Landmark Case Highlights Pre-Crime Prosecution for Acts of Terrorism

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
October 27, 2011

On October 27, 2011, Dina Temple-Raston of NPR’s Morning Edition reported on a case regarding a Boston man brought up on charges of terrorism whose trial is expected to begin today (October 27). According to the report, Tarek Mehanna, the defendant, was arrested in 2009 and charged with seven different crimes, including “conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist organization and conspiracy to kill in a foreign country.”

Mehanna is alleged to have travelled to Yemen and Somalia in search of terrorist training camps, conspired to kill soldiers in Iraq, and, upon his return to the United States, planned to orchestrate a terror campaign involving a shopping mall shooting spree.

When announcing the charges two years ago, acting U.S. Attorney Michael Loucks stated:  

It is alleged that there were multiple conversations about obtaining weapons and randomly shooting people in a shopping mall. This mall assault planning consisted of the logistics of a malls attack, the coordination of an assault from different entrances, weapons needed for such an assault and the possibility of attacking emergency responders.

It should be noted that Mehanna is an American citizen who was born in Pittsburgh and was raised in an affluent suburb of Boston known as Sudbury. He also holds a doctorate degree from the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences.

Although individuals accused of terrorism by virtue of less-than-substantial evidence are no longer a rare sight to behold in the Orwellian America of 2011, many of the cases brought before the courts, such as this one, have gradually moved further and further in the direction of prosecution not only for direct acts (aided and guided by the intelligence agencies as they almost always are), but also for indirect acts and, now, apparently, for pre-crime. 

Congress Expansion of Drug War is an Attack on Free Speech

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
October 25, 2011

Just when you think Congress has gone about as far as it can go in terms of destroying civil liberties and Constitutional rights, eager and earnest Congressmen such as those “serving” on the House Judiciary Committee step up to the plate and show the American people that there is plenty more that can be done.  Case in point: on October 6, 2011, the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill (sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith) called the Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011 (H.R. 313), which will serve to continue the administrative beating of the corpse known as Free Speech in America.

H.R. 313 would make it a Federal crime for U.S. citizens/residents to plan or even discuss activities on foreign soil that would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) if they were carried out inside the United States. Under this bill, it is irrelevant if the activity is actually legal in the country where it is going to be conducted. With H.R. 313, the operative law is the CSA in the United States; the unconstitutional and oppressive law that prohibits drug use and marijuana possession as well as regulates the use and possession of prescription medication.

According to H.R. 313, anyone who discusses, plans, or advises anyone else to engage in an activity prohibited by the CSA, regardless of national boundaries, will be subject to prosecution under Federal law as well as charges of conspiracy. Apparently, conspiracies only exist when they are committed by the citizenry – never the government colluding with corporations or drug cartels.

The conspiracy issue aside, however, there are some disturbing implications for American free speech in this bill. As Jay Van Liere writes for Reality Sandwich:

If passed, this bill could target any American attempting to attend an entheogenic shamanic retreat abroad, or say even just a group of people planning a marijuana bar-crawl in Amsterdam. Americans could face the threat of being convicted of a crime predicated merely upon speech alone. [Got free speech?] And it is worth stressing that the Judiciary Committee is vying for a felony charge (federal crime) here: no paltry misdemeanor, as three felonies alone can be used to lock someone up for a life sentence. 

More Anthrax Vaccine Contracts Issued: 44.75 Million Doses of BioThrax Over 5 Years

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

October 5, 2011

On September 22, 2011, I wrote an article entitled, Grants Issued For Next-Generation Anthrax Vaccine; False Flag to Come, Or More Wasted Money? in which I discussed the recent announcement that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was granting the Biomedical Advanced Research and Developmental Authority (BARDA) millions of dollars for the purpose of creating a “next-generation anthrax vaccine and a new type of antitoxin.” 

In this announcement, it was reported that BARDA would be contracting out the work in regards to these projects to two companies, Vaxin Inc. out of Rockville, Maryland and Elusys Therapeutics out of Pine Brook, New Jersey. 

I also discussed the concerns related to Anthrax vaccine/antitoxin production in relation to the potential signaling of a false flag attack. This perspective is related to the fact that the original and much-touted anthrax attacks of 2001 were not the result of fundamentalist Muslim terrorism but the direct result of US government involvement. 

It is important to understand, as addressed in the aforementioned article, the context in which the new vaccine production is being implemented. An example would be Barack Obama’s now famous Executive Order (EO) 13527 which directly relates to a “bioterrorist” attack and contains language that has led many to speculate as to whether it also relates to forced vaccination programs. Not only that, but it is also important to understand the role government has played in creating and exploiting just these types of situations. 

One should also be seriously concerned about the obvious adverse health effects created by the previously administered anthrax vaccines, particularly in American servicemen, and how they relate to the new vaccines being produced. 

I highly recommend that the reader go back to my previous article and read the information presented there for some brief background related to the concern of a potential false flag attack in regards to the recent announcement of contracts to produce new anthrax vaccines. 

The Myth of Vaccine Safety and Effectivenes

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post
October 2, 2011

In an article published on September 28, 2011 by Activist Post, Eileen Dannemann of Vaccine Liberation Army rips a hole in the long-standing claim by the vaccine and medical establishment that the mercury in vaccines is safe due to the specific compound being used.

At the forefront of the debate is the use of Thimerosal , a mercury-based preservative used in many different vaccines, particularly in flu shots. Thimerosal is made up of 49.6% mercury which is a known neurotoxin. In fact, the EPA has declared the toxicity limit of mercury to be as small an amount as .1 mcg. However, the annual flu shot contains as much as 25 mcg by virtue of the Thimerosal preservative. This is 250 times higher than the limit of toxicity set by the EPA. 

There is no logical ability to deny the fact that mercury is harmful to brain function and development, particularly on those who are developing. However, for some time, vaccine developers have argued that the specific compound of mercury (ethylmercury) being used in vaccines is much safer than the more well-known form of mercury (methylmercury) whose dangers are both documented and admitted by everyone.

Claims that ethylmercury and methylmercury are different, of course, are true.  Ethylmercury is an inorganic compound of mercury, while methylmercury is the organic compound. Contrary to what is usually the case, it is true that the organic form of mercury is initially the most dangerous at first contact. However, to imply that these compounds are so different so as negate the dangers of ethylmercury used in vaccines is both inaccurate and misleading.

In fact, the compounds are quite similar. For years during the 1970s both forms of the mercury compound were used as a fungicide until they were banned due to adverse health effects. So, obviously, these compounds are not so very different. 

However, vaccinators continue to harp on the claim that the ethylmercury compound is much safer than that of the methylmercury compound, even when injected directly into the human body. Yet, although this claim has been repeated ad nauseam, the science says something different.