On November 17, an incident took place aboard AirTran Flight 297 scheduled to fly from Atlanta Hartsfield Airport to Houston that the media does not want to cover and everyone from the airline to the TSA and other government agencies want to keep very quiet. The reasons, I have been told, is fear of predatory lawsuits, negative publicity from accusations of religious profiling, and the obligatory subjugation to mindless mandatory Muslim sensitivity training that make a mockery of our American system of values. Interestingly, one airline official told me “we don’t want to become another flight 300,” which is a reference to a very similar scenario that took place aboard US Airways
Flight 300 exactly three years ago.
I was first contacted about this incident two days after it happened by a passenger who was aboard AirTran Flight 297. Based on the allegations made by this passenger, we conducted additional research, interviews and investigation, all of which takes time to insure accuracy, and are now able to release our report of the incident that took place aboard that aircraft. Be prepared to be shocked, angered, and perhaps saddened by our national and corporate acquiescence to mafia-type tactics by Islamists who are engaged in a full frontal assault, and laughing about it.
| Written by Michael Benjamin |
|
They are cutting their own throats over in Britain.
|
In the first case to be heard by the newly established Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, two of the nation's most effective counter-terrorist financing policies were unanimously struck down. In an 89-page opinion issued Wednesday, the court was especially critical of the laws describing them as "oppressive," and "draconian."
As we previously reported, at issue in the case, A v. Her Majesty's Treasury was the Terrorism Order of 2006 and the Al Qaida and Taliban Order of 2006, two statutes which evolved from UN Security Council resolutions requiring member states to freeze the assets of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and their ilk. Rather than ask Parliament to pass laws to comply with the resolutions, the Crown in the UK implemented the laws unilaterally.
The petitioners in the case, six individuals whose assets were frozen because of their connections to al Qaida, challenged the law arguing that it was passed without consulting Parliament and deprived them of their property without due process of law. In issuing its opinion, the Court agreed, explaining that "access to a court to protect one's rights is the foundation of the rule of law."
