Saturday, November 27, 2010

**JP** Fw: Victims Of CIA Drones Should Sue Obama, Bush, Panetta For Killing Thousands Of Innocent Pakistanis



--- On Sat, 11/27/10, PakNationalists Group <paknationalists@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Victims Of CIA And US Military Drones Should Sue Obama, Bush, Panetta For Killing Thousands Of Innocent Pakistanis

 

 

… The FBI should also be sued by Pakistanis for recruiting American David Headley and planting him in Pakistan to execute Mumbai attacks, killing 166 innocent people there and bringing Pakistan and India to war.

 

Victims Of CIA And US Military Drones Should Sue Obama, Bush, Panetta For Killing Thousands Of Innocent Pakistanis

 

DailyMailNews.com | Saturday | 27 November 2010

WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

 

 

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—According to US media reports, a US court in Brooklyn has issued summons to senior Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence officials, including its chief Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, as well as leaders of banned group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) Hafiz Saeed and Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi, in response to a lawsuit filed by relatives of two American victims accusing them of providing material support for the 26/11/2008 attacks in Mumbai, India.

 

The veracity of the said lawsuit needs to be verified but The Daily Mail thinks that there may be likelihood of the relatives of those slain as collateral damage in the US drone attacks within Pakistan territory may be now prompted to file lawsuits against the former US President George W. Bush who initially authorized the unlawful and inhuman drone attacks and the current US President Barrack Obama who has not only accelerated the drone attacks multifold but is seeking to expand them to include targets in Quetta and other areas in Balochistan, which will definitely result in a very high rate of collateral damage.

 

A very dangerous precedence has been set unwittingly and more summonses may be in the offing against Leon Panetta, the current head of CIA and his predecessor, Michael Hayden, in whose tenure the Drone attacks controlled and executed by the CIA commenced. If David Headley is to be brought into consideration, then the US Drugs Enforcement Agency (DEA) as well as CIA should be questioned or brought on trial by the survivors of the Mumbai attack. David Coleman Headley was on the payroll of the DEA and his frequent coming and going into Pakistan, India and other parts of the world were definitely in the notice of both DEA as well as CIA; moreover, two of his ex-wives have stated on affidavits that they had informed the intelligence agencies much before 26/11 regarding David Headley's alleged involvement in the plot. It is inconceivable that with such sensitive prior knowledge, no action was taken. Was it gross neglect or intentional omission? A lawsuit will determine the truth.

 

The 26-page lawsuit was filed before a New York court on November 19 against the ISI and LeT by the relatives of Rabbi Gavriel Noah Holtzberg and his wife Rivka, who were both gunned down by unknown militants at the Chhabad House in Mumbai.

 

Some US officials have said, on condition of anonymity, that it was a private complaint and does not have official backing of the US government.

 

The Pakistan Embassy officials refused to comment on it; however, insiders say that Pakistani officials were in touch with their US counterparts on this issue. It could not be confirmed whether the Pakistan Embassy received any such summons from any US court. The relatives of victims have alleged that the Mumbai terrorist attack was planned and carried out by members of the defendant, the LeT. Wherein, defendant ISI provided critical planning, material support, control and coordination of the attacks.

 

The current incumbent holding the office of Director General of ISI, Lieutenant General Pasha and his predecessor, Lieutenant General Nadeem Taj along with Majors Iqbal and Samir Ali have been named in the lawsuit and summoned to appear trial. The lawsuit also claims that prior to November 26, 2008, the defendants directed and engaged US-based individuals, including but not limited to David Headley and Tahawwur Rana, for raising funds, building a network of connections, recruiting participants and planning the operation of the Mumbai terror attack. The petitioners have also alleged that the LeT still operates training camps in Pakistan, Kashmir and Afghanistan and openly advocated violence against India, Israel and the United States. It names Muridke, Mansehra and Muzaffarabad as centres of training camps operated by the LeT. It also says that Pakistani American LeT operative David Headley, who has already pleaded guilty (while in US custody) for his role in the plotting of the attack, built a network of connections from Chicago to Pakistan, undertaking these efforts at the direction and with the material support of both LeT and the ISI.

 

© 2007-2010. All rights reserved. PakNationalists.com

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium

without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

 



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Re: Obama fascism continues DHS Starts Seizing Websites

Generally the servers are located far off our shores.  TPB - Sweden, the Demon - Russia etc.  I am something of a torrent pioneer (I remember when all files were rared because only smaller packets could be sent) and I must say Ernesto (Torrent Freak) is something of a hysterical fairy.
 
CW
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 01:23
Subject: Re: Obama fascism continues DHS Starts Seizing Websites

Agreed Bruce!
 
And to answer your question, I don't know that they ever did.  Notice that the Congress and ruling class of America are current exempt from the unreasonable searches by Johnnie Napolitano and crew....

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
I only perused Michael
 article

What I would like to know is how we know a website seized and shit down by DHS was seized for this reason?

Courts and legislators no longer seem to make decisions; bureaucrats do.

When did the Congress formulate or review any of Napolitano's current scanning and frisking procedures?


On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Bruce,
 
I had to go and look up BitTorrent....Actually, it's just a new, improved P2P  file sharing software mechanism, and looks to be pretty legit.   It's free, and has a multitude of uses, all for the good.
 
I do have mixed emotions regarding the use of such software however....There are many individuals and entities that  utilize the software for illicit purposes, and therein lies the problem. How do you stop folks from downloading copyrighted materials?  
 
When Napster first came out, (and actually, in lieu of Napster, I used a software program called, "WinMx" which I thought was better than Napster and a lot of the other P2P programs and sites, because those had malicious softtware, malware and adware configured within the programs)  I was guilty of downloading a number of copyrighted media;  predominately music from the 1970s and 1980s.  
 
Having said that, I don't do it anymore, and it is not the "deterrent" aspect of the huge lawsuits that ASCAP, BMI and others in the recording industry have brought forth,  but instead, utilizing the P2P software to download movies, music and other copyrighted intellectual property is literally stealing.   We are nothing less than a thief if we are downloading copyrighted songs, movies and media that is recently released, "For Sale"  products.   
 
Therein lies the conundrum.....I have no use for DHS, and I don't know why this particular government bureaucracy is involved in this, but again, there has to be some stewardship by some entity to cause the theft to stop!  
 
I'm all ears Bruce, how would you propose that this illicit activity of stealing music and movies be, "Policed"??
 


 
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

ME Dont know whqat to think
 about this ??
TxForce 
***********
 
 
Mike Flynn

Another Homeland Security Overreach:

 DHS Starts Seizing Websites

The always interesting Business Insider has this report:

The Department of Homeland Security's ICE has launched a major crackdown on websites enabling copyright infringement or selling counterfeits of trademarked goods. In just the past few days ICE has seized at least 12 domains, TorrentFreak reports.

All of these domains now display the image shown here.

Okay, so each of the domains seized is probably breaking the law. Knowingly violating someone's copyright is rightfully against the law. I don't know anything about these sites, but, for now, I'll assume they were selling knock-off goods as the real thing and not as some kind of faux Louis Vuitton. Still, this part of the article bothers me:

The owner of an affected site told TorrentFreak that his domain was taken over without any prior complaints or notification from the court.

So, the sites were seized before the site's owner heard any charges or had the chance to submit any counter evidence in court. The owners of the sites had their property seized without being allowed to defend themselves. I successfully avoided law school, so I don't know the exact legal term, but this strikes me as an overstep in their enforcement authority.

But, the article begs an even bigger question: What the hell do fake Guccis have to do with homeland security?

I can appreciate that trafficking in fake goods and music piracy inflict substantial economic harm on the branded companies and labels. But, I do appreciate also that this has nothing to do with protecting the country from foreign or domestic terrorists. We still have a Justice Department, right?

In fact, the article notes that Congress hasn't given this authority to the Attorney General:

A controversial bill that would allow the Attorney General to shut down domains on similar grounds was recently derailed (temporarily) by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.

The Attorney General is the chief enforcer of federal law and, accordingly, is responsible for enforcing federal copyright protections. And, he doesn't have the authority that Homeland Security is asserting for itself.

This goes to the heart of why I strongly opposed the creation of DHS when first proposed. Like its contemporaneous legislation, the Patriot Act, it wasn't so much the specifics of the proposal, but what it would eventually evolve into that bothered me.  Bureaucracies may seem to live in their own ecosystem, but they operate largely like any other business, i.e. they try to grow. Unfortunately for us, the way bureaucracies grow is to issue more regulations and assert ever more authority over parts of our life.

In the aftermath of 9-11, when the creation of DHS was being debated, would your opinion have been swayed if you knew that, within just a few years, the proposed agency would be seizing websites peddling fake purses? Did you imagine that the proposed agency would soon demand to take naked photographs of randomly-selected U.S. citizens? Or, insist on its authority to physically grope children?

Now, ask yourself this: What will the Agency be doing 10 years from now? Or, 20? In a little more than half a decade, DHS has morphed from protecting us from terrorists to protecting us from fake merchandise. Who is going to protect us from DHS

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
    .

    __,_._,___

    --
    Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
    For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
     
    * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
    * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
    * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

    --
    Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
    For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
     
    * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
    * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
    * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

    --
    Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
    For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
     
    * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
    * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
    * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

    --
    Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
    For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
     
    * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
    * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
    * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

    Re: Obama fascism continues DHS Starts Seizing Websites

    This torrent site was operating in the United States?
     
    CW
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 01:23
    Subject: Re: Obama fascism continues DHS Starts Seizing Websites

    Agreed Bruce!
     
    And to answer your question, I don't know that they ever did.  Notice that the Congress and ruling class of America are current exempt from the unreasonable searches by Johnnie Napolitano and crew....

    On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
    I only perused Michael
     article

    What I would like to know is how we know a website seized and shit down by DHS was seized for this reason?

    Courts and legislators no longer seem to make decisions; bureaucrats do.

    When did the Congress formulate or review any of Napolitano's current scanning and frisking procedures?


    On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
    Hey Bruce,
     
    I had to go and look up BitTorrent....Actually, it's just a new, improved P2P  file sharing software mechanism, and looks to be pretty legit.   It's free, and has a multitude of uses, all for the good.
     
    I do have mixed emotions regarding the use of such software however....There are many individuals and entities that  utilize the software for illicit purposes, and therein lies the problem. How do you stop folks from downloading copyrighted materials?  
     
    When Napster first came out, (and actually, in lieu of Napster, I used a software program called, "WinMx" which I thought was better than Napster and a lot of the other P2P programs and sites, because those had malicious softtware, malware and adware configured within the programs)  I was guilty of downloading a number of copyrighted media;  predominately music from the 1970s and 1980s.  
     
    Having said that, I don't do it anymore, and it is not the "deterrent" aspect of the huge lawsuits that ASCAP, BMI and others in the recording industry have brought forth,  but instead, utilizing the P2P software to download movies, music and other copyrighted intellectual property is literally stealing.   We are nothing less than a thief if we are downloading copyrighted songs, movies and media that is recently released, "For Sale"  products.   
     
    Therein lies the conundrum.....I have no use for DHS, and I don't know why this particular government bureaucracy is involved in this, but again, there has to be some stewardship by some entity to cause the theft to stop!  
     
    I'm all ears Bruce, how would you propose that this illicit activity of stealing music and movies be, "Policed"??
     


     
    On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

    ME Dont know whqat to think
     about this ??
    TxForce 
    ***********
     
     
    Mike Flynn

    Another Homeland Security Overreach:

     DHS Starts Seizing Websites

    The always interesting Business Insider has this report:

    The Department of Homeland Security's ICE has launched a major crackdown on websites enabling copyright infringement or selling counterfeits of trademarked goods. In just the past few days ICE has seized at least 12 domains, TorrentFreak reports.

    All of these domains now display the image shown here.

    Okay, so each of the domains seized is probably breaking the law. Knowingly violating someone's copyright is rightfully against the law. I don't know anything about these sites, but, for now, I'll assume they were selling knock-off goods as the real thing and not as some kind of faux Louis Vuitton. Still, this part of the article bothers me:

    The owner of an affected site told TorrentFreak that his domain was taken over without any prior complaints or notification from the court.

    So, the sites were seized before the site's owner heard any charges or had the chance to submit any counter evidence in court. The owners of the sites had their property seized without being allowed to defend themselves. I successfully avoided law school, so I don't know the exact legal term, but this strikes me as an overstep in their enforcement authority.

    But, the article begs an even bigger question: What the hell do fake Guccis have to do with homeland security?

    I can appreciate that trafficking in fake goods and music piracy inflict substantial economic harm on the branded companies and labels. But, I do appreciate also that this has nothing to do with protecting the country from foreign or domestic terrorists. We still have a Justice Department, right?

    In fact, the article notes that Congress hasn't given this authority to the Attorney General:

    A controversial bill that would allow the Attorney General to shut down domains on similar grounds was recently derailed (temporarily) by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.

    The Attorney General is the chief enforcer of federal law and, accordingly, is responsible for enforcing federal copyright protections. And, he doesn't have the authority that Homeland Security is asserting for itself.

    This goes to the heart of why I strongly opposed the creation of DHS when first proposed. Like its contemporaneous legislation, the Patriot Act, it wasn't so much the specifics of the proposal, but what it would eventually evolve into that bothered me.  Bureaucracies may seem to live in their own ecosystem, but they operate largely like any other business, i.e. they try to grow. Unfortunately for us, the way bureaucracies grow is to issue more regulations and assert ever more authority over parts of our life.

    In the aftermath of 9-11, when the creation of DHS was being debated, would your opinion have been swayed if you knew that, within just a few years, the proposed agency would be seizing websites peddling fake purses? Did you imagine that the proposed agency would soon demand to take naked photographs of randomly-selected U.S. citizens? Or, insist on its authority to physically grope children?

    Now, ask yourself this: What will the Agency be doing 10 years from now? Or, 20? In a little more than half a decade, DHS has morphed from protecting us from terrorists to protecting us from fake merchandise. Who is going to protect us from DHS

    __._,_.___
    Recent Activity:
      .

      __,_._,___

      --
      Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
      For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
       
      * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
      * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
      * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

      --
      Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
      For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
       
      * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
      * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
      * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

      --
      Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
      For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
       
      * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
      * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
      * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

      --
      Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
      For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
       
      * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
      * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
      * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

      Re: Obama fascism continues DHS Starts Seizing Websites

      Agreed Bruce!
       
      And to answer your question, I don't know that they ever did.  Notice that the Congress and ruling class of America are current exempt from the unreasonable searches by Johnnie Napolitano and crew....

      On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
      I only perused Michael
       article

      What I would like to know is how we know a website seized and shit down by DHS was seized for this reason?

      Courts and legislators no longer seem to make decisions; bureaucrats do.

      When did the Congress formulate or review any of Napolitano's current scanning and frisking procedures?


      On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
      Hey Bruce,
       
      I had to go and look up BitTorrent....Actually, it's just a new, improved P2P  file sharing software mechanism, and looks to be pretty legit.   It's free, and has a multitude of uses, all for the good.
       
      I do have mixed emotions regarding the use of such software however....There are many individuals and entities that  utilize the software for illicit purposes, and therein lies the problem. How do you stop folks from downloading copyrighted materials?  
       
      When Napster first came out, (and actually, in lieu of Napster, I used a software program called, "WinMx" which I thought was better than Napster and a lot of the other P2P programs and sites, because those had malicious softtware, malware and adware configured within the programs)  I was guilty of downloading a number of copyrighted media;  predominately music from the 1970s and 1980s.  
       
      Having said that, I don't do it anymore, and it is not the "deterrent" aspect of the huge lawsuits that ASCAP, BMI and others in the recording industry have brought forth,  but instead, utilizing the P2P software to download movies, music and other copyrighted intellectual property is literally stealing.   We are nothing less than a thief if we are downloading copyrighted songs, movies and media that is recently released, "For Sale"  products.   
       
      Therein lies the conundrum.....I have no use for DHS, and I don't know why this particular government bureaucracy is involved in this, but again, there has to be some stewardship by some entity to cause the theft to stop!  
       
      I'm all ears Bruce, how would you propose that this illicit activity of stealing music and movies be, "Policed"??
       


       
      On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

      ME Dont know whqat to think
       about this ??
      TxForce 
      ***********
       
       
      Mike Flynn

      Another Homeland Security Overreach:

       DHS Starts Seizing Websites

      The always interesting Business Insider has this report:

      The Department of Homeland Security's ICE has launched a major crackdown on websites enabling copyright infringement or selling counterfeits of trademarked goods. In just the past few days ICE has seized at least 12 domains, TorrentFreak reports.

      All of these domains now display the image shown here.

      Okay, so each of the domains seized is probably breaking the law. Knowingly violating someone's copyright is rightfully against the law. I don't know anything about these sites, but, for now, I'll assume they were selling knock-off goods as the real thing and not as some kind of faux Louis Vuitton. Still, this part of the article bothers me:

      The owner of an affected site told TorrentFreak that his domain was taken over without any prior complaints or notification from the court.

      So, the sites were seized before the site's owner heard any charges or had the chance to submit any counter evidence in court. The owners of the sites had their property seized without being allowed to defend themselves. I successfully avoided law school, so I don't know the exact legal term, but this strikes me as an overstep in their enforcement authority.

      But, the article begs an even bigger question: What the hell do fake Guccis have to do with homeland security?

      I can appreciate that trafficking in fake goods and music piracy inflict substantial economic harm on the branded companies and labels. But, I do appreciate also that this has nothing to do with protecting the country from foreign or domestic terrorists. We still have a Justice Department, right?

      In fact, the article notes that Congress hasn't given this authority to the Attorney General:

      A controversial bill that would allow the Attorney General to shut down domains on similar grounds was recently derailed (temporarily) by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.

      The Attorney General is the chief enforcer of federal law and, accordingly, is responsible for enforcing federal copyright protections. And, he doesn't have the authority that Homeland Security is asserting for itself.

      This goes to the heart of why I strongly opposed the creation of DHS when first proposed. Like its contemporaneous legislation, the Patriot Act, it wasn't so much the specifics of the proposal, but what it would eventually evolve into that bothered me.  Bureaucracies may seem to live in their own ecosystem, but they operate largely like any other business, i.e. they try to grow. Unfortunately for us, the way bureaucracies grow is to issue more regulations and assert ever more authority over parts of our life.

      In the aftermath of 9-11, when the creation of DHS was being debated, would your opinion have been swayed if you knew that, within just a few years, the proposed agency would be seizing websites peddling fake purses? Did you imagine that the proposed agency would soon demand to take naked photographs of randomly-selected U.S. citizens? Or, insist on its authority to physically grope children?

      Now, ask yourself this: What will the Agency be doing 10 years from now? Or, 20? In a little more than half a decade, DHS has morphed from protecting us from terrorists to protecting us from fake merchandise. Who is going to protect us from DHS

      __._,_.___
      Recent Activity:
        .

        __,_._,___

        --
        Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
        For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
         
        * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
        * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
        * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

        --
        Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
        For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
         
        * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
        * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
        * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

        --
        Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
        For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
         
        * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
        * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
        * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

        --
        Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
        For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
         
        * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
        * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
        * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

        **JP** Ager Haya na rahay Lumha-e-Fikria


         


        --
        You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
        Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
        You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
        To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
        For more options, visit this group at
        http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
        You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
        on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

        **JP** Re: DID THEY DONE THE RIGHT THING

        Dear Muhammad Sharif,
         
        With deep regret to say sorry and this is totally wrong behaviour of Imran Khan hospital, and I thank full to you that you use my group to raise your voice and I appreciate it.  Therefore I have uploaded your this message to my blog at http://joinpakistan.blogspot.com/2010/11/did-they-done-right-thing.html and at my facebook page at : http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197 and at Awam ki Awaz forum at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197#!/pages/Awam-Ki-Awaz/161093047245228
         
        We all should do something for our Pakistan. 
         
        For your kind info, you should search for this illness clinical trial, in this trial UK, Amercia and other countries provide clinical trial and treat patient specially in this regards.
         
        You should use Sura Fatiha, Sura Rehman and Sura Al-shifa at water or honey or zetoon oil and give the patient, Allah will do something better.  We all pray for your brother good and sound health.
         
        Thanks & best regards / Admin - joinPakistan
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 4:56 AM
        Subject: DID THEY DONE THE RIGHT THING

        MY BROTHER IN LAW DIGONICES MAHLOMA HE IS 69 YEARS OLD WE TOOK HIM TO SUKATH KHANUM HOSPITAL AFTER EXMINATION THEY REFUSED TO NOT ONLY TO ADMIT HIM BUT ALSO NOT READY TO GIVE TREATMENT  WE WERE NOT ASKING FOR FREE TREATMENT .
        THEY DONOT ACCEPT THE PATIENT ABOVE 60
        THEY DONOT ACCEPT THE PATIENT IF IT IS 3RD STAGE OF CANCER
        THEY PREFER YOUNG PATIENT
                  MY QUESTION IF THEY ARE GOD TO KNOW WHO WILL SURVIVE OR WHO WILL DIE.I THINK EVEN IF Y CAN SAVE A DOG/FISH/ANY ANIMAL ONE SHOULD TRY TO SAVE THE LIFE
        NOW MY BROTHER IS HAVING HIS TREATMENT IN KARACHI AND DOCTOR ARE HOPEFULL AS THIS TYPE OF CANCER IS CUREABLE .
        PLS PREY FOR HIM.AND SOME BODY SHOULD TOLD IMRAN KHAN TO RE CONSIDER OF HIS POLICY
        SHARIF

        Re: Check Out: "18 Former ACORN Workers Have Been Convicted or Admitted Guilt in Election Fraud"

        Do you think we can trust the DOJ to handle this one right?  I surely don't, at least not while Holder and Obama are in office.

        On 11/27/2010 09:44 AM, Keith In Tampa wrote:

        Supreme Court

        18 Former ACORN Workers Have Been Convicted or Admitted Guilt in Election Fraud

        Published November 26, 2010

        | FoxNews.com
         

        AP

        An investigator enters the ACORN office in Las Vegas, Oct. 7, 2008.

        The scandal-plagued ACORN may no longer exist, but its tarnished legacy lives on in court, as the activist group and its former employees face criminal punishment.


        So far this year, at least 18 former workers have admitted guilt or been convicted on varying charges of election fraud. The punishment has ranged from probation to several months of prison time.


        ACORN, once a powerful advocate for low-income and minority voters, shuttered its operations amid plummeting revenues in March, six months after conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute caught on video some of the group's employees offering them tax advice.


        But the group is still facing charges in Nevada on conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters.The trial, originally scheduled to begin Monday, has been postponed likely until next year.


        Former workers across the country already are being punished for their criminal activities.


        In Miami, seven former ACORN voter registration canvassers were convicted of "false swearing-in an election," and sentenced to probation and community service and banned from participating in future political campaigns, according to court documents.


        In Pennsylvania, six of seven former ACORN workers who were charged in an investigation were convicted of unsworn falsification and interference with election officials. Four have reached a plea agreement on reduced charges and will serve two years of probation. Cases against two others who entered pleas to reduced charges are pending.


        Charges against the seventh, Eric Jordan, are not being prosecuted because Jordan has pleaded guilty to much more serious charges, including aggravated assault, resisting arrest and carrying firearms without a license.


        In Milwaukee, three former ACORN workers have been convicted of election fraud.


        Last week, Kevin Clancy was sentenced to 10 months in prison for his role in submitting falsified voter registration forms before the 2008 election. Clancy will start his sentence once he finishes another sentence he is currently serving for armed robbery.


        Clancy's co-worker, Maria Miles, who pleaded guilty to election fraud in August, will be sentenced on Dec. 6.


        In September, Frank Walton pleaded guilty to submitting 54 fake voter registrations during the 2008 presidential campaign. He faces up to 42 months in prison and a $10,000 fine when he's sentenced Dec. 6.


        In Washington state, Kendra Lynn Thill was convicted in March of voter registration fraud in the 2006 midterm election. In Nevada, a former ACORN supervisor pleaded the equivalent of a no-contest in a case alleging that canvassers were illegally paid to register voters during the 2008 campaign. But while Amy Busefink's plea acknowledges the state had evidence for a conviction at trial, her lawyer said she still plans to challenge the constitutionality of the state law prohibiting paying canvassers based on the number of voter registration forms they turn in.


        Re: Obama fascism continues DHS Starts Seizing Websites

        I only perused Michael
         article

        What I would like to know is how we know a website seized and shit down by DHS was seized for this reason?

        Courts and legislators no longer seem to make decisions; bureaucrats do.

        When did the Congress formulate or review any of Napolitano's current scanning and frisking procedures?

        On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
        Hey Bruce,
         
        I had to go and look up BitTorrent....Actually, it's just a new, improved P2P  file sharing software mechanism, and looks to be pretty legit.   It's free, and has a multitude of uses, all for the good.
         
        I do have mixed emotions regarding the use of such software however....There are many individuals and entities that  utilize the software for illicit purposes, and therein lies the problem. How do you stop folks from downloading copyrighted materials?  
         
        When Napster first came out, (and actually, in lieu of Napster, I used a software program called, "WinMx" which I thought was better than Napster and a lot of the other P2P programs and sites, because those had malicious softtware, malware and adware configured within the programs)  I was guilty of downloading a number of copyrighted media;  predominately music from the 1970s and 1980s.  
         
        Having said that, I don't do it anymore, and it is not the "deterrent" aspect of the huge lawsuits that ASCAP, BMI and others in the recording industry have brought forth,  but instead, utilizing the P2P software to download movies, music and other copyrighted intellectual property is literally stealing.   We are nothing less than a thief if we are downloading copyrighted songs, movies and media that is recently released, "For Sale"  products.   
         
        Therein lies the conundrum.....I have no use for DHS, and I don't know why this particular government bureaucracy is involved in this, but again, there has to be some stewardship by some entity to cause the theft to stop!  
         
        I'm all ears Bruce, how would you propose that this illicit activity of stealing music and movies be, "Policed"??
         


         
        On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

        ME Dont know whqat to think
         about this ??
        TxForce 
        ***********
         
         
        Mike Flynn

        Another Homeland Security Overreach:

         DHS Starts Seizing Websites

        The always interesting Business Insider has this report:

        The Department of Homeland Security's ICE has launched a major crackdown on websites enabling copyright infringement or selling counterfeits of trademarked goods. In just the past few days ICE has seized at least 12 domains, TorrentFreak reports.

        All of these domains now display the image shown here.

        Okay, so each of the domains seized is probably breaking the law. Knowingly violating someone's copyright is rightfully against the law. I don't know anything about these sites, but, for now, I'll assume they were selling knock-off goods as the real thing and not as some kind of faux Louis Vuitton. Still, this part of the article bothers me:

        The owner of an affected site told TorrentFreak that his domain was taken over without any prior complaints or notification from the court.

        So, the sites were seized before the site's owner heard any charges or had the chance to submit any counter evidence in court. The owners of the sites had their property seized without being allowed to defend themselves. I successfully avoided law school, so I don't know the exact legal term, but this strikes me as an overstep in their enforcement authority.

        But, the article begs an even bigger question: What the hell do fake Guccis have to do with homeland security?

        I can appreciate that trafficking in fake goods and music piracy inflict substantial economic harm on the branded companies and labels. But, I do appreciate also that this has nothing to do with protecting the country from foreign or domestic terrorists. We still have a Justice Department, right?

        In fact, the article notes that Congress hasn't given this authority to the Attorney General:

        A controversial bill that would allow the Attorney General to shut down domains on similar grounds was recently derailed (temporarily) by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.

        The Attorney General is the chief enforcer of federal law and, accordingly, is responsible for enforcing federal copyright protections. And, he doesn't have the authority that Homeland Security is asserting for itself.

        This goes to the heart of why I strongly opposed the creation of DHS when first proposed. Like its contemporaneous legislation, the Patriot Act, it wasn't so much the specifics of the proposal, but what it would eventually evolve into that bothered me.  Bureaucracies may seem to live in their own ecosystem, but they operate largely like any other business, i.e. they try to grow. Unfortunately for us, the way bureaucracies grow is to issue more regulations and assert ever more authority over parts of our life.

        In the aftermath of 9-11, when the creation of DHS was being debated, would your opinion have been swayed if you knew that, within just a few years, the proposed agency would be seizing websites peddling fake purses? Did you imagine that the proposed agency would soon demand to take naked photographs of randomly-selected U.S. citizens? Or, insist on its authority to physically grope children?

        Now, ask yourself this: What will the Agency be doing 10 years from now? Or, 20? In a little more than half a decade, DHS has morphed from protecting us from terrorists to protecting us from fake merchandise. Who is going to protect us from DHS

        __._,_.___
        Recent Activity:
          .

          __,_._,___

          --
          Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
          For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
           
          * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
          * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
          * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

          --
          Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
          For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
           
          * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
          * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
          * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

          --
          Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
          For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
           
          * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
          * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
          * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

          Re: Obama fascism continues DHS Starts Seizing Websites

          Hey Bruce,
           
          I had to go and look up BitTorrent....Actually, it's just a new, improved P2P  file sharing software mechanism, and looks to be pretty legit.   It's free, and has a multitude of uses, all for the good.
           
          I do have mixed emotions regarding the use of such software however....There are many individuals and entities that  utilize the software for illicit purposes, and therein lies the problem. How do you stop folks from downloading copyrighted materials?  
           
          When Napster first came out, (and actually, in lieu of Napster, I used a software program called, "WinMx" which I thought was better than Napster and a lot of the other P2P programs and sites, because those had malicious softtware, malware and adware configured within the programs)  I was guilty of downloading a number of copyrighted media;  predominately music from the 1970s and 1980s.  
           
          Having said that, I don't do it anymore, and it is not the "deterrent" aspect of the huge lawsuits that ASCAP, BMI and others in the recording industry have brought forth,  but instead, utilizing the P2P software to download movies, music and other copyrighted intellectual property is literally stealing.   We are nothing less than a thief if we are downloading copyrighted songs, movies and media that is recently released, "For Sale"  products.   
           
          Therein lies the conundrum.....I have no use for DHS, and I don't know why this particular government bureaucracy is involved in this, but again, there has to be some stewardship by some entity to cause the theft to stop!  
           
          I'm all ears Bruce, how would you propose that this illicit activity of stealing music and movies be, "Policed"??
           


           
          On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

          ME Dont know whqat to think
           about this ??
          TxForce 
          ***********
           
           
          Mike Flynn

          Another Homeland Security Overreach:

           DHS Starts Seizing Websites

          The always interesting Business Insider has this report:

          The Department of Homeland Security's ICE has launched a major crackdown on websites enabling copyright infringement or selling counterfeits of trademarked goods. In just the past few days ICE has seized at least 12 domains, TorrentFreak reports.

          All of these domains now display the image shown here.

          Okay, so each of the domains seized is probably breaking the law. Knowingly violating someone's copyright is rightfully against the law. I don't know anything about these sites, but, for now, I'll assume they were selling knock-off goods as the real thing and not as some kind of faux Louis Vuitton. Still, this part of the article bothers me:

          The owner of an affected site told TorrentFreak that his domain was taken over without any prior complaints or notification from the court.

          So, the sites were seized before the site's owner heard any charges or had the chance to submit any counter evidence in court. The owners of the sites had their property seized without being allowed to defend themselves. I successfully avoided law school, so I don't know the exact legal term, but this strikes me as an overstep in their enforcement authority.

          But, the article begs an even bigger question: What the hell do fake Guccis have to do with homeland security?

          I can appreciate that trafficking in fake goods and music piracy inflict substantial economic harm on the branded companies and labels. But, I do appreciate also that this has nothing to do with protecting the country from foreign or domestic terrorists. We still have a Justice Department, right?

          In fact, the article notes that Congress hasn't given this authority to the Attorney General:

          A controversial bill that would allow the Attorney General to shut down domains on similar grounds was recently derailed (temporarily) by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.

          The Attorney General is the chief enforcer of federal law and, accordingly, is responsible for enforcing federal copyright protections. And, he doesn't have the authority that Homeland Security is asserting for itself.

          This goes to the heart of why I strongly opposed the creation of DHS when first proposed. Like its contemporaneous legislation, the Patriot Act, it wasn't so much the specifics of the proposal, but what it would eventually evolve into that bothered me.  Bureaucracies may seem to live in their own ecosystem, but they operate largely like any other business, i.e. they try to grow. Unfortunately for us, the way bureaucracies grow is to issue more regulations and assert ever more authority over parts of our life.

          In the aftermath of 9-11, when the creation of DHS was being debated, would your opinion have been swayed if you knew that, within just a few years, the proposed agency would be seizing websites peddling fake purses? Did you imagine that the proposed agency would soon demand to take naked photographs of randomly-selected U.S. citizens? Or, insist on its authority to physically grope children?

          Now, ask yourself this: What will the Agency be doing 10 years from now? Or, 20? In a little more than half a decade, DHS has morphed from protecting us from terrorists to protecting us from fake merchandise. Who is going to protect us from DHS

          __._,_.___
          Recent Activity:
            .

            __,_._,___

            --
            Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
            For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
             
            * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
            * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
            * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

            --
            Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
            For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
             
            * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
            * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
            * Read the latest breaking news, and more.