e just forgot about it while the ruling elite quietly crafted this perfect weapon. We are all "Slobodan Guantanamo" now. I say that if we don't take out information to the general public now, our smoking gun evidence -- the only evidence capable of getting a conviction on establishment globalism for the 9-11 mass-murders and war provoking and profiteering will never emerge until revisionist historians get wind of it 100 years from now. The time to fight is now. Got any fight in you? --DE

------------------------------------ Racist and Xenophonic Content on the Internet - Problems and Solutions http://www.ijclp.org/7_2003/pdf/esposito-ijclp-artikel-15-01-03.pdf US cybercrime push 'imperils personal security' of Americans http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/34105.html Under the European Cybercrime Convention 911-related activism has been outlawed, as these activities are construed to constitute denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity and Americans along with Europeans can be extradited without problem since the American ratification of the treaty.

This legislation could have severe impact for anyone involved in 911 research and even anyone skeptical of the official line of events regarding September 11th and the war on terrorism : Racist and xenophobic motivated insult: Article 5 deals with the question of insulting publicly a person or a group of persons because they belong or are thought to belong to a group distinguished by specific characteristics. The notion of â?oinsultâ?� refers to any offensive, contemptuous or invective expression which prejudices the honour or the dignity of a person. It should be clear from the expression itself that the insult is directly connected with the in-sulted personâ?Ts belonging to the group. Unlike in the case of threat, an insult expressed in private communications is not covered by this provision.

Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity: In recent years, various cases have been dealt with by national courts where per-sons (in public, in the media, etc.) have expressed ideas or theories which aim at denying, grossly minimising, approving or justifying the serious crimes which occurred in particular during the second World War (in particular the Holocaust). The motivation for such behaviours is often presented with the pretext of scientific research, while they really aim at sup-porting and promoting the political motivation which gave rise to the Holocaust. Moreover, these behaviours have also inspired or, even, stimulated and encouraged, racist and xeno-phobic groups in their action, including through computer systems. The expression of such ideas insults (the memory of) those persons who have been victims of such evil, as well as their relatives.

Finally, it threatens the dignity of the human community. Article 6, which has a similar structure as Article 3, addresses this problem. The draft-ers agreed that it was important to criminalize expressions which deny, grossly minimise, approve or justify acts constituting genocide or crimes against humanity, as defined by inter-national law and recognised as such by final and binding decisions of the International Mili-tary Tribunal, established by the London Agreement of 8 April 1945. This owing to the fact that the most important and established conducts, which had given rise to genocide and crimes against humanity, occurred during the period 1940-1945.

However, the drafters rec-ognised that, since then, other cases of genocide and crimes against humanity occurred, which were strongly motivated by theories and ideas of a racist and xenophobic nature. Therefore, the drafters considered it necessary not to limit the scope of this provision only to the crimes committed by the Nazi regime during the 2nd World War and established as such by the Nuremberg Tribunal, but also to genocides and crimes against humanity established by other international courts set up since 1945 by relevant international legal instruments (such as UN Security Council Resolutions, multilateral treaties, etc.). Such courts may be, for instance, the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, for Rwanda, the Permanent International Criminal Court. This Article allows to refer to final and binding decisions of future international courts, to the extent that the jurisdiction of such a court is recognised by the Party signatory to this Protocol

. The provision is intended to make it clear that facts of which the historical correctness has been established may not be denied, grossly minimised, approved or justified in order to support these detestable theories and ideas.

Please forward...From Dick Eastman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------