Tag Archives: torture

Charges against Muslim man who killed Jewish teacher while chanting verses from the Koran are dropped because he was high

Sarah Halimi

There are so many aspects of this story that are just wrong. Just so wrong.

From Daily Mail: A Muslim man who killed a Jewish kindergarten teacher has had murder charges against him dropped after it was ruled he suffered a psychotic episode by smoking cannabis.

Kobili Traore, 29, is believed to have tortured Sarah Halimi with beatings for hours in her Paris apartment while reciting lines from the Koran on April 4, 2017.

The Mali immigrant then shoved the 65-year-old mother-of-three from the eleventh arrondissement building before reportedly yelling: ‘I’ve killed the Shaitan (devil)!’

Earlier this week (last week when this story was published) he admitted killing her but said he did not recognise when he broke in and claimed he was not aware of his actions.

‘I felt persecuted. When I saw the Torah and a chandelier in her home I felt oppressed. I saw her face transforming,’ he said according to The Jewish Chronicle.

Prosecutors disagreed over how to deal with the killer, with local ones initially calling for him to be tried but the senior procureur général saying he should be put in hospital.

Psychiatric examinations of the defendant, who claims to smoke up to 15 joints per day, found his mental functioning was impaired due to his cannabis intake.

Although three assessments determined Traore’s long-term drug habit had not inflicted him with mental illness, their verdicts differed insofar as his mental capacity during the killing.

A hearing on Wednesday heard Traoré shouted ‘a woman is trying to kill herself’ before he threw her from the balcony.

Lawyers for Ms. Halimi’s family claimed this proved he was mounting a defence from the beginning.

The defendant’s lawyer Thomas Bidnic said: ‘This is Sarah Halimi’s tragedy, her family’s tragedy and this boy’s tragedy, although I’m not comparing the two. Sending him to hospital is not ideal nor sending him to prison.

He admitted Traoré is ‘still a threat’ while he remains in a hospital getting limited medication.

A ruling on if he should face trial will be decided on December 19.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Singer Sheryl Crow says everyone is pro-life, including people who get abortions

From HuffPo: Sheryl Crow believes women should have the power to choose what to do with their own bodies.

“It’s not up to the government to decide what women do with their bodies,” the iconic singer said Wednesday on the red carpet for the CMT Music Awards. “We should have the opportunity to be in charge of our own bodies.”

Crow said the recent abortion bans in states like Georgia, Alabama and her home state of Missouri are simply “wrong,” adding that “everyone is pro-life” including people who get abortions.

“Particularly in the state of Missouri as well as, I believe it’s Alabama, I think there’s only two women in the entire … House of Representatives that are making the decisions,” she added. “So I feel like it’s wrong and I have always felt like the government needs to stay out of that.”

Planned Parenthood recently declared a state of emergency amid the sweeping anti-abortion restrictions implemented in several states across the country. In 2019 alone, 11 states have passed extreme anti-abortion restrictions or bans. Alabama passed by far the most extreme legislation last month, banning all abortions from the time a person knows they’re pregnant and providing no exceptions for rape or incest.

The United Nations commissioner of human rights recently said the U.S. is in “crisis” and likened the recent abortion laws to “torture.” “It’s an assault on truth, science and universal values and norms,” commissioner Kate Gilmore said on Wednesday.

Other stars who have spoken out against the anti-abortion restrictions include actresses Sophie Turner and Jessica Chastain, Ashley Judd, Alyssa Milano, Laverne Cox and Lena Waithe.

“Everyone is pro-life?”

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiight.

h/t Breitbart

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Why Obama Wants to Veto S.1867

UPDATES: 
On December 31, 2011, Obama signed this effective martial-law bill into law.
Our concerns about Sec. 1031 are ignored. The reconcile conference committee has produced a final version of NDAA, which Obama says he will not veto. US citizens are NOT exempted from being arrested and detained without charge or trial. See my post of Dec. 14, 2011: “”U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill.”
See also, “There Really Are FEMA Camps.”
+++
Some among us are puzzled as to why Obama has made known he plans to veto the recently passed Senate bill 1867, that will give him (and future Presidents) immense power.
The now infamous Section 1031 of S. 1867 does not exclude U.S. citizens from those “covered persons” whom the President can have the military arrest and detain without charge or trial. In effect, S. 1867 suspends and  removes the protection of the U.S. Constitution from American citizens if they/we are deemed to be “at war” with the United States, whatever “at war” means.

Obama’s opposition to S. 1867 is not due to his passion to preserve our civil liberties.
Matt Apuzzo of the AP reports that on Dec. 1, 2011, “top national security lawyers” in the Obama administration said exactly what S. 1867’s Sec. 1031 says — that “U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida.”

The Obama administration’s CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure who died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen. The two lawyers did not directly address the al-Awlaki case, but they did say U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States. Echoing S. 1867’s Sec. 1031, Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

So why is Obama opposed to S. 1867?
It is not for reasons of protecting U.S. citizens, but because Obama opposes S. 1867’s “military detention” of those “covered persons.” Military detention means those “covered persons” become prisoners of war (POWs), and POWs are covered by the Geneva Convention, which forbids the torture of POWs.
In other words, Obama wants to continue to be able to use torture on “covered persons” — a category that, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein says in her e-mail, includes U.S. citizens.
As former Wall Street Journal editor and columnist Paul Craig Roberts explains:

“The Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war.[…]

Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. [Yes, Obama is still apparently allowing “extraordinary renditions” to torture people abroad.] This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”

The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.

By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.

A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detention supports this conclusion. (See https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf)”

Update (12.11.2011):
More than 2 years ago, Obama had proposed the creation of “a legal basis” for the preventive and indefinite detention of American citizens. Go here.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0