Martin Luther King assassinated by US government: MLK civil trial decision

because everyone is too lazy to want to help he fellow man they just shoot anyone who tried to stand up and change that part of our culture

and the sad thing wit X is that he came back from mecca wit peacful views, a stark difference from telling his followers to kill a white man for every black man lynched. His faith in the islam brought him to peace

Right, the gov could no longer sell him as a racist radical. His views were become more of a call for wealth distribution rather than segregation.

Here's a snippet from the book Black Liberation and Socialism. An interesting read if you have the time.
http://socialistworker.org/2006-1/576/576_06_BlackLiberation.shtml

actually how long are we to wonder and ponder these un-know-ables without suspicion creeping in it seems a nefarious planned murder govt. or not ...Your generation dropped the ball on these assassinations and our country has been in moral and economic decline ever since time for some good old suspicion and judgment .... perhaps the time is right! MLK a hero and inspiration murdered to soon!

I think you just got called "old",....dude !

heh. Join the club.

youngin' !

if thats not the way you really spell that,....well, you forget shit when you get old.

Again with the propaganda, unimatrix?

Judgement is suspended until proof is given, either in a courtroom or elsewhere. A United States courtroom has decided it is so and the CIA was involved. If I were in court the decision would be enough for anyone to pass judgement. Why then would this not be so if the government is on trial?

You ignore the facts of the court case and the article and return with propaganda techniques of denial, distraction and conspiracy name calling. Have you no shame?

a civil case does not determine criminal guilt - or did your daddy not teach you that?

My Daddy taught me one thing. Justice for all. Maybe it was a Civil Case, well so was O.J. Simpson. But he is still guilty. Mr. J. Edgar Hoover was always following MLK, but maybe you don't know the true history of MLK. Douchbag!

Yes, my daddy taught me that the standards of proof are higher in a criminal case than in a civil one, since the state does not wish to risk punishing an innocent person. In English law the prosecution must prove the guilt of a criminal “beyond reasonable doubt”; but the plaintiff in a civil action is required to prove his case “on the balance of probabilities”. Thus, in a criminal case a crime cannot be proven if the person or persons judging it doubt the guilt of the suspect and have a reason (not just a feeling or intuition) for this doubt. But in a civil case, the court will weigh all the evidence and decide what is most probable.

Meaning, this case decided it was most likely, most probably a conspiracy of the US government and the CIA. NOT a 'conspiracy theory' but most likely the truth.

Probabilities are real Science...

Or did your handlers not teach you that, Unimatrix?

Suspicion is good.

But to to go beyond suspicion and claim truth one way or another requires facts and proof not in evidence. It is easy to rant and satisfy your conspiracy theory lust to judge, but the more prudent, rational course of action is to remain agnostic until convincing evidence is presented one war or another.

And that is why nobody has known for sure....until now. Did you miss the part that this was proven in a courtroom?

Your deep and unrelenting skepticism of everything is going to leave you out on a huge limb someday.

I get voted down all the time for not engaging in the whole black helicopters, cia boogy men, 9-11 was an inside job paranoia culture here. They want to believe it ang there is no amount of reasoning with them that will pursuade them differently...oh yeah I forgot about the secret U.N army that is hidden in underground caverns just waiting for the orders to "take over" from the NWO..oh and don't forget the fema death camps...sheesh!

That's because it's stupid to dismiss all conspiracies without researching them first.

Actually Jubal, my skepticism leaves me on solid ground, it is those who are willing to be seduced by conspiracy theories that are out on a limb.
But I do appreciate your concern.

I don't give a shit about being voted down or up. I speak my truth and let the chips fall where they may.

The fact that you are willing and able to stand up to conspiracy theory wing nuts is a good thing, and a sign of intellectual health and vitality.

giggle....chuckle

You might be willing but able?

You call names, deny and distract. You rarely post any links or scholarly works to back your opinion and when you do they are from government sponsored websites or blogs from people with no credibility or CIA front sites.

Yes willing, but I would hardly say you're able. You're grasping now.

Here is an example of what I am talking about...someone tells you that the water you are drinking is poisoned because they saw several people in your neighborhood or village die from drinking the water...but your skepticism is that the person telling you the information is not an "Expert Witness" qualified to make such a determination...so you go ahead and drink the water. Suddenly you become ill and you think to yourself "Damn I should have listened to my neighbor who was warning me about this"....you find yourself out on a limb.

Do you ever trust your intuition or your gut for anything?

I trust my intuition and gut all the time, in fact my intuition tells me that blaming the assassination on the CIA is simply a conspiracy theorists wet dream.

As for my flesh and blood neighbors, I would take such advice quite seriously, but not from some anonymous conspiracy theory enthusiast on line.

But I do appreciate your concern, so far I am doing quite well, and I wish the same for you.

If you think the source to this story is objective or reliable you are simply a nut. Have you looked at the author's other rants?

You and your brother (unless you are the same person) have been seduced by conspiracy theory non-sense, and you both have my sympathy.

I care about you, too, and by no means do I wish you any harm. Also please forgive me for chiding you.

I guess we have a different gut feeling about this, because I am inclined to believe that an organization as secret and corrupt as the CIA is behind a lot of things that people have serious doubts about....like who killed King or the Kennedys.

Just look at the recent apology that Obama had to make to Guatemala several months ago because the truth was finally revealed how the US government using the CIA intentionally infected people in their country with STD's back decades ago...I think it was in the 50's or 60's. Maybe that was due to a Wikileaks release...I can't remember.

Also don't forget about the burgeoning TOP SECRET MULTI BILLION dollar Homeland Security industry that is featured on the Washington Post website. So much secrecy leaves plenty of room for conspiracies of all kinds.

In this case a United States courtroom has decided that your gut is wrong. It is better to rely on facts, documentation and eyewitnesses than gut. I now understand your lack of understanding of many informative posts.

My brother and I are very open about our identity and post articles written by both of us on this and many other sites. To be honest, there are also three other family members on this site.

If you are as informed as you claim, you will grant that there is still doubt in this matter. I am not saying the CIA is definitely innocent, I grant the possibly that they were involved. I only assert that there is nothing conclusive, including this civil case.

If you bother to research the matter, you will find my position is fairly mainstream, and most objective observers are on the fence as to the CIA's involvement in the assassination.

However, from what I have read, you seem blinded by your conspiracy theory/anti-CIA zeal, and unable to achieve any objectivity.

I hope I am wrong.

Wow, you used Assertion, Bandwagon, Generalities and Name-Calling in on post. That's four propaganda techniques in one post. Two of them in one sentence.

"you will find my position is fairly mainstream, and most objective observers are on the fence as to the CIA's involvement"

It's mainstream, you say, so I should jump on the bandwagon. "Most objective observers"? Like who? Who decides who's objective? Who are these "most objective observers"? Assertion? Generalities? Bandwagon? Propaganda? Disinformation agent?

The CIA is “out of control” and often refuses to cooperate with other parts of the national security community, even undermining their efforts, said former National Security Agency head William Odom, according to a recently released record of a 9/11 Commission interview.

“The CIA currently doesn’t work for anyone. It thinks it works for the president, but it doesn’t and it’s out of control,” says a report summarizing remarks made by Odom, a retired three-star general who served as director of the NSA from 1985 to 1988.

Odom, who also served on the National Security Council staff during the Carter administration, was known as an outspoken advocate for intelligence reform. He died in 2008.

The 2003 interview, among others conducted by the 9/11 Commission, was posted on the website Cryptome, which is often compared to the secret-spilling WikiLeaks website. The report was not a leak, however, but one of many records relating to the 9/11 Commission that have been released and made available on the National Archives website.

CIA, FBI, DEA,War Dept.,etc...etc...(and for kenny perhaps aliens!)

Too funny!

One and the same, nobody stands in the way of the military industrial complex that is our government! Further examination of how the Elite control our government and politics is right in our faces! It's not hard to imagine that even our latest political assassination attempt in Arizona a state that used to be hard Republican and now has become a swing state, that there was indeed something nefarious going on there as well.

lol

There is no doubt

I wish I knew where the power is being wielded from. Puppet masters are so hard to pin down. If I didn't know any better I would say the last Vice- president is still holding the reins.

Or when the guilty ones are all dead and untouchable for their crimes.

Exactly, Jan.

So true.

Very, very wrong. More things are conspiracies than we tend to 'name' that.

A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Conspiracy is governed by statute in federal courts and most state courts. Before its Codification in state and federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was simply an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intent to carry out the act. Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of the agreement.

Conspiracy is a crime separate from the criminal act for which it is developed. For example, one who conspires with another to commit Burglary and in fact commits the burglary can be charged with both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary.

Conspiracy is an inchoate, or preparatory, crime. It is similar to solicitation in that both crimes are committed by manifesting an intent to engage in a criminal act. It differs from solicitation in that conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons, whereas solicitation can be committed by one person alone.

Conspiracy also resembles attempt. However, attempt, like solicitation, can be committed by a single person. On another level, conspiracy requires less than attempt. A conspiracy may exist before a crime is actually attempted, whereas no attempt charge will succeed unless the requisite attempt is made.

The law seeks to punish conspiracy as a substantive crime separate from the intended crime because when two or more persons agree to commit a crime, the potential for criminal activity increases, and as a result, the danger to the public increases. Therefore, the very act of an agreement with criminal intent (along with an overt act, where required) is considered sufficiently dangerous to warrant charging conspiracy as an offense separate from the intended crime.

From Wikipedia:

Michael Parenti, in his 1996 essay which examines the role of progressive media in the use of the term, "The JFK Assassination II: Conspiracy Phobia On The Left", states,

"It is an either-or world for those on the Left who harbor an aversion for any kind of conspiracy investigation: either you are a structuralist in your approach to politics or a 'conspiracist' who reduces historical developments to the machinations of secret cabals, thereby causing us to lose sight of the larger systemic forces."[22]

Structuralist or institutional analysis shows that the term is misused when it is applied to institutions acting in pursuit of their acknowledged goals, e.g. when a group of corporations engage in price-fixing to increase profits.

Complications occurs for terms such as UFO, which literally means "unidentified flying object" but connotes alien spacecraft, a concept also associated with some conspiracy theories, and thus possessing a certain social stigma. Michael Parenti gives an example of the use of the term which underscores the conflict in its use. He states,

"In most of its operations, the CIA is by definition a conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy."[22]

The term "conspiracy theory" is itself the object of a type of conspiracy theory, which argues that those using the term are manipulating their audience to disregard the topic under discussion, either in a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth, or as dupes of more deliberate conspirators.[citation needed]

When conspiracy theories are offered as official claims (e.g. originating from a governmental authority, such as an intelligence agency) they are not usually considered as conspiracy theories. For example, certain activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee may be considered to have been an official attempt to promote a conspiracy theory, yet its claims are seldom referred to as such.[citation needed]

Further difficulties arise from ambiguity regarding the term theory. In popular usage, this term is often used to refer to unfounded or weakly based speculation, leading to the idea that "It's not a conspiracy theory if it's actually true".

Don't forget a conspiracy doesn't have to be something big! It only takes two or more individuals to make a conspiracy!

Just tryin' to inform the public. Makes googling easier when someone does it for you.

Bravo!! And thus the term 'conspiracy' or 'conspiracy theory' has lost it's literal meaning and become a label designed to elicit emotional reactions, and often is used as if it were a final deciding factor; it's just another conspiracy theory, and therefore not worth our time to consider. End of discussion. May as well label it crazy, and yet, as you point out, conspiracies are taking place all the time.