Showing posts with label nuremberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuremberg. Show all posts

Friday, September 20, 2013

Broken Foundations and the Fall of Western Society



By: Stewart Brennan
World United News

At the end of World War II and as a result of the Nuremberg Trials, the shattered Foundations of Civilization were rebuilt by the adoption of Human Rights, and laws put in place to end Aggressive War. Both of these initiatives empowered a new United Nations assembly which embraced the promise of all nations being treated as equals. These were key points in building a World free of war and would be enforced through mutual agreement and International law by a United Nations body.

We owe our thanks in large part to the principals, ideals, and values expressed by US Chief Justice “Robert H. Jackson” as witnessed in his opening statement as the US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials in 1945. 

Mr Jackson’s statement was believed by the worlds population at that time to be on behalf of the western establishment as to the way in which western society was going to stand, from that day forth. Indeed the war weary populations of the world believed these words to be true because in them they found hope, truth, and justice.

Even though many of us awake today are aware that the crimes committed by the Allied forces during World War II went unpunished, we still believed, at least before the internet came into being, that the monstrous crimes committed during World War II would never be committed again simply because we believed there was a moral overseer called the United Nations that pledged to take the lead in the name of Peace, Justice and the guiding principals of Human Rights. At least that was the general feeling between 1945 to 2001 by most of the people in the West. I for one, believed that my government had taken an oath to uphold these foundations while representing the will and needs of their own people at home.

Today, we find the economic victors of WWII pushing their greedy interests all over the world through sanctions, war and terrorism, while at home they push national governments to apply austerity measures on their own people. The United Nations is now a place to make war on other nations legal, which is in complete contrast as to what our belief was in this institution and the establishment that runs the worlds economy.

Looking back in history, I see that nothing has changed in over 2,000 years. Now instead of a single nation driving for empire by an economic elite, we have a collective of nations driving for empire by an economic elite that is intent on growing their empire through hostile takeovers of victim nations to maintain their economic growth and drive to global domination…

Nothing has changed with regards to Information Control, Propaganda and the suppression of Alternative News either. Control of information is an important tool by the elites to hold their plans together.


Before the availability of the Internet, the population within each and every nation was controlled and held captive in a bubble of propaganda that was fed by mediums of Newsprint, TV and Radio.

Since the days of the Roman Empire, people the World over have been subject to the established news mediums that have always controlled the narrative for a handful of extremely wealthy people.

During the Roman Empire, “Criers” would take up their positions in towns and villages across the land to report the news and views of the Patrician’s to the people that would gather in the squares to hear them. There were no alternative news criers. Any differing views were quickly silenced and their originators put to death for daring to speak out against the authority of those times. The Patricians greed and lust for power ruled and did not stand for any challenges to their rule.

Here we are 2,000 years later and nothing has changed. I don’t see any difference today, as free speech is under attack in every OECD member nation. Anyone that tries to expose government lies, corporate corruption, or military crimes are quickly silenced, Imprisoned or put six feet under, because it gets in the way of the overall plans of those that control the economics behind the scenes.

Lately there has been an exponential increase in the number of attacks on free speech, freedom of the press, and human rights by the establishment on those that speak out. What is also evident is the exponential rise in O.E.C.D. Terrorism and military aggression, something which the United Nations was empowered to stop after the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials.

The sentencing of Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison for doing what he was supposed to do under International law by reporting war crimes is a return to darker times. The manhunt for Edward Snowdon and the grounding and search of Presidential planes also breaks International law. Not to mention the Arming of terrorists to overthrow leaders of sovereign nations is also considered a war crime yet Western Governments continue to get away with these crimes without penalty or the force of International law.

Both Israel and Egypt are guilty of crimes against humanity for the blockade on the people of Gaza. Israel is guilty of committing war crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria and continues to make the people in the West Bank and Gaza suffer by committing the most heinous of crimes. The USA and Great Britain are Guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity by an aggressive war on Iraq, which was started by their own fabrication. The NATO countries that took part in the War on Libya committed war crimes and crimes against humanity from the total destruction of that country including using depleted uranium and targeting civilian centers and infrastructure. Today western nations are arming terrorists and supporting the most vile and ruthless scum ever to emerge from under Saudi Arabian Petro dollars.

The list of crimes committed by Western Countries goes on and on with more frequency everyday, millions have died and tens of millions more have been displaced by their crimes…

I am reminded of the words in Robert H. Jackson’s opening speech during the Nuremberg trials after WWII...and through all the years leading up to 911 and the Internet I actually believed my Country stood up to enforce the International laws handed down as a result of the Nuremberg trials. What’s even worse is that in some twisted way our government leaders actually believe they are upholding International law, but I don’t see how…do you?


Opening Statement by US Chief Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson at Nuremberg


“The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrong’s which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

This Tribunal, while it is novel and experimental, is not the product of abstract speculations nor is it created to vindicate legalistic theories. This inquest represents the practical effort of four of the most mighty of nations, with the support of 17 more, to utilize international law to meet the greatest menace of our times, aggressive war. The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched. It is a cause of that magnitude that the United Nations will lay before Your Honors.

In the prisoners' dock sit twenty-odd broken men. Reproached by the humiliation of those they have led almost as bitterly as by the desolation of those they have attacked, their personal capacity for evil is forever past. It is hard now to perceive in these men as captives the power by which as Nazi leaders they once dominated much of the world and terrified most of it. Merely as individuals their fate is of little consequence to the world.

What makes this inquest significant is that these prisoners represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust. We will show them to be living symbols of racial hatreds, of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power. They are symbols of fierce nationalisms and of militarism, of intrigue and war- making which have embroiled Europe generation after generation, crushing its manhood, destroying its homes, and impoverishing its life. They have so identified themselves with the philosophies they conceived and with the forces they directed that any tenderness to them is a victory and an encouragement to all the evils which are attached to their names. Civilization can afford no compromise with the social forces which would gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously or indecisively With the men in whom those forces now precariously survive.

What these men stand for we will patiently and temperately disclose. We will give you undeniable proofs of incredible events. The catalog of crimes will omit nothing that could be conceived by a pathological pride, cruelty, and lust for power. These men created in Germany, under the "Fuehrerprinzip", a National Socialist despotism equalled only by the dynasties of the ancient East. They took from the German people all those dignities and freedoms that we hold natural and inalienable rights in every human being. The people were compensated by inflaming and gratifying hatreds towards those who were marked as "scapegoats". Against their opponents, including Jews, Catholics, and free labor, the Nazis directed such a campaign of arrogance, brutality, and annihilation as the world has not witnessed since the pre-Christian ages. They excited the German ambition to be a "master race", which of course implies serfdom for others. They led their people on a mad gamble for domination. They diverted social energies and resources to the creation of what they thought to be an invincible war machine They overran their neighbors. To sustain the "master race" in its war-making, they enslaved millions of human beings and brought them into Germany, where these hapless creatures now wander as "displaced persons". At length bestiality and bad faith reached such excess that they aroused the sleeping strength of imperiled Civilization. Its united efforts have ground the German war machine to fragments. But the struggle has left Europe a liberated yet prostrate land where a demoralized society struggles to survive. These are the fruits of the sinister forces that sit with these defendants in the prisoners' dock.

In justice to the nations and the men associated in this prosecution, I must remind you of certain difficulties which may leave their mark on this case. Never before in legal history has an effort been made to bring within the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade, covering a whole continent, and involving a score of nations, countless individuals, and innumerable events. Despite the magnitude of the task, the world has demanded immediate action. This demand has had to be met, though perhaps at the cost of finished craftsmanship. In my country, established courts, following familiar procedures, applying well-thumbed precedents, and dealing with the legal consequences of local and limited events seldom commence a trial within a year of the event in litigation. Yet less than 8 months ago today the courtroom in which you sit was an enemy fortress in the hands of German SS troops. Less than 8 months ago nearly all our witnesses and documents were in enemy hands. The law had not been codified, no procedures had been established, no tribunal was in existence, no usable courthouse stood here, none of the hundreds of tons of official German documents had been examined, no prosecuting staff had been assembled, nearly all of the present defendants were at large, and the four prosecuting powers had not yet joined in common cause to try them. I should be the last to deny that the case may well suffer from incomplete researches and quite likely will not be the example of professional work which any of the prosecuting nations would normally wish to sponsor. It is, however, a completely adequate case to the judgment we shall ask you to render and its full development we shall be obliged to leave to historians.

Before I discuss particulars of evidence, some general considerations which may affect the credit of this trial in the eyes of the world should be candidly faced. There is a dramatic disparity between the circumstances of the accusers and of the accused that might discredit our work if we should falter, in even minor matters, in being fair and temperate.

Unfortunately the nature of these crimes is such that both prosecution and judgment must be by victor nations over vanquished foes. The worldwide scope of the aggressions carried out by these men has left but few real neutrals. Either the victors must judge the vanquished or we must leave the defeated to judge themselves. After the first World War, we learned the futility of the latter course. The former high station of these defendants, the notoriety of their acts, and the adaptability of their conduct to provoke retaliation make it hard to distinguish between the demand for a just and measured retribution, and the unthinking cry for vengeance which arises from the anguish of war. It is our task, so far as humanly possible, to draw the line between the two. We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this Trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity's aspirations to do justice.

At the very outset, let us dispose of the contention that to put these men to trial is to do them an injustice entitling them to some special consideration These defendants may be hard pressed but they are not ill used. Let us see what alternative they would have to being tried.

More than a majority of these prisoners surrendered to or were tracked down by the forces of the United States. Could they expect us to make American custody a shelter for our enemies against the just wrath of our Allies? Did we spend American lives to capture them only to save them from punishment? Under the principles of the Moscow Declaration, those suspected war criminals who are not to be tried internationally must be turned over to individual governments for trial at the scene of their outrages. Many less responsible and less culpable American-held prisoners have been and will continue to be turned over to other United Nations for local trial. If these defendants should succeed, for any reason, in escaping the condemnation of this Tribunal, or if they obstruct or abort the trial, those who are American-held prisoners will be delivered to our continental Allies. For these defendants, however, we have set up an International Tribunal and have undertaken the burden of participating in a complicated effort to give them fair and dispassionate hearings. That is the best- known protection to any man with a defense worthy of being heard.”
-----------

NOT JUST WORDS

These were not just mere words Robert H Jackson spoke, but Ideals that led to the basis and foundation of a future world built by moral guiding principals, respect and International Law. We were all sold on the idea that a United Nations would bring together the people of the World as equals and embrace a set of values and principals in an international framework of mutual respect…ideals that most people still believe in today.

However, it is abundantly clear that the Governments of today within the collective of the OECD nations or as a collective of Western Nations have completely ignored their oath to uphold International Law. Instead they have made the clear choice to repeat history on a larger scale by using aggressive war and the use of terrorists to achieve the gains and interests of those weaving webs behind the economic and power lust scenes.

In the days of the Roman Empire at least, those that owned all the land, money and power also held office as senators so they were in the open. In today’s Western Empire, the owners stay in the shadows while buying the politicians to represent them. Elections have always been an illusion when it comes to democratic representation and economics. All you need to do is follow the money to find the truth and the criminals.

The founding, Principals and Ideals for a Moral and Just Society referred to by Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremberg Trials have been destroyed by elitist arrogance, greed, and lust for power. The assimilation of nations into their economic control and collective is not new…however it has become news in the last 12 years since the free flow of information on the internet which challenges the elitist controlled mainstream and state propaganda news corporations. 
It is my belief that the establishment who own all the land that we pay taxes on, and who own the majority of corporations and wealth, including and direction of most countries through puppet dictatorships, never intended to abide by the laws set down at Nuremberg even though they pretend that they stand on these guiding principals.

Our Western Governments are out of control and well on their way to destroying the planet. Only an awakened citizenry can change the course or direction the world is heading in so that means we need to connect in defiance of our governments wishes and become the alternative news, and town criers of today…but we must also mobilize in our masses and hold these tyrants accountable for the crimes they have committed because there are no nations coming to your rescue this time. We simply will not survive the elitist’s end game if we do not stand up…the Foundations of civilization that we believe in, are broken and the fall of Western society is at hand...I’m tired of the Western Governments double standards, aren’t you?

~ Stewart Brennan ~

Links:





Sunday, August 11, 2013

International Law and "The Responsibility to Protect"



Video Source: The Real News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywYIL1ZYmjU

In the final segment (Part 4 of 4) of Paul Jay's interview with Vijay Prashad on Reality Asserts Itself, the subject is the undermining of international law and military interventions in the name of human rights.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Up to Six Mass Graves Discovered in Jaffa with Hundreds of Victims from 1948





Video Source: The Real News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MraHhPR8M1g

Sami Abuskhade: the Israeli discourse denies the very existence of the Naqba, but after decades of denial Palestinians are finally able to bring their history to light.

 
For more Real Investigative Journalism visit:

The Real News – Official Website
http://therealnews.com/
The Real News - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRealNews


 

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes





Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/211590.html

A War Crimes Tribunal in Malaysia has found former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair guilty of war crimes for their roles in the Iraq war, Press TV reports.

The five-panel Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal decided that Bush and Blair committed genocide and crimes against humanity by leading the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a Press TV correspondent reported on Tuesday.

In 2003, the US and Britain invaded Iraq in blatant violation of international law and under the pretext of finding weapons of mass destruction allegedly stockpiled by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The Malaysian tribunal judges ruled that the decision to wage war against Iraq by the two former heads of government was a flagrant abuse of law and an act of aggression that led to large-scale massacres of the Iraqi people.

Bombings and other forms of violence became commonplace in Iraq shortly after the US-led invasion of the country.

In their ruling, the tribunal judges also stated that the US, under the leadership of Bush, fabricated documents to make it appear that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

However, the world later learned that the former Iraqi regime did not possess WMDs and that the US and British leaders knew this all along.

Over one million Iraqis were killed during the invasion, according to the California-based investigative organization Project Censored.

The judges also said the court findings should be provided to signatories to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, and added that the names of Bush and Blair should be listed on a war crimes register.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

War crimes tribunal tries Bush, Blair




Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/210986.html

A War Crimes Tribunal in the Malaysian capital has begun its hearing against George W. Bush and Tony Blair, charging the former officials for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Press TV reports.

The tribunal will determine whether the former US president and British prime minister committed war crimes and violated international law during the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is an initiative by Malaysia's former Premier Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposes US-led military adventures in various troubled regions.

The hearing comes after two years of in-depth investigation, including testimonials from Iraqi war victims by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission.

According to the Kuala Lumpur War Commission, both Bush and Blair had participated in the formulation of executive orders and directives to exclude the applicability of all international conventions and laws.

One complainant told the commission in 2009 that he was mistakenly detained and kept for six years in Guantanamo Bay under harsh conditions.

A notification of the trial was served to known addresses of the two, and to the US Embassy and the UK High Commission in Kuala Lumpur on September 19, 2011.

This comes at a time when the Perdana Global Peace Foundation has mounted a war crimes exhibition in the Malaysian capital.

The exhibition put on display gory images of decapitated bodies, to educate the public about the inhumane effects of war.

The exhibition also featured the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq along with life-sized mannequins to show the abuse and torture of prisoners by the US army.

Millions of people have lost their lives in the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan over the past years.

Monday, August 23, 2010

'Butcher of Gaza' annoys Arabs














Yoav Galant (The Butcher of Gaza), Israeli Defense Minister
Ehud Barak's choice for the future chief of general staff



Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/139845.html


Many Arab outlets wail at Israel's choice of next military chief, Yoav Galant, who is known as the 'butcher of Gaza' for commanding a deadly war on the strip.

Pending approval by Tel Aviv, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has appointed Major General Yoav Galant to succeed the current holder of the position, Gabi Ashkenazi. The move was also welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Galant oversaw the January 2008-December 2009 Israeli offensives on the Gaza Strip, which killed more than 1,400 Palestinians, inflicting a damage of above $1.6 billion on the impoverished enclave's economy.

On Monday, media outlets in the Arab world either expressed disapproval of the nomination or greeted it with derision, the Palestinian Ma'an news agency reported.

The agency said the Lebanese broadcaster al-Manar TV had referred to Galant as a "war criminal."

The military leader's enlistment with the Israel Defense Forces began in 1977, the Israeli website Ynetnews said.

He, however, left Israel for Alaska to work as lumberjack, it said. Several websites seized upon the matter, calling Galant "woodcutter."

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

ICC makes waging war a crime














The International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg described aggressive wars as
'a supreme international crime' [GETTY]


By: Sam Sasan Shoamanesh

Source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/2010614114457900167.html


Following the devastation of the second world war, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg, established by the Allied Forces to try leading figures of defeated Nazi Germany, described aggressive wars waged against other nations as "[a] supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

Some 60 years later, history was made in the early morning hours of Saturday, June 12, 2010 in Kampala, Uganda, the site of the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

For the first time in the war stricken story of mankind, waging aggressive wars has become a prosecutable crime in international law and given precise meaning and teeth before the ICC - this on the strength of an unexpected consensus reached between member states of the Court (or in ICC terminology 'states parties').

The conference in Kampala concluded with the adoption of a resolution that at last defined the crime of aggression listed in Article 5 of the Rome Statute - the Court's founding treaty - using the UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) as a guide.

The resolution, in effect, criminalises the use of force (for example: blockades, invasions, bombardments) against another country in violation of the Charter of the United Nations; giving the Court the power to try future political and military leaders who plan, prepare, initiate or execute illegal wars, and to hold them (individually) criminally responsible for the commission of this new, and long-overdue, international crime.

Equally importantly, the Kampala resolution settled the conditions under which the ICC could exercise jurisdiction over the crime.

No Security Council monopoly

The final text of the agreement reflects a language of compromise - in part, proposed by Canada - needed to appease all sides of the debate on the highly complex and divisive issue of empowering the ICC to prosecute those who wage illegal wars.

It does not take much imagination to guess where the dividing line has traditionally been drawn on this delicate question.

In general, most of the rift has been focused on the level of nexus that should exist between the ICC and the Security Council in the prosecution of the crime.

Thanks partly to the inconsistent track-record of the Security Council and the politically driven exercise of the veto powers of the five permanent members of the Council, most Middle Eastern and African states, and indeed the majority of the Court's states parties, have insisted on limiting the Council's involvement.

The rationale behind this standpoint is nicely captured in the opening address of the Iranian delegation, which was present at the conference in an Observer capacity.

Headed by Jamshid Momtaz, the former president of the UN International Law Commission, Iran aligned its position to that of Egypt's (which coincidentally attended on behalf of the non-aligned movement), and articulated the following:

• It is not legally convenient nor does it serve the cause of justice to tie the functioning of the Court to the decisions of the Security Council and, in a sense, leave the Court at the mercy of the Council. The Security Council is, by nature, a political organ and as such cannot act as a judicial filtering for the Court. The Security Council's practice in the past six decades indicates how dominant the political considerations of the permanent members have been in its decision-making processes. This includes those decisions made under Article 39 of the Charter, in particular the determination of an act of aggression.

Iran while recognising that the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security under the UN Charter falls on the Security Council, nonetheless adds:

•[This] does not mean, however, that the Security Council can play a determining judicial role for the Court. The prior determination of an act of aggression can facilitate the work of the Court, but the absence of such determination should not handcuff the Court. Otherwise, the raison d’être of the Court, as a judicial body, would be undermined.

It must be said that the anxiety over granting exclusive control to the Security Council is overwhelming shared by human rights NGOs.

Richard Dicker, the director of the international justice programme at Human Rights Watch captures this shared concern in the following statement.

The "ICC as a judicial body must be independent from the political interference of the Security Council that is a political organ that takes decision for political reasons".

On the other side of the debate, the most robust resistance to the activation of the crime has come mostly from the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Benjamin Ferencz, a former prosecutor at Nuremburg, and one of the leading advocates of the crime of aggression suggests this is because: "… the Security Council members do not want to surrender their powers to the ICC."

The permanent five - the UK, US, Russia, China and France - amongst other states argue that the triggering, and certainly, the classification of the Court's jurisdiction over the crime must reside on the exclusive powers granted to the Security Council under Article 39 of the UN Charter.

Turkey, a non-permanent Security Council member, had taken a somewhat similar position.


Compromise

The language of the resolution adopted in Kampala attempts to reconcile these two general schools of thought. And here is how:

Under the adopted resolution, the Security Council, after making a finding of unlawful use of force in breach of the UN Charter, can refer a situation to the Court pursuant to Article 13 (b) of the Rome Statute, whether or not the matter involves the acts of a state party.

This will ensure that the Security Council is the principal body that can classify the act as a crime of aggression, and trigger related ICC proceedings.

However if the Council fails to act within six months - say, due to a political gridlock - the Court can exercise its jurisdiction regardless and try nationals of a state party responsible for the crime of aggression on a state party referral, or when the ICC prosecutor commences an investigation on his own initiative.

In this last scenario, a prior authorisation from the pre-trial chamber of the Court is required.

These latter two options, offered as a compromise, counter the default monopoly that the Security Council would enjoy in classifying the offense and blessing it, as it were, for prosecution.

The resolution ensures that in the event the Security Council does not act, the Court will not be hampered by this inaction.

The resolution's limits

The resolution adopted in Kampala does have conditions attached to it.

For one, the newly adopted crime of aggression does not directly apply to non-state parties. It is worth recalling that major global players like Russia, China, US, Israel, Iran to name but a few are yet to become states parties.

The resolution also places restrictions on when the crime will have operative effect.

The ICC will not be able to exercise jurisdiction until at least 30 states parties have ratified the new amendments (likely to occur without difficulty).

Further, the states parties will have to wait until January 1, 2017 to activate the jurisdiction of the Court over the crime.

These are of course temporary hurdles before the crime is given full force of the law.

There are, however, other limitations.

Given that the Rome Statute is an international treaty entered into voluntarily between states, the Court's states parties can declare themselves exempt from the application of the crime (except for instances where the Security Council has referred the case to the ICC).

Additionally, the Security Council can pass a resolution deferring an investigation or a prosecution under Article 16 of the Rome Statute on grounds that they are injurious to international peace and security - such resolutions must, however, be revisited every year.

Regardless of these restrictions, make no mistake what transpired in Kampala is a tectonic step forward towards the fulfilment of a more refined international legal order where the rule of law is venerated and applied universally.

The inclusion of the crime of aggression in the arsenal of prosecutable offences of the ICC is a fundamental game-changer in global governance, forcing behavioural adjustments to the historical practice of waging war as merely "the continuation of politics by other means".

It is at this stage a fait accompli, and the world is better for it.

Significance for the Middle East

Broadly what does this development signify for the Middle East?

First, it demonstrates the truly international nature and independence of the ICC, where states parties can, on an equal basis, play a decisive role in shaping the future direction of the Court.

Unfounded misperceptions about the Court that prevail in the Middle East have to date prevented the region from reaping the benefits of ICC membership and protecting the human rights of the Middle Easterner.

In view of the tremendous losses suffered in the region through past wars and lapses in human rights protection at the national level, and with more conflicts projected to be on the horizon, it is only reasonable for states in the Middle East to ratify the Rome Statute and become states parties.

Apart from the deterrent dividend that being a member of the Court could yield by potentially changing the calculus of would be aggressors (that is strategic power), ratification would also mean empowerment and legal remedy in the event that crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court are committed.

At this juncture, the ICC boasts 111 states parties.

Of this number, the only Middle Eastern country that is a state party is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; a peculiar fact given that the region has been the stage of countless conflicts and human rights violations, and its states, the victims of numerous instances of aggression.

The ICC, it has been said, "is a kind of a sword of Damocles for those who admit a possibility of achieving political goals by committing mass murders, extermination and violating international law" - these are words, tellingly uttered by the Russian delegation at the commencement of the conference in Kampala.

It is past time to partner up with the ICC, and bring the culture of impunity in the Middle East to an end and assist the Court to achieve its notable mandate.

Human beings, Middle Easterner or other, should not be condemned to have their fundamental human rights trampled upon, with the consolation that they may have tranquility and recourse in death in the realm of the divine.

Fatalism and unwarranted suspicions towards the Court must give way to more informed decision making and dexterous action.

We are living at a turning point in history where the deficits of the past are slowing giving way - through friction, trial, courage and sacrifice no less - to a more aligned and balanced relations amongst states.

We are not there yet by any means, but the velocity of change has been fixed towards a more enlightened path for humanity.

It is hoped that Middle Eastern states, and generally all states currently looking to the Court from the sidelines, recognise that the ICC is an institution emblematic of this new century; one that is fit and equipped to function - independently and impartially - in this newly emerging global arena.

After the first world war, the former US secretary of state Charles Evans Hughes - a forgotten giant of his time from the romantic era of US influence in the world - stated the following in a speech presented in 1923: "War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals."

Almost a century later, Kampala 2010 became the embodiment of these prophetic words.

We have much to be proud of. Yet the quest for peace and international rule of law is long and fraught with enumerable obstacles; but to march forward we must and collectively.

Sam Sasan Shoamanesh is the head of the counsel assistance unit of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and co-founder and associate editor of Global Brief, Canada's leading international affairs magazine (www.globalbrief.ca). http://globalbrief.ca/

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Their First Goal is to Stop Gaza War Crimes Revelations





By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth

5 August 2009


In a bid to staunch the flow of damaging evidence of war crimes committed during Israel’s winter assault on Gaza, the Israeli government has launched a campaign to clamp down on human rights groups, both in Israel and abroad.

It has begun by targeting one of the world’s leading rights organizations, the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), as well as a local group of dissident army veterans, Breaking the Silence, which last month published the testimonies of 26 combat soldiers who served in Gaza.

Additionally, according to the Israeli media, the government is planning a “much more aggressive stance” towards human rights groups working to help the Palestinians.

Officials have questioned the sources of funding received by the organizations and threatened legislation to ban support from foreign governments, particularly in Europe.

Breaking the Silence and other Israeli activists have responded by accusing the government of a “witch hunt” designed to intimidate them and starve them of the funds needed to pursue their investigations.

“This is a very dangerous step,” said Mikhael Mannekin, one of the directors of Breaking the Silence. “Israel is moving in a very anti-democratic direction.”

The campaign is reported to be the brainchild of the far-right foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, currently facing corruption charges, but has the backing of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Early last month, Mr Lieberman used a press conference to accuse non-government organizations, or NGOs, of replacing diplomats in setting the international community’s agenda in relation to Israel. He also threatened reforms to curb the groups’ influence.

A week later, Mr Netanyahu’s office weighed in against Human Rights Watch, heavily criticizing the organization for its recent fund-raising activities in Saudi Arabia.

HRW has pointed out that it only accepts private donations, and has not accepted Saudi government funds, but Israeli officials say all Saudi money is tainted and will compromise HRW’s impartiality as a human rights watchdog in its treatment of Israel.

“A human rights organization raising money in Saudi Arabia is like a women’s rights group asking the Taliban for a donation,” Mark Regev, a government spokesman, told the right-wing Israeli daily newspaper the Jerusalem Post.

HRW recently published reports arguing that the Israeli army had committed war crimes in Gaza, including the use of white phosphorus and attacking civilian targets.

HRW is now facing concerted pressure from Jewish lobby groups and from leading Jewish journalists in the US to sever its ties with Saudi donors. According to the Israeli media, some Jewish donors in the US have also specified that their money be used for human rights investigations that do not include Israel.

Meanwhile, Israel’s Foreign Ministry is putting pressure on European governments to stop funding many of Israel’s human rights groups. As a prelude to a clampdown, it has issued instructions to all its embassies abroad to question their host governments about whether they fund such activities.

Last week the Foreign Ministry complained to British, Dutch and Spanish diplomats about their support for Breaking the Silence.

The testimonies collected from soldiers suggested the Israeli army had committed many war crimes in Gaza, including using Palestinians as human shields and firing white phosphorus shells over civilian areas. One soldier called the army’s use of firepower “insane”.

The Dutch government paid nearly 20,000 euros to the group to compile its Gaza report, while Britain funded its work last year to the tune of 40,000 GBP.

Israeli officials are reported to be discussing ways either to make it illegal for foreign governments to fund “political” organizations in Israel or to force such groups to declare themselves as “agents of a foreign government”.

“Just as it would be unacceptable for European governments to support anti-war NGOs in the US, it is unacceptable for the Europeans to support local NGOs opposed to the policies of Israel’s democratically elected government,” said Ron Dermer, a senior official in Mr Netanyahu’s office.

He added that many of the groups were “working to delegitimize the Jewish state”.

Jeff Halper, the head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, said the government’s position was opposed to decades-old developments in human rights monitoring.
Every dictator, from Hitler to Milosevic, has said that there must be no interference in their sovereign affairs, and that everyone else should butt out. But international law says human rights are universal and cannot be left to individual governments to interpret. The idea behind the Geneva Conventions is that the international community has a duty to be the watchdog on human rights abuses wherever they occur.
Mr Halper, whose organization last year received 80,000 euros from Spain to rebuild demolished Palestinian homes, was arrested last year for sailing to Gaza with peace activists to break the siege of Gaza.

Other groups reported to be in the Foreign Ministry’s sights are: B’Tselem, whose activities include providing Palestinians with cameras to record abuses by settlers and the army; Peace Now, which monitors settlement building; Machsom Watch, whose activists observe soldiers at the checkpoints; and Physicians for Human Rights, which has recently examined doctors’ complicity in torture.

The government’s new approach mirrors a long-running campaign against left wing and Arab human rights groups inside Israel conducted by NGO Monitor, a right-wing lobby group led by Gerald Steinberg, a professor at Bar Ilan University, near Tel Aviv.

NGO Monitor has also targeted international organizations such as Oxfam and Amnesty International, but has shown a particular obsession with HRW. Mr Steinberg recently boasted that HRW’s trip to Saudi Arabia in May reflected the loss of major Jewish sponsors in the US following the publication of its Gaza reports.

In an article in the Jerusalem Post on Sunday [1 August], Mr Steinberg claimed that European governments treated their funding of Israeli human rights organizations “as ‘top secret’, reflecting the realization that such activities lack legitimacy”.

Mr Mannekin said the Breaking the Silence report listed donors on the first page. “We are far more transparent than NGO Monitor. We don’t know who funds them.”

NGO Monitor, which according to its website is chiefly funded by the shadowy Wechsler Family Foundation in the US, is closely linked to Dore Gold, a hawkish former adviser to Ariel Sharon.

Mr Mannekin added: “The government cannot suppress information about what happened in Gaza by shutting us down. You can’t send 10,000 soldiers into battle and not expect that some of the details will come out. If it’s not us doing it, it’ll be someone else.”

The government’s current campaign follows a police raid on the homes of six Israeli women peace activists in April.

The women, all members of New Profile, a feminist organization that opposes the militarization of Israeli society, were arrested and accused of helping Israeli youngsters to evade the draft. The women are still waiting to learn whether they will be prosecuted.
-----------------------
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

A version of this article originally appeared in The National, published in Abu Dhabi.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Declare War Crimes on the Bush Administration

















Greetings and felicitations,

My name is Stewart, and I am from Canada. I am pleading with you, my fellow human beings, to please join with me on a quest to end the War and occupation in Iraq. Lets stop the madness in Iraq together by sending a letter to The International Criminal Court of Justice and call for A War Crimes trial against George Bush, Dick Cheney and their corporate thieves.


International Criminal Court of Justice Web Site.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/

The aggressive War that the United States launched on Iraq is a War Crime! The fact that the Americans are still in Iraq committing atrocities is grievous and malevolent to the human spirit. The United Nations has failed us because our governments have not stood up against George Bush and taken action. Therefore, it is up to us, the people of the World to do so. The International Criminal Court upholds our rights as human beings and is a World Body at the heart of what has been defined as Human morals and Law. Our letter campaign will focus pressure in that place.

Please write a letter or simply copy the one below and send it to the "The Office of the Prosecutor" at the International Criminal Court of Justice.

otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int

Dear Sirs,

I would like some information on how accusations of War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity might be reported, determined and acknowledged? What is the process of going from accusations to trial?

Is waging aggressive War considered a War Crime or crime against humanity? Chief Justice Jackson, the American prosecutor during the Nuremberg trials, asked for a judgement that stated, “any nation that wages aggressive War would be tried for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity”? At least, it was his intention and dominant in his day two speech at Nuremberg.

I am trying to understand why the U.S.A. has not been accused of committing War Crimes when it invaded Iraq. Is it up to the international court to make accusations, or does another country have to make the claim? Please write back, I am trying to get answers and also to understand if high moral principals are indeed being followed, or if they are just mere words of an age gone by.

Regards,
Stewart Brennan
July 23, 2007


I was given an acknowledgment and a Court reference number (OTP-CR-231/07) on July 30th. Please see the letter below.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached the acknowledgment letter sent by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

Our Reference: OTP-CR-231/07

The Hague, 30 July 2007

The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court acknowledges receipt of your documents / letter.

This communication has been duly entered in the Communications Register of the Office. We will give consideration to this communication, as appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the international Criminal Court.

As soon as a decision is reached we will inform you, in writing, and provide you with reasons for this decision.

Yours Sincerely,
Head of Information and Evidence Unit
Office of the Prosecutor.

Kind regards,
Information and Evidence Unit- Office of the Prosecutor
International Criminal Court
Maanweg 174 - 2516 AB The Hague
The Netherlands


If you would like to use the number that the International Criminal Court gave me, please feel free to do so. Again, the number is, OTP-CR-231/07.

Lets end the War Crimes in Iraq once and for all. Send this message out to everyone you know. The War will only stop when YOU and I stand up and say, “STOP the WAR!!” We can’t wait any longer! Millions of people are counting on you…yes YOU! All it takes is 10 minutes of your time. Please encourage others to send a letter, or email, anything, just don’t sit idly by. Nothing will happen if you do not take action! Governments on their own will not end this madness, but the masses that include you and I, the people, can make a difference and bring humanity back to the human race. Please send your letter today. Thank you.

Nuremberg Trials: Chief Justice Jackson’s Opening Speech
http://worldunited-stewart.blogspot.com/2007/06/nuremberg-trials-mr-justice-jackson.html

Please see one of many crimes committed in the name of George Bush.

War Crime video #1: Fallujah
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8905191678365185391

Yours in solidarity,
Stewart Brennan

Saturday, July 14, 2007

War Crimes,Terrorism & Propaganda



By: Stewart Brennan

War Crimes, Terrorism and Propaganda

After the Second World War ended in 1945, Nuremberg Germany was the focus of the first War Crimes Trial in recorded history. Nazi Germany was on trial for the crimes committed in the name of fascism most notably the aggressive invasion of other countries and the resulting deaths of tens of millions of people. The consensus among nations and result of this trial was to make future war a crime.

Chief Justice Robert Jackson, the American Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, was the laws champion. The law simply put, states that war of aggression is considered a War Crime and a Crime against humanity. High standing morals became International Law and all nations were, bound by it.

What is Terrorism?

When people resist their military occupation they are referred to as terrorists by their occupiers. A good example of this is in the 1900's when Irish Nationals were declared terrorists by England because they did not play by the military game book and instead chose to greet their brutal occupiers by with covert force.

During the Second World War, the occupying Germans called members of the French Resistance terrorists, and today, the Iraqi resistance to their U.S. occupation is no different than the French resistance fighting occupying Nazi's in World War 2. I think under the circumstances, everyone would defend their home against an occupying army, wouldn't you? At any rate, War boils down to one thing, “Economic Greed”.

Propaganda and the News Media / Medium:

An early example of 20th century propaganda was 1930's German Radio when it filled the homes of listeners who were bombarded with nationalistic propaganda to promote the wishes of the dictatorship.

Today, there is no difference when we look at the USA. There is an all out Propaganda Blitz on their citizens by corporate owned media. In fact the same corporations also inform their workers on who to vote for in regards to their corporate interests. I know this from experience because I saw it in the newsletters I received from my American employers here in Canada.

There is no doubt in my mind that corporations are tied into the political structure and news mediums, whatever big business wants, big business gets and those interests are conveyed at political fundraising events and over the broadcast airwaves.

Proof of the propaganda and lies that the U.S. News Media and Politicians are telling their own people can be seen by the overwhelming approval of the Iraq War in 2003 by the American people. Even though the evidence was fabricated and proven to be a fabricated, the government went to war anyways. US citizens were hyped up into a war frenzy by their television while the broadcast news ignored the truth and withheld it from public.

Now in 2007, after hundreds of thousands of lost lives, support for the War in Iraq is fading. Why?...because the Whitehouse got caught lying to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and that they were being questioned on who was really responsible for terrorist attacks in 2001.

Why are the Americans in Iraq? I believe that this might have something to do with oil, and that the military dominance the USA enjoys over the World depends on Oil. (Personal opinion)

Propaganda in the USA today is mostly delivered by the television, but it is replicated in all forms of mainstream news. The Television Station owners are funded by huge corporations through commercials that turn into profits for shareholders. The same owners are not interested in reporting the truth or the facts anymore because it just isn’t as profitable as a War. Bribery comes in the guise of billions of advertising dollars...

Who makes the bombs, guns, bullets, aircraft, tanks, etc. for the American government? Who sponsors billions of dollars to News programming? What do corporations require to keep going? How many oil companies does it take to screw the world? How many companies or Corporate C.E.O.’s are in collusion with the US government? Or should I ask, how many U.S. Government officials are in collusion with big business interests?

6 Corporations That Control Your Perception | Think Tank


Source: Breaking the Set 
(Video Added to post in June 2013)

Conclusion:

The Laws that were created in Nuremberg at the end of World War two should be applied to every country, with no exception, because countries who prescribe to war through propaganda and aggression are no better than the fascists of Nazi Germany. There is plenty of room on the planet for everyone. Global solutions should not be dictated by propaganda or by hostile or aggressive acts of War, but negotiated. Justice should no longer be sided with who shouts loudest, but by just laws created for all of mankind. Why should the World excuse the USA for invading Iraq in 2003 or even Israel for invading Lebanon in 2006. The U.S.A. and Israel are not above these laws. Civilization demands A War Crimes Trial for American and Israeli aggression. The laws were created for all nations; therefore, the United States must abide by international law regardless of its position or stature within the U.N.

The World Community needs to progress together in harmony and respect for one another if we are to survive. Civilization demands it. Otherwise, the United Nations will be doomed to fail and mankind will travel a very dark road in the not too distant future.

Regards,
Stewart Brennan

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Nuremberg Trials - Mr. Justice Jackson



Chief United States Prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals

May it please Your Honors;

The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrong’s which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

This Tribunal, while it is novel and experimental, is not the product of abstract speculations nor is it created to vindicate legalistic theories. This inquest represents the practical effort of four of the most mighty of nations, with the support of 17 more, to utilize international law to meet the greatest menace of our times aggressive war. The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched. It is a cause of that magnitude that the United Nations will lay before Your Honors.

In the prisoners' dock sit twenty-odd broken men. Reproached by the humiliation of those they have led almost as bitterly as by the desolation of those they have attacked, their personal capacity for evil is forever past. It is hard now to perceive in these men as captives the power by which as Nazi leaders they once dominated much of the world and terrified most of it. Merely as individuals their fate is of little consequence to the world.

What makes this inquest significant is that these prisoners represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust. We will show them to be living symbols of racial hatreds, of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power. They are symbols of fierce nationalisms and of militarism, of intrigue and war- making which have embroiled Europe generation after generation, crushing its manhood, destroying its homes, and impoverishing its life. They have so identified themselves with the philosophies they conceived and with the forces they directed that any tenderness to them is a victory and an encouragement to all the evils which are attached to their names. Civilization can afford no compromise with the social forces which would gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously or indecisively With the men in whom those forces now precariously survive.

What these men stand for we will patiently and temperately disclose. We will give you undeniable proofs of incredible events. the catalog of crimes will omit nothing that could be conceived by a pathological pride, cruelty, and lust for power. These men created in Germany, under the "Fuehrerprinzip", a National Socialist despotism equalled only by the dynasties of the ancient East. They took from the German people all those dignities and freedoms that we hold natural and inalienable rights in every human being. The people were compensated by inflaming and gratifying hatreds towards those who were marked as "scapegoats". Against their opponents, including Jews, Catholics, and free labor, the Nazis directed such a campaign of arrogance, brutality, and annihilation as the world has not witnessed since the pre-Christian ages. They excited the German ambition to be a "master race", which of course implies serfdom for others. They led their people on a mad gamble for domination. They diverted social energies and resources to the creation of what they thought to be an invincible war machine They overran their neighbors. To sustain the "master race" in its war-making, they enslaved millions of human beings and brought them into Germany, where these hapless creatures now wander as "displaced persons". At length bestiality and bad faith reached such excess that they aroused the sleeping strength of imperiled Civilization. Its united efforts have ground the German war machine to fragments. But the struggle has left Europe a liberated yet prostrate land where a demoralized society struggles to survive. These are the fruits of the sinister forces that sit with these defendants in the prisoners' dock.

In justice to the nations and the men associated in this prosecution, I must remind you of certain difficulties which may leave their mark on this case. Never before in legal history has an effort been made to bring within the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade, covering a whole continent, and involving a score of nations, countless individuals, and innumerable events. Despite the magnitude of the task, the world has demanded immediate action. This demand has had to be met, though perhaps at the cost of finished craftsmanship. In my country, established courts, following familiar procedures, applying well-thumbed precedents, and dealing with the legal consequences of local and limited events seldom commence a trial within a year of the event in litigation. Yet less than 8 months ago today the courtroom in which you sit was an enemy fortress in the hands of German SS troops. Less than 8 months ago nearly all our witnesses and documents were in enemy hands. The law had not been codified, no procedures had been established, no tribunal was in existence, no usable courthouse stood here, none of the hundreds of tons of official German documents had been examined, no prosecuting staff had been assembled, nearly all of the present defendants were at large, and the four prosecuting powers had not yet joined in common cause to try them. I should be the last to deny that the case may well suffer from incomplete researches and quite likely will not be the example of professional work which any of the prosecuting nations would normally wish to sponsor. It is, however, a completely adequate case to the judgment we shall ask you to render and its full development we shall be obliged to leave to historians.

Before I discuss particulars of evidence, some general considerations which may affect the credit of this trial in the eyes of the world should be candidly faced. There is a dramatic disparity between the circumstances of the accusers and of the accused that might discredit our work if we should falter, in even minor matters, in being fair and temperate.

Unfortunately the nature of these crimes is such that both prosecution and judgment must be by victor nations over vanquished foes. The worldwide scope of the aggressions carried out by these men has left but few real neutrals. Either the victors must judge the vanquished or we must leave the defeated to judge themselves. After the first World War, we learned the futility of the latter course. The former high station of these defendants, the notoriety of their acts, and the adaptability of their conduct to provoke retaliation make it hard to distinguish between the demand for a just and measured retribution, and the unthinking cry for vengeance which arises from the anguish of war. It is our task, so far as humanly possible, to draw the line between the two. We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this Trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity's aspirations to do justice.

At the very outset, let us dispose of the contention that to put these men to trial is to do them an injustice entitling them to some special consideration These defendants may be hard pressed but they are not ill used. Let us see what alternative they would have to being tried.

More than a majority of these prisoners surrendered to or were tracked down by the forces of the United States. Could they expect us to make American custody a shelter for our enemies against the just wrath of our Allies? Did we spend American lives to capture them only to save them from punishment? Under the principles of the Moscow Declaration, those suspected war criminals who are not to be tried internationally must be turned over to individual governments for trial at the scene of their outrages. Many less responsible and less culpable American-held prisoners have been and will continue to be turned over to other United Nations for local trial. If these defendants should succeed, for any reason, in escaping the condemnation of this Tribunal, or if they obstruct or abort the trial, those who are American-held prisoners will be delivered to our continental Allies. For these defendants, however, we have set up an International Tribunal and have undertaken the burden of participating in a complicated effort to give them fair and dispassionate hearings. That is the best- known protection to any man with a defense worthy of being heard. [=]

ICJ delivers ruling in favour of South Africa

South Africa's Closing Argument Against Israel for Genocide at the ICJ