. government insult people's intelligence (and the people's rule of law).
There is a noticeable rise in the terrorist chatter amongst politicians, disgracefully trying to duck and dive the people's rule of law, with off the record 'meetings', that are not 'private'.
The U.S. President did not just happen to forgot to mention in his speech, both his intention to bomb Syrian people -because- they are lawfully defending themselves, along with his legal grounds for saying something so criminal.
syrian air force lawfully doing their job.
The following email was sent to both the British and New York offices of the New York Times.
Subject: TUCKER -v- NY TIMES ‘MEETINGS’ PROMOTING U.S. PRESIDENT BOMBING SYRIAN PEOPLE -BECAUSE- THEY ARE LAWFULLY DEFENDING THEMSELVES.
Date: 16 September 2014 16:42:47 CEST
TUCKER -v- NY TIMES ‘MEETINGS’ PROMOTING U.S. PRESIDENT BOMBING SYRIAN PEOPLE - BECAUSE- THEY ARE LAWFULLY DEFENDING THEMSELVES.
Syrian people returning to their homes in Homs in May 2014 -despite- (and no thanks to) President Obama.
I note with more than very considerable concern the unusual article published by the New York Times entitled:
“NY TIMES: PATHS TO WAR, THEN & NOW, HAUNT OBAMA" BY PETER BAKER SEPT 13TH 2014.
these are not 'private' remarks the U.S. President made in his official capacity.
there are no legal grounds to bomb syrian people who are lawfully defending their lives.
It is noted that this article in the NY Times that a) specifically alleges that the U.S. President claimed he would shoot down Syrian air defences who are legitimately and legally defending Syrian people, basically if he felt like it, was b) curiously not published until -after- President Obama’s speech.
A similar proposition was published in the British Parliamentary Library on September 9th 2014 (see below) which was not argued in statements made in the British Parliament.
In legal terms, the NY Times, publication of such an article -after- the President’s speech looks very much like the NY Times -colluding- with the U.S. government to try to publish a U.S. government add on, outside the proper legal framework and without the necessary legal grounds, because the legal grounds for making such a statement do not exist.
The NY Times article version of the ‘meetings' claims numerous people including Zbigniew Brzezinski were present so everyone present at these meetings knows the very serious responsibilities of public office etc.
The NY Times article also confirms that the U.S. President intentionally uses profit making corporate media ‘news’ version of events to improperly influence public opinion, to wage illegal wars.
In fact it is notable that the U.N. are illegally ignoring evidence in their own reports of U.S. government backed so called Syrian ‘Opposition’ be-heading Syrian soldiers.
15.09.2014 U.N. WITHDRAW GOLAN HEIGHTS 'PEACEKEEPERS' AS U.N. IGNORE U.N. -EVIDENCE- ISRAEL WORKING WITH SYRIAN OPPOSITION TERRORISTS. (15.09.2014)
It is obvious therefore that the selective use of be-headings is cynically being used by the U.S. government, to disguise the illegal transfer of lethal U.S. government weapons in return for the theft of oil.
It is noted:
a) that it is illegal for the U.S. President to hide behind corporate ‘news' media and other ‘private’ profit making organisations, to make comments that a reasonable person would know are criminal.
b) the President has made no such statement through the proper channels via the White House.
c) the NY Times do not i) provide any evidence that the U.S. President attached any legal grounds, while making that statement in 'meetings’ that are not off the public record, ii) nor do the NY Times question the absence of any legal grounds.
Therefore the NY Times article is now actually evidence of criminal intent by the U.S. President who according to your article intends to take criminal actions without even announcing it, or any legal grounds, in his official capacity, through the proper public offices, so that they can be subject to proper legal challenge.
At the very least the NY Times article is -evidence- of the U.S. President illegally trying to mislead the public about his true intentions, which are criminal.
This is to notify the NY Times that the New York Times are therefore legally obliged to provide signed witness statements to our campaign from:
a) Peter Baker
b) the ‘ten' journalists who contributed to such a serious allegation that affects so many innocent civilian lives in Syria.
c) the names of all the participants in the two meetings referred to by the NY Times.
In a nutshell the NY Times are legally obliged to prove the true facts surrounding such a life-threatening statement.
Journalistic privilege cannot reasonably extend to concealing sources who are themselves journalists, who were present when the U.S. President threatened what a reasonable person would know is murder.
The purpose of requesting these witness statements is to bring a factual legal challenge over what (the NY Times claim) the U.S. President has said (illegally), which is an affront to all decent and civilised people, who support the rule of law that exists to protect life.
A reasonable person would know innocent civilian people in Syria who knew of this threat, which has been widely publicised, would fear for their lives through such a blatant expression of a criminal intent to breach the rule of law.
Both the New York Times (and the U.S. government) are therefore legally obliged to disclose the facts surrounding this extraordinary statement, which is clearly criminal, and threatens real people’s...lives, so that innocent civilian lives of Syrian people can be saved.
One does point out that the New York Times would serve the public interest and the people’s rule of law, by properly investigating what the documented supply lines of U.S. government weapons to named members of the Syrian ‘Opposition' are, along with ghost oil tankers that are stealing oil in Syria, Iraq and Libya.
We can -all- live beautiful lives without killing other people, which the vast majority of decent and civilised people, all around the world would never dream of doing, for what are ultimately 'lifestyle choices'.
Government and ‘news’ media do need to ‘adapt’ to the people’s rule of law that the law abiding majority of people all around the world have no problem living by every single day.
Parliament Square Peace Campaign
man made war: it doesn't just happen and never 'needs' to happen.
there is much Jihadi John McCain & Co. do not want to put on any -public- record.