Putin's Human Rights Council Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results; Only 15% Voted For A

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: seeker1963

Try again

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

??????????????

What's your response to the video I posted?????

Back your crap up! Links don't do it for me............

Third line....

a reply to: seeker1963

You have to click on the links for the information and sources citations.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: seeker1963

You have to click on the links for the information and sources citations.

Why should I when you can't even address the short video that I asked you to refute?

Continue to deflect all you want, answer the HARD questions!

a reply to: seeker1963

EVERYONE

READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF FORBES ARTICLE

Why would a Russian Official Site post a BLOG Report for 5 min,

what really happened is that they were hacked, and those few minutes a false report was taken as PROOF by the Coordinated Western Propaganda Effort to slander Russia.

And it is NO accident that OP is the one pushing this, no coincidence at all.

Everything was SET and READY,

just like that Reporter from RT, turns out later she was co-opted paid to do what she did, her handler from a US think tank posted online 20 minutes before it happened that something will happen at RT, he couldn't contain his enthusiasm.

WAKE UP PEOPLE

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

So you don't think it's problematic that Prawyj Sektor (Svoboda= 10.45% in 2012, UNA-UNSO= 0.08% in 2012) are now holding several key positions in the acting Government?

Or that an interim Government is hashing out momentous deals with the IMF, without being democratically legitimised to do so? (well that's a first...)

Or that an interim Government uses military force against the population it is supposed to represent?
- by the way, how is this different from Assad's actions in Syria last fall? Because I remember several EU and US politicians condemning the exact same thing in Syria at the time.

Anyways: what the PEOPLE of Ukraine (all of Ukraine) desperately need is independently observed Elections.
And independent investigations into the whole Ukrainian crisis as soon as possible!

The website of the “President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights” posted a blog

1. the council for human rights in Russia is likely to be on the opposite page as Putin, thus will try to discredit him
2. the information posted was a blog.

just because i post blog entries on anti American sites that say 9/11 was a con, isn't concrete proof.

originally posted by: Ninipe
The problem pretends not to be a Russian marionette, to be a woman and a politician, though she is clearly a chemist gone crazy... Angie

Agreed.
She's not the only crazy Lady in this mess though...

As for the money, here is Frau Nuland (married to a PNAC-Nazi by the way... all hail the Wolfowitz-Doktrin!!), speaking at the "Ukraine in Washington 2013"-conference (proudly sponsored by Exxonmobil and Chevron!)


Greetings to bavaria.

Sounds to me like more U.S. propaganda to justify going into Ukraine and/or war with Russia. Ohhhh geeeeeeee, what ever happened to those wmds in Iraq? Oh that's right, there weren't any. When will people learn that all our government is is the world police trying to spread "democracy"? We need to mind our own business. If Ukraine wants to fight Russia let them.

a reply to: ColCurious
a reply to: GroidNificent

The difference between Syria and Ukraine is civilian deaths.

Syria used the spray and pray theory resulting in civilian deaths.

To date Ukraine has attacked military style targets. Unless someone can point me to a source stating Ukraine did target civilians.

Also the use of air assets came later in that mess, which is why countries got involved.

Nato does not have any military units on Russias border

Our commander in chief already stated no military action will occur in Ukraine.
Wikileaks released evidence that WMDS were located in Iraq.

Thank you for the video seeker1963

Have seen the sniper rifle with silencer in boot of car video and was amazed no one followed it up



Bob Lewis wrote this

Two days before the February 20 Independence Square Massacre, Sergei Pashinsky’s Honda was stopped by protesters. In the trunk they found a sniper rifle and a silencer, yet they did not confiscate it and let him go.

All this information above was online and/or publicly available at the time of the Paet/Ashton phone call over a week ago.

Why isn’t this being investigated?


Link to more detail

ivn.us...

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

So which candidate, picked by a select group of people, did you vote for. Candidates are usually conditioned to think the same way the ones presently running this country. If we elect a senator that does not play ball, they get nothing done for their district.

When you vote for the candidates that run the corporation you own stock in, you usually have a choice of two candidates, ones trained to run the corporation the same way it has been run before, ones who look out for the best interests of the executives and the top ten stockholders of the corporation, not necessarily the common everyday stock holder. So our government is set up like a corporation.

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

After reviewing the Forbes page and the link to the "evil Russians" blog, etc, I find nothing to support this whole premise. Please provide a valid link, a cached page, a screenshot, anything will do. More neocon propaganda from what I can see.

Fair enough - the Washington post is reporting that het report is still available on the Russian version of the Council website -

Washington Post article

Russian language article

English ranslation through google translate from which is the following:

Referendum

According to almost all survey participants and citizens:

- The vast majority of inhabitants of Sevastopol voted in a referendum to join Russia (50-80% turnout), Crimea according to various sources for joining Russia voted 50-60% voter turnout with a total of 30-50%;

- Inhabitants of Crimea voted not so much for joining Russia, as for the termination, in their words, "corruption and lawlessness thieves dominance Donetsk henchmen." Inhabitants of Sevastopol to vote for annexation to Russia. Fears illegal armed groups in Sevastopol were higher than in other regions of the Crimea.

a reply to: rickymouse
lol - you freemen (or the equivalent) nutjobs crack me up!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Nato does not have any military units on Russias border

The Baltic states are all in NATO, and a few non-Baltic NATO assets have been shifted there recently because of this crisis.

FYI I had a friend who spent a bit of time in the NATO "Trigger Brigade" in the late 80's & early 90's - the brigade had servicemen from every country in it so that the whole alliance would have people at risk at any flash point!! Crude and unsubtle.....but also a real issue to consider!

Wikileaks released evidence that WMDS were located in Iraq.

I completely missed that - perhaps a link would be a good idea??

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Interesting, thanks for those links. Guess it's no surprise things in Ukraine have become an almost total free for all at this point. I have no doubt Putin can/is playing just as dirty as the EU/US/NATO over all this. The real losers look to be the Ukrainians.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Ninipe
a reply to: seeker1963

Putin is evil. Propaganda is bad. The cold war never ended. And I am not for blind patriotism, but dude, you're basically a traitor.

Try looking up some facts about the Nazi's that the US put into power in the Ukraine!

As far as you calling me a traitor, I did my time and service for this corrupt country!

What have you done?

You did what your oath required of you.

Armed Forces Oath (except National Guard, Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

National Guard, Army or Air

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

The very first thing our military vowed to do was support and defend the Constitution. Then, and after that, you vow to obey the President. If the President does not support or defend the Constitution, then your first rule of order is to the Constitution. As a member of the Constitution Party, I recognize that the oath was solemn but that corrupt politicians would seek to make you obey them above the Constitution. From where I stand, if you defended the Constitution for me, I thank you very much.

The Uniform Code of Military Justicestates this...

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is more concerned about failure of military personnel to obey legitimate orders than it is about refusal to obey illegitimate orders, but it does address the subject. In Section 16c(1)(c) it provides:

Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.

And in Section 14c(2)(a)(i):

Inference of lawfulness. A order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

When it comes to the Constitution, your first rule is to defend and support it, not the President, he comes next. And if he asks you to violate the Constitution, then he is wrong and you do not have to obey.

And if an officer violates the Constitution?

In RCM 302(b) Who may apprehend. The following officials may apprehend any person subject to trial by court-martial:

(1) Military law enforcement officials.

(2) Commissioned, warrant, petty, and noncommissioned officers.

That means that right now, any officer, whether commissioned or non-commissioned, may apprehend the President because he is the head of the military branch of the government if the President violates the Constitution. As head of the military, he can be court-martialed.

As a Constitutional lawyer, I would think he should know this one.

How important is this one?

Be aware of what are the constitutional limits on federal powers. The Constitution allows criminal prosecution under federal laws on state territory only for (1) treason, (2) counterfeiting, (3) crimes on the high seas, (4) crimes against the law of nations, or (5) violations of civil rights by officials. It does not allow criminal prosecution for violations of any regulations, such as those passed under the interstate commerce clause, or for failure to pay taxes. Therefore, most such federal criminal laws apply only to acts committed on federal territory, including land ceded to the federal government by a state legislature, coastal waters, U.S. flag vessels on the high seas, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad.

Right now, the military has enough cause to arrest every member of Congress, the House of Representatives and the President of the United States if those members have violated any of the above. Did the military have enough cause to arrest over Benghazi? Absolutely.

I know you took the oath and I applaud and thank you for it. But if this were to really play out, the military could in essence perform a coup, so let's be thankful anarchy hasn't happened yet. But no, you would not be a traitor if you took the oath and then performed your duty.

a reply to: WarminIndy

The military, when it comes to what's being discussed, is to support the will of the people when the government fails. The validity of a change in government must come from the people and led by the people. It should not be led by the military.

A change in government by the people is valid.
A change in government by the people and supported by the military is valid.
A change in government led by the military is dangerous.

Even the military is subordinate to the people. Anything less and we have not learned a damn thing.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: WarminIndy

The military, when it comes to what's being discussed, is to support the will of the people when the government fails. The validity of a change in government must come from the people and led by the people. It should not be led by the military.

A change in government by the people is valid.
A change in government by the people and supported by the military is valid.
A change in government led by the military is dangerous.

Even the military is subordinate to the people. Anything less and we have not learned a damn thing.

Yes, but we right now have the military superior in office. The President is head of the military, so in essence the government is dangerous, just as you have posted.

Are we therefore under a military coup? Has this happened so quietly that we didn't notice?

Has our government become the same as Putin in Crimea? When Obama had the cell phones of European government leaders monitored, then he broke those nations federal laws. That is a step over his authority. The military is comprised of We the People, headed by the President. I think therefore, we have been couped, quietly.

a reply to: WarminIndy

The people are the government.

Our military is required to answer to civilian leadership.
Like the government, the military's authority and legitimacy is derived from the people first and foremost.

Are we under a military coup / dictatorship? No.

As much as I dislike Obama and politics in Washington I do not believe that the military (Federal and State), Law Enforcement at all levels and government officials at all levels could ever be convinced to side with a group of people to seize the United States.

The ultimate line in the sand to prevent any of that / possibilities of it occurring is the people.

To me, imo, political parties are like religion in its effect. It divides people based on opinions instead of the global good.

The only counter to that is the people.

I still firmly believe things can change in this country if we get the right leader - The American people speaking as one to tell the government what they must do and not vice versa.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: WarminIndy

The people are the government.

Our military is required to answer to civilian leadership.
Like the government, the military's authority and legitimacy is derived from the people first and foremost.

Are we under a military coup / dictatorship? No.

As much as I dislike Obama and politics in Washington I do not believe that the military (Federal and State), Law Enforcement at all levels and government officials at all levels could ever be convinced to side with a group of people to seize the United States.

The ultimate line in the sand to prevent any of that / possibilities of it occurring is the people.

To me, imo, political parties are like religion in its effect. It divides people based on opinions instead of the global good.

The only counter to that is the people.

I still firmly believe things can change in this country if we get the right leader - The American people speaking as one to tell the government what they must do and not vice versa.

We the People didn't even know about Obama's monitoring other nations leaders until they started saying it. So he wasn't under our jurisdiction when he approved that call. I can't support that. But I am part of We the People and yet We the People aren't heard by the media, we hear about these things after. They always use the line "in the interest of national security". Was it in our interest for him to do that? But he utilized a branch of the military to do this. I am not saying I dislike the military, I know that it is made up of young men and women who believe enough in this country to serve it proudly.

I do not think Obama is looking out for our national interests, either economically here or diplomatically abroad. I don't think we have had a President since Reagan that did, Clinton sure wasn't when he made massive cuts to the military. All of my brothers were serving at that time.

As the head of the military, isn't he accountable to us, then? Why hasn't he been made accountable? And then how do we go about making him accountable?