The global war against terror, news about the illegal
invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony
Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes
against humanity.
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:45 am Post subject: VOLATILE TIMES
'Instead of glorifying, they shame; in the place of heroes on their faces, there are villains. '
Sounds like a very interesting exhibition. Britain is going to be a very interesting place very soon.
“We know who you are” and “We know what you have done”.
There are a growing number of people who do know what has been going on and they want big changes.
gchq
Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:14 pm Post subject: DN! CODEPINK Protesters Confront Rumsfeld
gchq
Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:57 pm Post subject: Universal jurisdiction once again under threat
Universal jurisdiction once again under threat Electronic Intifada 10 Jun 2009
Pressure is being exerted on the Spanish government to amend its legislation regarding universal jurisdiction.
Currently, the fate of one of the only remaining venues that offers a redress mechanism for Palestinians is at stake. It is one that can bring accountability of Israeli officials and decision-makers who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The amendment of universal jurisdiction laws, often incommensurably restricting access to these mechanisms, is at variance with the effect of certain crimes on humanity as a whole, on which the notion of universal jurisdiction is premised. The pressure exerted on the Spanish government to amend its law is an example of the regrettable phenomenon of the weakening of international law at the price of the individual.
On 22 July 2002, around midnight, an Israeli Air Force plane dropped a one-ton bomb on Gaza City's al-Daraj neighborhood, one of the most densely-populated residential areas in the world. The military objective of this operation was to target and kill Hamas' former military leader in the Gaza Strip, Salah Shehadeh, who at that time was in his house with his family. As a result of the operation, Shehadeh and 14 civilians were killed, most of them children and infants, and 150 persons were injured, about half of them severely. Houses in the vicinity were either destroyed or damaged. Seven members of the Matar family, whose neighboring house was totally destroyed, were among the casualties.
More than six years later, in Madrid, just a few days after Israel's most recent invasion of Gaza ended, Judge Fernando Andreu Merelles decided to open a criminal investigation on the basis of universal jurisdiction against seven Israeli political and military officials who were alleged to have committed a war crime -- and possibly a crime against humanity -- in the course of that operation. The officials included Dan Halutz, then Commander of the Israeli Air Forces; Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, then Israeli Defense Minister; Moshe Yaalon, then Israeli army Chief of Staff; Doron Almog, then Southern Commander of the Israeli army; Giora Eiland, then Head of the Israeli National Security Council; Michael Herzog, then Military Secretary to the Israeli Defense Ministry; and Abraham Dichter, then Director of the General Security Services.
Although the allegations in the action referred only to war crimes, the court stated that the facts could amount to more serious crimes than what was initially claimed -- namely, crimes against humanity. This preliminary legal assessment motivated the legal team to work toward basing a new charge. The lawyers announced that they would redouble their efforts to demonstrate that the al-Daraj bombing was part of a policy of "widespread and systematic" attacks directed against a civilian population, fitting the definition of a crime against humanity.
As the request for Israel to provide information on the existence of any judicial proceedings concerning the military operation was not answered and the state expressed its unwillingness to cooperate with the legal team, the Spanish court thereby ruled that the investigation be conducted by the Spanish jurisdiction. On the same day the decision concerning the commencement of the investigation was rendered, Israeli officials sent a 400-page document to the Spanish legal team, stating that the facts of the complaint regarding the operation were subject to proceedings in Israel, and therefore the Spanish court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction.
The proceedings in Israel
The army's internal investigation found that the collateral damage was caused because of an intelligence failure, and therefore was not anticipated by military decision-makers. Yesh Gvul, an Israeli pacifist movement, asked the military advocate general, and later the state advocate general, to open a criminal investigation against those who planned and executed the operation. After their request was denied by the prosecution authorities, Yesh Gvul and five other well-known Israeli actors filed a petition to the Israeli high court in September 2003. The high court finally held a hearing in the Shehadeh case nearly four years later on 17 June 2007.
The court was due to examine whether the bombing of the Shehadeh house from the air could constitute a war crime, which therefore required a criminal investigation to be opened. However, the high court did not make a decision and instead shifted the responsibility by recommending that an "objective and independent body" examine the incident.
On 23 January 2008, an "objective and independent" commission of inquiry into the killing of Salah Shehadeh was appointed by then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It was composed of three members, two of then former Israeli generals and a former official from the General Security Services. The structure, nature and mandate of this commission were to be entirely determined by the state -- the very body whose actions were to be investigated. Moreover, it was mandated to function as a military inquiry, while the procedure, testimonies and even the final report were to remain confidential and thereby inadmissible before a court of law. The commission could only provide non-binding recommendations directly to the military. As of today, the commission has yet to complete its mandate.
Back to Spain
On 2 April 2009, following the delivery of the document by Israel to the Spanish court, the Spanish public prosecutor submitted a request for the court to decline competence over the case, since parallel proceedings were taking place in Israel.
Despite the political inconvenience in upholding its previous stand, on 4 May 2009, the court forcefully rejected the prosecutor's request to decline competence. The court found that the procedure, and decisions made by the Israeli military advocate attorney general, the high court and the Committee of Inquiry, did not satisfy the constitutional right to effective protection by an independent and impartial court. It upheld that the decisions of the prosecution authorities, which endorsed an internal military probe, could not be perceived as independent and impartial, nor could the commission of inquiry that was appointed by the prime minister and functioned under the discretion of the executive branch. The Spanish court equally noted that an overarching deficiency of Israel's decisions was that none of them provided a detailed legal assessment of the facts. This ruling was immediately appealed, and the case is still pending.
The Israeli media portrayed the Spanish procedure as a "cynical attempt by the Palestinian plaintiffs to exploit the Spanish judicial system in order to advance a political agenda against Israel;" an issue, as the press appreciated, that should have been resolved through diplomatic channels. The Israeli daily Haaretz quoted Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on 4 May 2009: "I intend to appeal to the Spanish foreign minister, the Spanish minister of defense and, if need be, the Spanish prime minister, who is a colleague of mine, in the Socialist International, to override the decision."
Spain and universal jurisdiction
Spain is one of the most important contributing actors to the securing of accountability of international crimes, principally due to its state-of-the-art universal jurisdiction legislation. The Spanish judiciary was the one that initiated the procedure against Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, in 1998, and it is currently investigating dozens of other cases. One of the specific features of the procedure in Spain is that the victims themselves can initiate the investigation, and directly submit their complaint to the court, thus avoiding political obstacles that usually exist if it is the national prosecutor or the police who determine what cases are to be investigated. Further, Spanish law does not require the presence of the foreign suspects for the commencement of the judicial investigation. However, trials in the absence of the accused are prohibited in Spain.
Following political pressure from the governments of Israel, China (regarding an ongoing investigation accusing its former foreign minister of committing genocide in Tibet) and the US (for two cases against US officials alleging torture), on 19 May 2009 the Spanish parliament passed a resolution backing a proposed amendment to the Spanish universal jurisdiction legislation. The amendment limits the legislation's exercise to cases with a Spanish victim, or some other connection such as when the suspect is present on Spanish soil. It is not clear if the proposed amendments would apply to ongoing cases once in force. It is hoped that if the law is modified, victims can still initiate judicial investigations.
In 2003, Belgium faced a similar situation. It was bullied into changing its law and procedure, following Israeli and US pressure concerning the complaints brought against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In response, Washington threatened to move NATO headquarters from Brussels. In contrast, when a judicial arrest warrant was issued against Israeli Major General Doron Almog in 2005, then British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared his intention to modify the United Kingdom's laws on universal jurisdiction. Four years later, no such amendment has even been proposed to the UK Parliament.
Amendments to universal jurisdiction laws, as well as the actual initiation of investigations by the state prosecutors, have historically been markedly affected by public opinion and action. Pressure of such kind stands to be the most effective means of ensuring that justice is achieved for the victims, and the law is upheld against those who have violated it. This is particularly important when international war crimes and crimes against humanity are at issue. Governments and the international community should be mindful of this reality, in which the law is politicized in order to be evaded, and act upon it (a sample letter to government officials and contact information is provided by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights). We must, in any way possible, ensure that all necessary measures are taken to guarantee respect of the most fundamental pillars of international law.
Sharon Weill is a PhD candidate in International Humanitarian Law (IHL), University of Geneva, and lecturer in IHL. Valentina Azarov is a Legal Researcher with HaMoked - Center for the Defence of the individual and author with the International Law Observer.
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:46 am Post subject: Another Whitehall whitewash
Another Whitehall whitewash The Guardian 15 Jun 2009
Given what we know already from leaks, the secrecy surrounding the Chilcot Iraq inquiry is as absurd as it is scandalous
There really is no legitimate reason now for any of the inquiry into the invasion of Iraq to be held in private. Extremely sensitive information, intelligence material in particular, has already been disclosed, either here or in the US, by official inquiries or leaks.
The reason why the government wants it to be held behind closed doors – a weapon allowing Whitehall to control proceedings – is to enable it to protect itself, and individuals, from embarrassment. To drive home the point, the members of the inquiry, led by Sir John Chilcot, the epitome of a Whitehall mandarin, will be made privy counsellors, told to swear an ancient oath of secrecy.
We already know a great deal about how the Iraqi banned weapons dossier was manipulated by Whitehall officials and intelligence chiefs, at the behest of their political masters – most notably, Tony Blair. We know from a leaked Dowing Street memo, marked " secret and strictly personal – UK eyes only", that, at a meeting Blair chaired on 23 July 2002, nearly a year before the invasion, Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, warned that in Washington "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"; and Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, said "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action ... But the case was thin."
Lord Butler told the Guardian that his committee set up to investigate the use and abuse of intelligence in the build-up to the invasion had seen the document. He said his report did not refer to its contents on the grounds that they related to US use of intelligence, which was outside his terms of reference. The explanation is one reason why a fresh inquiry needs to be held in public. That Chilcot himself sat on the Butler committee hardly inspires confidence that this new inquiry will be any more penetrating.
Other leaked documents, which we can assume were also seen by Butler, include a letter in March 2002 from David Manning, then Blair's foreign policy adviser. He told Blair that he said to Condoleezza Rice: "You would not budge in your support for regime change [an objective Blair was advised was unlawful] but you had to manage a press, a parliament, and a public opinion which is very different than anything in the States". A few days later, Sir Christopher Meyer, our ambassador in Washington at the time, told Manning of the need to "wrongfoot Saddam on the [UN] inspectors".
The 23 July 2002 document also revealed that ministers were warned by their officials and the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, that an invasion to topple Saddam would be unlawful. Goldsmith eventually advised that invasion was lawful by reinterpreting an entirely different set of circumstances – namely, the scope of past UN security council resolutions.
We have a good idea through leaked documents that Blair made it pretty clear to Bush two years before the invasion that he would commit UK troops. We know, because senior MoD officials have admitted it, that equipment for British troops was ordered late because ministers did not want to suggest to MPs or the public they had decided to go to war months before the March 2003 invasion.
We know from leaked documents that some ministers warned Blair of the need to prepare for the consequences of an invasion. The warnings were ignored because Whitehall, and the Foreign Office in particular, did not have the stomach to take on the US. To prepare adequately for occupation of a foreign country is a duty imposed by the Geneva Conventions. Senior military officials have suggested Blair, and others, could be prosecuted for war crimes on this ground alone.
These are very serious issues to which answers have not been given by those, ministers and officials alike, directly involved. Senior diplomats and security and intelligence officers were deeply opposed to the invasion. This should been their opportunity to speak publicly for the first time. Alas, it will not be.
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:02 pm Post subject: South African President Calls For Deals With War Criminals
South African President Calls For Deals With War Criminals Digital Journal 16 Jun 2009
South African President Jacob Zuma says leaders responsible for heinous crimes should be given immunity in exchange for stepping down. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has so far indicted a number of African leaders for human rights violations.
The best-know example of an African leader holding for fear of prosecution is Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, who ordered the genocide of the minority Matabele people between 1982 and 1985 by Zimbabwe’s North Korean-trained 5th Brigade. The Matabele were mainly followers of political opponent Joshua Nkomo, and massacre of some 20,000 people broke his political power, leaving Mugabe supreme.
Not everyone is happy about the idea. South Africa’s main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, says South Africa should make the promotion and protection of human rights the guideline of its foreign policy, and argues that granting immunity to abusers of human rights would set the wrong precedent.
However, many Africans, including many South Africans, are upset that so far, all those indicted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague are Africans. They argue that western human rights violators, including former U.S. president George Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair should face justice for their invasion of Iraq, which the critics maintain is in violation of international law.
Excerpt from "Be wary of the powerful" - the band "Rage Against the Machine"
"The band came on at 10.30pm to the sound of a prison klaxon, wearing orange Guantanamo Bay fatigues, with black sacks over their heads. They stood in a line in the middle of the stage while the crowd grew increasingly delirious, and then were led to their instruments to kick off the set with Bombtrack, essentially a manifesto — the first track off their first album — stating their intention to use music to "warm my hands upon the flames of the flag / To recall our downfall / And the businesses that burned us all".
Later on in the show, frontman Zack de la Rocha delivered an incendiary speech in which he praised the people who took part in the huge anti-war march through London in 2004, and added Tony Blair to his list of war criminals.
Despite the thrill, I was assailed by a sense that it might all be a bit anachronistic. Before the set, Trevor and I got into a conversation with a fellow fan who was hoping that they'd dispense with the political posturing and just "get down to the music"; this struck us as being a bit sad, because political posturing is what Rage are all about.
Could it be that in the seven years since their break-up the world has somehow left them behind? They can still inspire controversy — Fox News ran a report after their first reunion gig insisting that they'd called for Bush II's assassination; Zack clarified at a later gig that what they'd actually demanded was not that Bush be assassinated, but brought to trial as a war criminal, hung and then shot.
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:24 pm Post subject: Anger over UK probe into Iraq war
Anger over UK probe into Iraq war Aljazeera 15 Jun 2009
Clegg said the Iraq war had been the 'biggest foreign policy mistake ... in generations' [GALLO/GETTY]
Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, has been accused of staging a cover-up after he ruled that an inquiry into the UK's involvement in the US-led invasion of Iraq would be held in private.
Nick Clegg, the leader of the opposition Liberal Democrat party, said on Monday the war had been the "biggest foreign policy mistake this country has made in generations" and that Brown was "covering up the path" that led to it.
Addressing the country's lower house of parliament, Brown earlier announced the investigation would "unprecedented" and "fully independent".
He also said it would would take a year to complete - taking it beyond the date the prime minister must hold a general election.
Public opinion 'ignored'
There had been increasing pressure from the public, opposition politicians and members of the ruling Labour party for an investigation into the war which was launched in March 2003.
Many politicians and some relatives of UK soldiers killed in Iraq had called for the inquiry to take place in public.
Lindsey German, from the Stop the War Coalition which protested against the war, told Al Jazeera: "There is no reason this shouldn't be a public inquiry.
"It's carried out by the privy council which is part of the establishment and therefore won't be genuinely independent of the government.
"We have to have an inquiry which asks what Tony Blair and George Bush discussed a year before they took us to war when they met at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas.
She said people needed to know "why they drew up a dossier that turned out to be false, as there were no weapons of mass destruction [and] why Tony Blair thought it permissable to ignore British public opinion which demonstrated on a mass scale against this war."
'Lessons learned'
Rose Gentle, whose 19-year-old son Gordon was killed serving in Iraq in 2004, said: "My family and most of the families who lost loved ones just want a simple answer to a simple question - why did we go in to Iraq in the first place?''
Blair, left, was widely lampooned as a poodle of Bush, right, for his support over the war [EPA]
David Cameron, the leader of the main opposition Conservative Party, said some of the evidence should be held in public and that "if mistakes were made, we need to know who made them and why they were made".
The investigation will be chaired by Sir John Chilcot, 70, a former permanent under-secretary of state at the Northern Ireland Office.
Chilcot has been chairman of Britain's Police Federation since 2001 and sat on the Butler inquiry, which reported into the intelligence which the UK government had about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
Brown, who cited national security issue for not holding the investigation in public, said: "The primary objective of the committee will be to identify lessons learned.
Unpopular war
"The committee will not set out to apportion blame or consider issues of civil or criminal liability.
"It [the inquiry] will consider the period from summer 2001 before military operations began in March 2003 and our subsequent involvement in Iraq right until the end of July this year."
The war was deeply unpopular in Britain, prompting some of the country's largest-ever protest marches, including a rally which drew an estimated two million demonstrators onto the streets of central London.
Tony Blair, who was prime Minister at the time, was badly tarnished by his decision to join the war and widely lampooned as being a "poodle" of George Bush, the then-US president.
A total of 179 British military personnel have died since March 2003 while serving in Iraq.
