INTENATIONAL ALERT!
Months after filing of formal Human Rights complaint against the US with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, NO ACTION, proving the UN to be nothing more than than a HOAX and cover for Continuing European Imperilism... click here
THE VIRGIN ISLAND 3, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE “VIRGIN ISLAND 5,” HAVE BEEN IMPRISONED FOR 45-YEARS FOR Allegedly being THE persons responsible for the KILLING of Seven White People and a Mulatto at a golf resort owned by the Rockefeller dynasty in St. Croix in 1972.
EVEN THOUGH THE INCIDENT WAS DESCRIBED AS A “ROBBERY GONE BAD,” THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TREATED IT AS THE TIP OF SOME SORT OF “MAU MAU” UPRISING AGAINST IT ILLEGAL RULE. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT, THE U.S. SENT IN AN ARMY OF RACIST WHITE FBI AGENTS, ALONG WITH 300 MARINES, AND PLACED ALL BLACKS UNDER MARTIAL LAW. THE ENTIRE BLACK POPULATION WAS SUSPECT, PARTICULARLY YOUNG BLACK MEN, WITH OVER 100 OF THEM BEING ROUNDED UP IN HOUSE TO HOUSE SEARCHES. MOST OF THE YOUNG MEN WERE SUBJECTED TO BEATINGS AND VARIOUS FORMS OF TORTURE INCLUDING HANGING, WATER-BOARDING, AND ELECTRIC SHOCK TO THE TESTICLES (for a more detailed account click "Maracatu")
WITHIN A WEEK AFTER THE INCIDENT THE FBI SETTLED ON FIVE YOUNG MEN AS THE CULPRITS WITH SCANT EVIDENCE AND "CONFESSIONS" OBTAINED THROUGH
TORTURE. THOSE FIVE YOUNG BLACK MEN WHERE ISHMAEL LABEET, RAPHAEL JOSEPH, WARREN BALLENTINE, BEAUMONT GEREU, AND MERAL SMITH. NOT A ONE WAS OLDER THAN 23 AND THEY WERE QUICKLY TRIED TOGETHER BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IN ITS TERRITORIAL COURT, BY A JUDGE WHO PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE ROCKEFELLER FAMILY, WHICH OWNED THE GOLF COURSE. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO CONVICT A ONE, WHICH WAS WHY THE STRATEGY WAS TO TRIE THEM TOGETHER, IN ORDER TO FUDGE THE FACTS. THE GUN USED TO KILL THE PEOPLE WAS AN AUTOMATIC RIFLE REGISTERED TO THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT NO POLICE OFFICER WAS EVER MADE SUSPECT. THE ASSAILANTS WERE MASKED THE ENTIRE TIME AND THE INCIDENT OCCURRED IN A MATTER OF MINUTES, WITH THE ASSAILANTS ALLEGEDLY DISAPPEARING BACK INTO THE SURROUNDING RAIN FORREST FROM WHICH THEY CAME. HOWEVER, SOME WITNESSES REPORTED THAT THE MEN SPED OFF IN A CAR.
AFTER A HASTY TRIAL, THE JURY INFORMED THE JUDGE THAT THEY COULD NOT CONVICT, HE ORDERED THEM HELD UNTIL THEY CAME BACK WITH GUILTY VERDICTS AGAINST ALL FIVE, WHICH LASTED NINE DAYS. ADDITIONALLY, THE U.S. WAS THREATENING THE FAMILIES OF THE JURORS THROUGH THE FBI AND ULTIMATELY THE U.S. GOT WHAT IT WANTED. WITHIN THE HOUR OF GETTING THE GUILTY VERDICTS THE JUDGE HAD ALL FIVE BROUGHT BEFORE HIM AND SENTENCED EACH TO EIGHT "CONSECUTIVE" LIFE SENTENCES, THEN HAD THEM IMMEDIATELY MARCHED FROM THE COURTHOUSE DOWN TO THE HARBOR IN CHRISTIANSTED WHERE SEA PLANES AWAITED. THE FIVE YOUNG BLACK MEN WHERE LOADED INTO THOSE PLANES AND WHISKED AWAY TO NEARLY THREE DECADES IN U.S. FEDERAL PRISONS FOR THE THREE. ONE MANAGED TO ESCAPE TO CUBA AND WAS GIVEN POLITICAL ASYLUM THERE IN THE EARLY 1980s, WHILE ONE SINGULARLY RELEASED IN THE EARLY 1990s FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR BY THE COLONIAL GOVERNOR, EVEN THOUGH HIS BEHAVIOR WAS NO MORE EXEMPLARY THAN THE REMAINING THREE.
IN 1983, WHILE BEING TRANSPORTED BACK TO PRISON IN THE STATES AFTER APPEARING BACK IN ST. CROIX FOR A COURT HEARING, ISHMAEL LABEET HIJACKED THE PLANE AND ESCAPED TO CUBA WHERE HE WAS GIVEN POLITICAL ASYLUM AND LIVES TODAY. FIDEL TOLD RONALD REAGAN THE U.S. WAS ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF THE PLANE AND ALL ITS PASSENGERS BUT LABEET, WHICH IT WOULD PROSECUTE HIM FOR HIJACKING, BUT WAS GIVING HIM POLITICAL ASYLUM DUE TO U.S. FOREIGN RULE OF THE ISLANDS.
CURRENT ISSUE REMAINS CRIMINAL U.S. FOREIGN "OWNERSHIP" AND RULE
IN 2000-01, ALTHOUGH THE U.S. Terminated its SENTENCES against THE THREE AND over 100 of their fellow islanders, DISCHARGED THEM FROM ITS CUSTODY, IT DID NOT RELEASE THEM. INSTEAD OF BEING RELEASED AS REQUIRED BY LAW, THEY WERE all ILLEGALLY "TRANSFERRED" TO THE CUSTODY OF THE COLONIAL administration for indefinite illegal detention, the essence of mass political imprisonment
FOR THE PAST 15-YEARS THESE MEN HAVE BEEN DETAINED WITHOUT EVEN THE PRETENSE OF A PRISON SENTENCE, HELD BY A GOVERNMENT IMPOSED AND CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN POWER - THE UNITED STATES. THIS GOES TO PROVE THAT FROM THE VERY OUTSET THEIR IMPRISONMENT WAS POLITICAL AND ILLEGAL, THESE MEN WERE MADE "TERROR SUSPECTS" 30-YEARS BEFORE GOERGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY MADE THE TERM UP. jUST LIKE MANY OF THE SO-CALLED "TERROR SUSPECTS" AT GUANTANAMO BAY, THIS MEN WERE SWEPT UP IN A WARLIKE U.S. INVASION OF THEIR COUNTRY. AND JUST LIKE WAS DONE TO THE SO-CALLED "TERROR SUSPECTS" AT GUANTANAMO BAY, THESE MEN WERE ALSO SUBJECTED TO "ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES," OR TORTURE. AND JUST LIKE WITH THE SO-CALLED "TERROR SUSPECTS" AT GUANTANAMO BAY THEIR CONTINUED DETENTION IS OUTSIDE OF ALL KNOWN LAW AND MORALITY.
MALIK, HANEEF, AND ABDUL where removed from THE GOLDEN GROVE PRISON in st. Croix and SPIRITED OFF TO THE CCA "BLACK SITE" IN ELOY, ARIZONA on March 2nd, along with over 145 of their fellow islanders. THERE THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN NEW PRISONER NUMBERS AND SUBJECT TO PRIVATE RULES NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THEir legal rights, Essentially to serve the purpose of Disappearing them from THEIR FAMILIES, AND SUPPORTERS.
YOU CAN HELP by FOLLOWing THE PEOPLE'S ALERT BELOW.
Award winning documentary filmmaker Jamie Kastner just released his latest work, "The Skyjackers Tale," at the s Toronto Film Festival to much acclaim. The film re-visits the hijacking of a plane to Cuba by Ismael Labeet in 1984, one of the original Virgin Island 5 and purportedly the "leader" of the assault that resulted in the death of seven White tourist and a "mulatto" at the Fountain Valley golf course in 1972. Kastner's work examines the circumstances the led up to the incident and has now raised much needed interest in the VI3. For more information visit: www.facebook.com/jamie.kastner.9
OLD PIRACIES!
It is an irrefutable historical fact that nearly all of the European nations invaded and destroyed nations they encountered in the western hemisphere, completely wiping out entire people. As like with "ISIS," they acted under a religious pretense that gave them the right to go out all around the non-White world and take whatever they wanted from non-Christian peoples they called "savages."
The Caribbean was first invaded by Spain, beginning with Christopher Columbus, then came the French, the British, and the Danish. The Danish "purchased" from the French three islands they re-named as the "Dutch West Indies," which both the French and Danish populated with kidnapped Africans as slaves. The British laid claim to most of the other islands to the south, along with Jamaica. The Spanish though had the three largest Caribbean islands, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and two-thirds of Hispaniola.
In 1885, the U.S. tried to get Denmark to sell its claims to it, but the Danes refused. However, after the U.S. had destroyed Spanish rule in the Caribbean and, invaded and Haiti, Denmark knew that its time in the Caribbean was up. In 1917, accepting the offer it could no longer resist, the Denmark crime family agreed to sell its claims in the Caribbean to the U.S. or otherwise, have them taken by force.
The U.S. Declares that Natural Inhabitants of its "Territories" have no "fundamental rights"
(taken from Mother Jones 6/5/15; written by Pema Levy, Reporter MJ, email plevy@motherjones.com)
Well, this is awkward. This month, five people from American Samoa—the only place in the world where babies born on US soil are denied US citizenship—argued in federal court that the government's refusal to grant them birthright citizenship violates the Constitution.
On the other side of the case is the Obama administration, which cited century-old Supreme Court decisions that spoke of "savage," "uncivilized," and "alien races"—and many legal scholars now see as outright racist—to justify continuing to deny citizenship to these US nationals.
Over the past century, Congress has passed laws guaranteeing birthright citizenship to residents of US territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. But American Samoa, a Pacific Island chain that is home to some 55,000 people, is the lone exception.
American Samoans are classified as noncitizen nationals. As a result, the increasing number of American Samoans living stateside are ineligible for many federal and state government jobs and benefits, including many military jobs, despite serving in the military at high rates.
They cannot vote or serve on juries. In many places, they cannot own firearms. They can apply for US citizenship—but in order to do so, they must leave American Samoa during the months- or years-long process, uprooting their lives and leaving their families and community behind while they wait for a decision.
Now a group of American Samoans is suing the Obama administration and the State Department, demanding birthright citizenship. Their argument in the case,Tuaua v. United States, is pretty straightforward: The 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War, grants automatic citizenship to everyone born in the United States—whether in a state or a territory.
Lead plaintiff Leneuoti Tuaua, for example, is a retired public safety officer who was unable to serve as a police officer when he lived in California because he was not a citizen.
Many legal scholars agree that the amendment, which reads in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," was intended to apply to people born in US territories.
Moreover, the amendment overturned Dred Scott v. Sanford, which "was heavily about the question of whether certain constitutional protections applied in the territories," says Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law expert at the American University Washington College of Law. "The original meaning of the Citizenship Clause seems to be fairly categorical."
Lawyers for the Obama administration argue otherwise. To back up their case, they rely heavily on a series of Supreme Court decisions that many scholars now contend are not only bad law but also racist.
The decisions, known as the Insular Cases, date back to the early 20th century, when the US had just won the Spanish-American War and acquired Puerto Rico and the far-flung new territories of Guam and the Philippines.
The US acquired American Samoa in two parts in 1900 and 1904 as part of its continued expansion. But American political leaders had a problem: They wanted the United States to become a colonial power, but they didn't want to extend constitutional protections to the overwhelmingly nonwhite residents of the new territories. (As one of the friend-of-the-court brief in the current case notes, the Democratic Party's official platform in 1900 argued that "the Filipinos cannot be citizens without endangering our civilization.")
To solve that problem, the Supreme Court came up with a bizarre, racially minded solution. The court invented two categories of territory; the Constitution applied fully in "incorporated territories," such as Arizona, which were settled mostly by white people and destined for statehood, while much of the Constitution did not apply in "unincorporated territories," such as American Samoa, which were not considered candidates for statehood, largely because of their racial and ethnic makeup.
Justice Henry Brown—famous as the author of Plessy v. Ferguson, which gave the court's blessing to segregation—refers to the inhabitants of the new territories as "savage" and "alien races" in the Insular Cases.
Brown contended that Congress would treat the territories well because it was guided by "certain principles of natural justice inherent in the Anglo-Saxon character." His colleague, Justice Edward White, hypothesized in one case that granting citizenship to an "uncivilized race" in a new territory would "inflict grave detriment on the United States" from "the immediate bestowal of citizenship on those absolutely unfit to receive it."
"A lot of people are justifiably embarrassed by the Insular Cases because they really do capture an earlier imperial moment that is saturated in white supremacy," says Sanford Levinson, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law. "What the majority in the Insular Cases argue is that you really can't imagine that Filipinos especially, but also frankly Puerto Ricans, would be welcomed into the American political community." So "they construct an understanding of the Constitution that won't require that."
Though the Obama administration is using the Insular Cases to fight birthright citizenship, its handling of the case is a bit unusual. Normally, appellate lawyers at the Justice Department's DC headquarters, known as Main Justice, become involved in cases against the government once they reach the circuit court level, American University's Vladeck explains.
But this case, now pending before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, was briefed and argued by the lawyers at the US Attorney's Office in DC. "It's surprising to me that in a case like this, it's the US Attorney's office and not the Civil Division of the Justice Department" working on the case, Vladeck adds. "Whether that is because the Justice Department just doesn't believe this is that important a case, or whether it's because they do, I think only they know." Though no Civil Division attorneys' names appear on the briefs, a spokesman for the US Attorney's Office in DC told Mother Jones that "our office is working with attorneys from Main Justice on this matter." The spokesman added that the office "frequently represent[s] the government and government agencies in court proceedings in the District of Columbia."
Of course, the administration doesn't have to fight the American Samoans in this case at all. Although it is required to defend acts of Congress, the administration can on occasion opt out of defending a law it believes is unconstitutional. (The Obama administration's refusal in 2011 to defend part of the Defense of Marriage Act is one recent example.) The Justice Department declined to comment on the case.
Although the Samoans' case for birthright citizenship has brought together liberal legal scholars and conservative originalists concerned with adhering to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, residents of American Samoa are divided on the question of citizenship.
The government of American Samoa has actually sided with the Obama administration in this case, largely out of fear that Samoans' "way of life and foundational, cultural institutions would be jeopardized if subjected to scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment," a brief from the government of American Samoa says. The plaintiffs contend this is not true, and current and former officials from other territories have filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting them.
The case isn't likely to be resolved soon. A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit heard oral arguments earlier this month, but Vladeck believes the judges—who happen to be the three most conservative judges on the DC Circuit—will ultimately rule against the American Samoans. The question then is whether the Samoans will appeal their case to the full DC Circuit, which might be more sympathetic to their cause.
"American Samoa is the only inhabited US territory whose citizens don't receive birthright citizenship," Vladeck says. "I don't know that the government has a particularly compelling reason other than history and the views and wishes of the American Samoans themselves for why American Samoa should be singled out that way."
