Trump Just Promised $350 Billion to a Country That’s Beheading a Blind Man for Peacefully Protesting

The same country that was just promised over $350 billion in weapons deals over 10 years by President Trump after it became the first stop on his inaugural trip overseas, is set to behead a 23-year-old disabled man for the heinous crime of… protesting peacefully.

Saudi Arabia is set to execute Munir Al Adam, a deaf and blind man who was arrested after a wave of political protests in 2012. The decision came after a secret trial carried out in the country’s infamous Specialized Criminal Court, which has a reputation for being used to silence political dissidents.

A spokesperson for the human rights group Reprieve told The Independent that while Al Adam was charged with violent acts at a protest, he was tortured by police, the disabilities listed on his medical records were ignored, and “no evidence was produced at his trial other than the signed confession—made under duress.”

“Munir’s case is utterly shocking,” Reprieve Director Maya Foa said. “The White House should be appalled that our Saudi allies tortured a disabled protester until he lost his hearing then sentenced him to death on the basis of a forced ‘confession.’”

Al Adam’s initial sentence was determined in November 2016, and it was recently confirmed by an appellate court. Due to the country’s strict laws, Al Adam was only given one chance to appeal the sentence before Saudi King Salman signs off on his death warrant.

In a statement, Reprieve noted that Al Adam “was forced to write his own defense after he was prevented from speaking to a lawyer,” and that while one of the charges he faced was using his mobile phone to organize protests, Al Adam told the court he “comes from a poor family and had never even owned a mobile phone.”

At the time of Al Adam’s sentence, three juveniles—Ali Al Nimr, Dawood Al Marhoon and Abdullah Al Zaher—were also sentenced to death for charges related to protesting the government.

READ MORE:  Pentagon Admits to Shipping $1.29 Billion in Bombs to Saudi Arabia - to Defend Oil Reserves

The latest decision in Munir Al Adam’s case comes as President Trump signs the “single largest arms deal in U.S. history,” worth around $350 BILLION, with the same country that is responsible for violating human rights and using extreme methods to silence political opposition—Saudi Arabia.

In a speech at the Arab Islamic American Summit on May 21, Trump noted that the agreement includes a $110 billion “Saudi-funded defense purchase.”

“Yesterday, we signed historic agreements with the Kingdom that will invest almost $400 billion in our two countries and create many thousands of jobs in America and Saudi Arabia,” Trump said. “This landmark agreement includes the announcement of a $110 billion Saudi-funded defense purchase—and we will be sure to help our Saudi friends to get a good deal from our great American defense companies.”

As The Free Thought Project has reported, Trump’s newfound love for Saudi Arabia seems to have taken the place of his campaign rhetoric, which held the country responsible for its involvement in 9/11.

In 2016, Trump was on the campaign trail, promising his supporters that if he was elected, they would “find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center.”

“Who blew up the World Trade Center?” Trump questioned during an interview with Fox and Friends. “It wasn’t the Iraqis, it was Saudi—take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the documents.”

In addition to ignoring that promise, Trump’s cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia also serves as a reminder that he appears to have no problems with the blatantly obvious record of human rights violations that has made Saudi Arabia the subject of international scrutiny.

READ MORE:  JFK Conspiracy in Under 2 Minutes

The egregious death sentence given to Munir Al Adam for allegedly protesting the Saudi government is not the first time the Trump Administration has looked the other way in the face of a clear human rights violation. As The Free Thought Project reported in April, Saudi Arabia sentenced Ahmad Al Shamri to death by beheading for charges of atheism and blasphemy, after he allegedly renounced Islam on social media.

While Trump’s quick turn-around on his rhetoric towards Saudi Arabia has taken U.S.-Saudi relations to new heights, it is not unprecedented. Instead, he is simply following in the footsteps of his predecessors, and guaranteeing that the U.S. will continue to support the kingdom’s questionable choices—even when it comes to beheading peaceful protesters without due process.

Draconian Bill Will Allow Cops to Arrest Peaceful Protesters & Seize Their Assets

Arizona — Anyone caught planning or simply participating in an otherwise peaceful demonstration could be arrested and charged under state racketeering laws — but, far worse, authorities would be free to seize their assets — should a new Arizona bill become law.

Police would be granted the power to arrest protesters on the assumption alone that the protest may devolve into a riot — even if it hasn’t.

Republicans answered the alleged problem of professional, paid protesters by introducing the draconian legislation — incidentally aiming a flaming arrow directly at the Constitution.

“When people want to express themselves as a group during a time of turmoil, during a time of controversy, during a time of high emotions, that’s exactly when people gather as a community,” noted Senator Martin Quezada, quoted by the Arizona Capitol Times. “Sometimes they yell, sometimes they scream, sometimes they do go too far.”

Quezada, however, feels the proposed legislation would quash First Amendment rights at the root — striking doubt into the minds of planners, who might succumb to fears a planned protest could turn ugly, and cancel the event. 

Proponents of the legislation claim the bill only targets specific groups of demonstrators — not law-abiding citizens gathered to exercise free speech and free assembly rights.

“You now have a situation where you have full-time, almost professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder,” asserted Senator John Kavanagh, adding, without providing any examples,

“A lot of them are ideologues, some of them are anarchists. But this stuff is all planned.”

Again, a reckless politician chooses the fraught, popular perception of anarchists, conflating political anarchism with activists and others who employ the tactics of black bloc — dressing indistinctly and in all-black clothing to assumedly make individual identification difficult for authorities — usually in order to perform a purposeful criminal act like property damage.

With the premise for a rights-crushing law resting on wildly biased mischaracterizations — a tactic of broad-stroke language — politicians plainly seek to ensnare everyone not intimidated by the bill’s chilling language on planning.

“Wouldn’t you rather stop a riot before it starts?” Kavanagh asked during a debate over Arizona Senate Bill 1142. “Do you really want to wait until people are injuring each other, throwing Molotov cocktails, picking up barricades and smashing them through businesses in downtown Phoenix?”

By appealing to the base emotions of fear and anger, these politicians have crafted a legal cage for the First Amendment — by further curtailing rights under the guise such acts of destruction weren’t already illegal.

And that’s the catch — because myriad destructive acts are considered rioting under current law — politicians expanded the definition of rioting to include “actions that result in damage to the property of others,” the Capitol Times reports.

Kavanagh and other supporters of the bill believe — or at least publicly pontificate — on the imperative to protect property from even the possibility of harm, over the constitutionally-protected right to exercise free speech. They insist the law would help thwart malicious plans by a few truly rotten seeds, but the actuality is murkily-defined guidelines which can be easily exploited by authorities to further curb growing dissent.

“I have been heartsick with what’s been going on in our country, what young people are being encouraged to do,” Republican Senator Sylvia Allen explained, adding that, although current laws do theoretically cover criminal damaging and the like, they’re impotent in practice.

“If they get thrown in jail, somebody pays to get them out. There has to be something to deter them from that.”

Senator Steve Farley disagrees with the Republican solution to deterrence, and admonished colleagues the law could equally target right-leaning protests. For example, Farley explained, a Tea Party protest against property tax, for which organizers obtained appropriate permits and planned accordingly has as much potential to go south as any other given demonstration.

“And one person, possibly from the other side, starts breaking the windows of a car,” Farley said, reiterating not every participant in a planned protest actually supports the cause.

“And all of a sudden the organizers of that march, the local Tea Party, are going to be under indictment from the county attorney in the county that raised those property taxes. That will have a chilling effect on anybody, right or left, who wants to protest something the government has done.”

Because the proposed legislation misunderstands the dynamics of disturbances, Senator Andrea Dalessandro explained, politicians backing it appear to be motivated by something other than fears related to the general act of protesting.

“I’m fearful that ‘riot’ is in the eyes of the beholder and that this bill will apply more strictly to minorities and people trying to have their voice heard,” Dalessandro cautioned.

Senators expectedly voted along party lines on whether constitutionally-protected demonstrators should be considered on par with mafiosos, with the resultant 17 to 13 count sending the legislation to the House — and one step closer to becoming law.

If Dr. King Were Alive Today He’d Still be Arrested, Like He was Dozens of Times Before

Nearly 49 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., his struggle for peace lives on.

Alabama State troopers attack civil-rights demonstrators on Bloody Sunday, March 7, 1965

When most people think of the great man, born Michael King on January 15, 1929, they see an advocate for peace, who is celebrated by the US government; honored every year, in January, on the third Monday.

However, what the government tells us and what this great man did are two separate stories.

Dr. King’s position as the leader of the Civil Rights Movement began after his election as spokesman for the Montgomery Improvement Association in December of 1955. What also started in that December of 1955 was the FBI’s investigation into him.

Like all those who stand against government sanctioned violence, Dr. King was an enemy of the state. The fact that he’s celebrated today by the same state that persecuted him is quite Orwellian.

According to a report out of Stanford University titled, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Global Freedom Struggle, the FBI had it out for Dr. King as soon as he began making waves.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began monitoring Martin Luther King, Jr., in December 1955, during his involvement with the Montgomery bus boycott, and engaged in covert operations against him throughout the 1960s. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was personally hostile toward King, believing that the civil rights leader was influenced by Communists. This animosity increased after April 1964, when King called the FBI ‘‘completely ineffectual in resolving the continued mayhem and brutality inflicted upon the Negro in the deep South’’ (King, 23 April 1964). Under the FBI’s domestic counterintelligence program (COINTELPRO) King was subjected to various kinds of FBI surveillance that produced alleged evidence of extramarital affairs, though no evidence of Communist influence.

With a state that owes its very existence to the monopoly it holds on the use of violence, anyone who is pro-peace is a potential threat. This was the case in the 20th century just as it is the case in the 21st century. The fact that Americans take off of work one day in January, does not negate the reality that this struggle continues.

READ MORE:  Cop Threatens to Arrest Woman"s Family to Force Her to Have an Abortion, Beats Her Afterwards

Dr. King’s activism was often met with brutal backlash from police. Just like the protesters of today, who peacefully march in solidarity to end police violence, the protesters of the 50’s and 60’s were met with violence from the police.

Attacks against non-violent protesters are nothing new. In the 60’s, as the marches increased, so did the attacks against non-violent demonstrators.

“There may be some tear gas ahead. But I say to you today, that I’d rather die on the highways of Alabama, than make a butchery of my conscience,” said Dr. King in his famous speech just prior to the Selma-Montgomery march in which protesters were met with such violence from police that the day would be forever remembered as “Bloody Sunday.”

The first march took place on March 7, 1965, and it gained the nickname “Bloody Sunday” after its 600 marchers were attacked at the Edmund Pettus Bridge after leaving Selma; state troopers and county posse attacked the unarmed marchers with billy clubs and tear gas.

Does this type of police reaction to protests sound familiar?

Dr. King was no stranger to police and being arrested, in fact, during his 12-year run as the leader of the civil rights movement, he was arrested 30 times. 

Today, there is a good chance Dr. King would be referred to as a ‘thug’ by a large portion of society — and police — for his activism. 

Dr. King, like many of the protesters of today, stood against state violence and war. Those who wage the wars and initiate the violence, delegating a single day in January to honor a man who stood against their very tactics, is defamatory to this struggle for peace, to say the least.

READ MORE:  College Fun Quickly Turns into Violent Oppression When the Cops Show Up

So, while you are out there today, enjoying the day off, remember that this struggle is far from over.

As long as innocence is lost to those who claim to protect it, the conflict remains. As long as people of all races are harassed, kidnapped, locked in cages or killed over victimless crimes, our strife will persist.

Not until the corruptions ceases, not until all the troops are brought home, not until a person can do with their own body as they see fit, not until the brute force changes to compassion, will the perpetual struggle of Dr. King and all those before and after him, be complete.

“Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.” -Martin Luther King Jr.