Archive for the 'law' Category

Julian Assange & the Likely Attack on Ecuador’s London Embassy: America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally

Due to a general request by Craig Murray, I repost his article

America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally

by craig on August 16, 2012 11:30 am in Uncategorized

UPDATE

100,000 HITS IN 100 MINUTES CRASHED THE SITE. WE DON’T KNOW YET IF GENUINE INTEREST OR DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK. OUR BRILLIANT WEBHOSTS HAVE QUADRUPLED THE RESOURCE, BUT IF YOU CAN HELP TAKE THE STRAIN BY REPOSTING I WOULD BE VERY GRATEFUL.

I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.

This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most subscribed single international treaty in the world.

The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or qualification elsewhere in the treaty.

Article 22

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.

The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.

The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide.

I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in Number 10.

There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles.

Twilight

It finally looks like Brits and Yanks are starting to pay the price for the bankruptcy of perverted economic and moral bankruptcy (neo-imperialism) they allowed continue (largely unopposed and suckled off) for decades if not centuries. In all honesty, I can’t say I have any sympathy for them, after all, they keep voting for proven killers and killers-to-be, they are utterly deluded that the political system UK and US (I don’t care if you call it Democracy or what – as it’s totally irrelevent) is anything other a great failure.

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”   – (Galatians 6:7 KJV)

The greatest protests the world has ever seen (Feb 2003)  against the looming obliteration of Iraq were encouraging (despite the fact Iraq had been under 12 years of murderous sanctions and wicked bombings by the rAF and USAF) but when the bombing started, those same people were pretty much content that ‘Febuary’s first step‘ meant that they had done their ‘bit’. How miserable.

As regards to the self declared non-elected leaders of the so called anti-war movement, they proved to be a disgrace. manufactured dissent, firmly thinking within the box, (I’m beginning to hate the expression “Thinking outside the box” because  ‘outside the box’ is not really outside the box at all. It’s actually still well within the establishments box – that of permitted dissent, besides, saying ‘out of the box’ is just about said by almost everyone these days who are attempting self-projection, believing they are subtly callin themselves clever, but in actual fact, they are drawing attention to themselves by trotting out tired and boring populist expressions. Saying ‘thinking outside box’ is now confirmation they are actually in sheeple box. I’ll grant Steve Jobs an honourable exception here) or simply cowards;

Actually it’s all three.

The so called ‘anti-war’ movement should have called for certain politicians (bLiar, Straw & Brown for a start) should have been hung drawn and quartered – not an extreme act at all, as it’s a similar philosophy bLiar & Co. used (so called pre-emptive military action*) – putting bLiars head on a spike outside Westminster would have saved a million innocent lives, but in fact it’s even more moral based compared to bLiars pretence at a moral stance, in that bLiar’s justification was a clear lie, Saddam was never going to attack, but it was abundantly clear bastard bLiar and jackass BuSh, Howard and Aznar were going to destroy Iraq – illegally. Lets not forget those so called Muslim Countries that did nothing, or those like France, China and Russia that stood by calculating no detriment to their own interests (and very likely thought they would ‘gain’ in the long term from it).  

Selfish Brits of course would have none of putting bLiars demon head on a spike – for passers by to spit at. It’s simply not on to kill a pathological liar, a cheat, hypocrite, willing partner in infanticide (over half a million Iraqi kids during 12 years of abhorrent sanctions). Blair is English, speaks English, wealthy, held power, and is white. All attributes which entitle him to escape punishment for his murder lust. Iraqi’s on the other hand are poor, darker-skinned, powerless, Iraqi and Muslim… BOMBS AWAY !!!

So the justice of having bLiar publically executed is unlikely to be realised, but at least they could have called for him to be publically beaten to a pulp, allowed to recover and then beaten to a pulp again and again; treatment herr mudjesties forces did to the people of Iraq.

Or at least allow some Iraqi mourners whose kids were blown to smithereens to given a damn good shiner and had a bloodied nose and a decent scar across his repulsive face and scratch his eyes out with their fingernails.

Despite the failing of the ridiculous so called ‘ant-war’ movement, people should not have ceded their morality to these anti-war ‘leaders’ and/or buried their moral conscience into an emotion-proof dungeon. They should stopped paying tax, refused to purchase goods from nations in the correctly named Coalition of the Killing, they should have taken out as much of their money from the banks and so on. But no, they were unwilling to risk any ‘luxury’. February (for those who bothered) was fine. And if you didn’t do any of those things, you could try, starting from tomorrow.

Today the UK and UK citizens still vote of liars, cheats, embezzlers, killers, killers-to-be, immoral shells (probably freemasonic/cabbalistic Satan worshippers – openly conscious of the fact or not) wanting to bend the law to their advantage and use it as a club to pummel the people who voted for them, while giving reassurances that everything’s ok, we’ll all pull through. I haven’t heard that other war-criminal Winston Churchill’s been called upon yet, but the stopwatch is running.

Face facts. Voters hands are bloodied with the crimes of the elect-ees. There is no escape from that.

So, the fact the western snake is starting to consuming its own tail, is actually a strange sence of poetic justice.

I do feel sorry for those that DID speak out against the white hot evil their nation spewed (and keeps spewing) out, but such people are tiny in number.

This post follows partly from watching Francis Fukuyama on fora.tv. Re: Noam Chomsky, StefZ said on Famous for 15 megapixels wrote something like “people keep saying Chomsky is a leading intellectual”. Fukuyama seems to be same. He’s preaching to the choir and gets promoted and admired by it. I first heard this (similar) ‘in-house’ point on the BBC”s Question Time in which Salman Rushdie’s literary award was dismissed as it was a bit of a Trades Union award / closed shop kind of honourarium. Fukuyama says some absolutely ridiculous and incredibly ignorant things (which I may describe in one of my final posts {assuming this isn’t it}) His rubbish words lapped up by his audience (TED’s a bit like this too – got it’s head up it’s ass, believing it occupies some kind of multi-dimensional high ground)  show what deep shit the planet we are in, a secular occidental bog of collapse. All of these occidentials (and Tariq Ramadan sadly seems little different) are like this. Beyond Sun Tzu, Confusious and Lao Tzu name 5 Chinese intellextons. Beyond Ghandi, and Siddhartha Gautama, name 5 leading Intellectuals, Name 10 African Intellectuals. Name 10 South American intellectuals. Don’t be surprised if you can’t – the West won’t let you. You’re only an intellectual if you play the game. And what a sick game it is.  

As well as residual feelings from my previous post, this post is also a result from the commentators on Craig Murray’s site and indeed Craig Murray himself. Craig posted something about no hope a week or so ago expressing he saw no hope and failed to realise the way he’s courting (conventional)politics with zero resistance (see above)  is why there is no hope. The commentators on that post and his subsequent post are the same. His commentators are of course far worse (I actually have a decent amount of respect for Mr. Murray, but it pains me that he’s performing like a half-way house). The commentators are those who talk-the-talk mighty fine, but don’t walk-the-walk, yet they believe they are radicals or true liberals and that the system is perhaps sound but just going through a rough period. Hah! Dupes(many of them). “Ooooh, we are going to drown” they cementing their feet in large blocks and throwing themselves off the jetty.

I am old, and no longer have fresh questions to ask about this world. I know how it run, I know the score. I know where it’s headed. Indeed Mr. Murray, there is no hope at all – at least in places where this globalised hegemony reaches – which is pretty much everywhere.

I look back on my youth (up to perhaps my mid 20’s) and remember a time when I thought there was actually something good and exciting about this world. I was really scared of it’s vastness and diversity.

Not now.

It’s all the same and it stinks. It’s suffocating the good people – mostly poor and innocent – people of traditional culture and values.

The western heartless, godless self pontificating/promoting arrogant world is fast approaching it’s doom. It’s fully realisable. Actually, it’s could be postponed but definately not with a prevailing ‘mind’.

Let the TSA continue to humiliate the people who voted for Clinton / Bush / Obama or whatever tyrant puppet is in control. Let the Irish idiots who voted for their funny-money politicians and loved them when they yields were high and the champagne flowed feel the consequences of their acton. Let the Brits feel austerity and have moe lies and deceptions flow from the mouths of the people they voted for (and will vote for next time) while more Yemeni, Somali, Pakistani, Haitians, Burmese, Roma, and of course the Palestinians in an ongoing Holocaust and other peoples etc.. continute to be oppressed by these secular power holding vampires.

It’s just a pity the good people will suffer too. 

My posts here are going to become very infrequent. There is no point. Even those USans who know 911 was a lie (WTC 7 – the main achillies heel of that horrific (ritual?) massacre) won’t do anything meaningful to stop the rot. The centres of power in China will continue as long as it believes it’s elite is making money, as will Russia, Brazil, India, The huge central asian ‘Stans’ are all on the same path, and I will not forget to mention the rotten seed of it all:  Israyhell. Israyhell is close to openly assuming it’s apocaplypic position as leadingnation in the world and so their champagne will also run dry soon. The powerfully built Jew with curly hair proclaiming(falsley) to be the messiah is almost ready to make his appearance. His paradise will he hell and his hell will be paradise, but you’re already in his paradise, faux-democray being a useful tool propagating it, and you will just vote again in his paradise to get even more paradise. And if you don’t believe the dajjal will get you, the dying environment and the GM(junk) food will.

After a last fling of time wasting, I’m purging my time wasting hobbies and am going to knuckle down with acquiring knowledge of my Creator and worshipping him accordingly.

That’s all that matters. Nothing else.

I will try and respond to the funny and thought provoking, most welcomed comments people graciously spend their time leaving here, and I may, occasionally, when I’ve decided to read current events for a quick break, post here again but like this world is entering its twilight, so is this blog while spiritual being makes effort to emerge from its self imposed twilight.

The twilight is just about here now, but I’ll leave with this; A pic of from the newz-journo-junk organisation called the BBC. Source: http://www.ZION-NEWS-OUTLET.co.uk/news/uk-11773665
(copy the link and although the above is correct, to read the article, replace the ‘ZION-NEWS-OUTLET’ part with ‘bbc’)

Big heads up to http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/ by the way.

* of course there was nothing pre-emptive about it. The Pre-emptive doctrine was ‘strike them before they strike us’ and of course you realise they would NEVER have struck us. but shich is the extent ir perverse and mind-rotting ssumes you act now to

The Antagonist helps publicise –THE STEP FORWARD– in the INDICTMENT IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT OF ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR (TONY BLAIR)

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5892105&postID=1193292830454352460

I can smell poo

And it’s coming from Craig Murray’s site!

No, not because it’s Craig making that smell, but because some of the things that are happening to him as outlined on his site absolutely stink!

I am refering to this ghastly UK puppetry pantomime of once “big bad” self labeled Muslims who didn’t actually do anything ‘radical’ – although they protest they were some kind of fundamanetal brigade (lol) and give the impression they could have killed us all in our beds. – A case of De’ja poo, non?

Anyway, Craig pointed something like that out (read his site for details, consider my description a teaser), in more eloquent words of course, and amazingly the Quillium foundation decided to use UK taxpayers money to try and sue Mr. Murray which if successful, is crafted in such a way as to reword the actors in the Quillium Foundation (very appropriate description I may add) will stand to pocket the swag, but not the foundation itself. Ho Ho! Christmas is coming and the goode is getting fat, please put millions of penny’s in Ed’ cap…

Add onto this that the directors of the Quillium Foundation, QF, or QuiFf {whichever you prefer} get something like £80,000 a year, well, it just bogggles the mind. << that figure is open to correction.

The Quillium foundation is in my opinion something akin to what one occasionally steps in.

I urge all people of reason and respect to treat the QuiFf like it should be treated, scraped off in ernest and disposed of carefully in a recpticle disposed to handle biological waste.

If you have taken the leap of bravery to stand beside men of valour dignity and courage such as Craig Murray (and personally I have significant political differences with Mr. Murray – but at times like this such things are irrelevant) then you might like to spread the word about the rather horrible lawyer’s acting with gusto against Mr. Murray and encourage others to desist from using that firm for any kind of business whatsoever. Think of them as the newspaper that now surrounds that stuff languishing in the aforementoned biological hazzard bin. Here’s there details (copy and pasted from the tail endings of their letter as posted on Craigs site):

Clarke Willmott LLP

Rachael Gregory
Secretary
______________________________________________
Clarke Willmott LLP
1 Georges Square
Bath Street Bristol BS1 6BA
tel:
fax: 0845 209 2519
email: Rachael.Gregory@clarkewillmott.com
http://www.clarkewillmott.com

$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$

To follow is some things Craig would like people to mirror for now… Take it away Craig:

Update (10/Oct/2010): Their threat didn’t materialise so I’ve deleting the replicative info (it has cused me annoyance when searching for items on my blog). See Craigs blog if you want to read his post.

Conference to Criminalize War and War Crimes Tribunal.

Contents (will change as time goes on)
appeal: does anyone know how to ‘bookmark/paragraph’ a wordpress post?

Updated Mon 30th Nov 2009. See links or CTRL+F  “World Tribunal On Iraq – The New York Hearings”…
Thanks to George Dutton, on Craig Murrays website

NEW (updated Nov 12th 2009) : Criminalise War YOU TUBE channel
at http://www.youtube.com/user/criminalisewar#p/u/9/dwRPLPSeaYg

1) Schedule/Programme (**updated Nov 8th 2009 Programme booklet scans [jpg] embedded in powerpoint**)
1.0) Opening video…
1.1) Dr Mahatir’s speech (Video link) and text **updated Nov 6th 2009 **
1.2) George Galloway MP speech (Video link) **updated Nov 6th 2009 **
1.3) Cynthia Mc Kinney’s speech (text only, but video on the Criminalise war YouTube link above)

2) ** Updated Nov 8th 2009 ** >>  Proceedings and Hearing of KL War Crimes Commission and Tribunal respectively Bookelt

3) Notes on torture victims testimony, and international law pertaining to the execution of war crimes by Bush, Blair et al. (patchy)

4) Links.  Updated Nov 12th 2009=Matthias Chang’s Future Fastforward website contains many other pages about the conference.

# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $#

The inbedded media (in bed with the filthy politiians, corporations and those who control them) have done a ‘good’ job at being silent about another step to drag some justice, kicking and screaling out of this world.

The Conference to Criminalize War and War Crimes Tribunal was held over four days in the Putra World trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur.

KL is well known for it’s efforts for global peace as is the movements head – ex primeminister Tun Dr. Mahatir Mohammad.

Here was the schedule/Programme: {Criminalise War – International Converence and Exhibition – Programme Booklet for the jpg scans of the booklet inside a powerpoint file}

Oct 28th, 2009

8.30 am Arrival of Guests

9.30 am Keynote Speech by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

Expose War Crimes – Criminalise War

(Venue:  Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

10.30 am Launching of War Crimes Exhibition Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

(Venue:  Exhibition Hall, Level 4, PWTC KL)

Coffee Break

11.30 am Session 1

(Venue:  Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

Flouting International Law  

• George Galloway (British MP)

• Cynthia McKinney (Former U.S Congresswoman)

• Gajendra Singh (former Indian Ambassador)

• Question and Answer Session

Moderator: Tan Sri Razali Ismail

1.00 pm Lunch

(Venue: Dewan Tun Razak, PWTC KL)

2.00 pm Session 2

(Venue:  Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

Economic Warfare

• Michel Chossudovsky (Prof of Economics, University of Ottawa)

• Hans Von Sponeck (Former UN Asst Secretary General)

• Khudair Waheed Hussein (Dean, Medical College, Syria)

• Question and Answer Session

Moderator: Mr. Zainul Ariffin

4.00 pm Session 3

(Venue:  Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

War and Civil Society

• Dato’ Mukhriz Mahathir (Deputy Minister of International Trade & Industries, Malaysia)

• General Dato’ Seri Azumi (rtd), (Executive Director, Perdana Global Peace Organisation)

• Dirk Adriaensens (Anti-War Activist)

• Question and Answer Session

Moderator: Tan Sri Hasmy Agam

5.30 pm Ends

++++++++++++++++++

Oct 29th, 2009

9.30 am Session 4

(Venue:  Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

War and the Mass Media

• Dato Seri Utama Rais Yatim (Information, Communications and Culture Minister, Malaysia)

• Sami Al’ Hajj (Aljazeera Reporter)

• Dato’ Ahmad Talib (Media Prima)

• Question and Answer Session

Moderator: Datuk A. Kadir Jasin

11.30 Session 5

(Venue:  Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

War and Banned Weapons

• Denis Halliday (Former U.N Asst. Secretary General)

• Leuren Moret (Uranium Expert)

• Dr. Souad Naji (VC, University of Syria)

Moderator: Shamsul Akmar

1.15 pm Lunch

(Venue: Dewan Tun Razak, PWTC KL)

2.00 pm Session 6

(Venue:  Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

Peace and Justice

• Tan Sri Sanusi Junid (Former International Islamic University, President)

• Hana Bayati (Freelance Film Maker)

• Muhammad Umar (Ramadhan Foundation)

• Question and Answer Session

Moderator: Tun Dr Siti Hasmah

3.45 pm PANEL SESSION

(Venue:  Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

Panel Session, to be chaired by YAB. Tun Dr. Mahathir

• Dato Seri Utama Rais Yatim (Information, Communications and Culture Minister, Malaysia)

• Michel Chossudovsky (Prof of Economics, University of Ottawa)

• Hans Von Sponeck (Former UN Secretary General)

• Denis Halliday (Former U.N Secretary General)

• George Galloway (British MP)

• Cynthia McKinney (Former U.S Congresswoman)

5.45 pm Group Photography Session  

Ends 6.00 pm Press Conference

++++++++++++++++++

Oct 30th, 2009

(Venue:  Tun Dr Ismail Hall, Level 2, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

9.30 am –1.00 pm Witness from Iraq Testimonies (7 witnesses)    

1.00 pm LUNCH

2.00 pm – 5.00 pm Continuation of Testimonies

++++++++++++++++++

Oct 31st, 2009

(Venue:  Tun Dr Ismail Hall, Level 2, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

9.30 am – 1.00 pm Continuation of Testimonies

Further testimony of witness.

1.00 pm LUNCH

2.00 pm – 5.00 pm Tribunal Deliberations

Hearing and decision of an Application for An Advisory Opinion filed by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission to determine if a Head of State or Government can unilaterally exempt itself from complying with any provisions of any International Treaties/Conventions duly ratified by the State without first abrogating the relevant treaty/convention.

++++++++++++++++++

Oct 28 – 31st, 2009

10.00 am – 6.00 pm EXHIBITION (Expose War Crimes – Criminalise War:  Failure of International Law)

(Venue: Exhibition Hall, Level 4,PWTC KL)

# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $#

 Opening Video By Matthais and Christopher Chang

http://www.youtube.com/v/D-c1UY35gQA

http://www.youtube.com/v/-7xqyh39whs
[http://http://www.youtube.com/v/-7xqyh39whs]

# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $#

Dr, Mahatir Mohammads speech:

 Read it below or watch it here: http://palestinevideo.blogspot.com/2009/11/criminalise-war-tun-mahathir-4-parts.html

SPEECH BY TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD AT THE CRIMINALISE WAR CONFERENCE AND WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL 2009 AT PUTRA WORLD TRADE CENTER, KUALA LUMPUR ON WEDNESDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2009

WAR AND CRIME

1. As one of the convenors of this conference on the Criminalisation of War, I must express my appreciation for the number of people who have shown enough interest to attend it.

2. I hope and pray that we can take yet another step towards a war-free world, toward making war no longer a solution for disputes between nations, by making it into a crime instead, making those who resort to aggressive war as criminals who must be punished for the crime of the mass killing of people, which is what war is about. If the killing of one person is murder, a crime deserving of the most severe punishment, why must we regard the mass killing of people as legitimate and proper? There is something wrong in a creed that regards the killing of one person as different from the killing of people in their thousands and millions of people. The thousands and millions are made up of single individuals in the final analysis. The mass killing in war cannot be regarded as anything other than the mass murder of individuals who make up the masses. Since individuals are being killed, the fact that the individuals are killed together doesn’t alter the fact that individuals are killed and therefore the killing must still be regarded as the killing of individuals which constitutes murder. And those responsible for the murder of these individuals must therefore be murderers and must be regarded as criminals and punished accordingly.

3. But the vast majority in this so-called modern civilization of ours still distinguish between the killing of an individual and the killings of millions of individuals in the situation called war.

4. One very intelligent individual when asked to join the movement to make war a crime, replied that we have had war for 7000 years and therefore we must accept wars. It is mind-boggling that there can be intelligent people who believe that since something had been done for 7000 years, then it should continue to be done.

5. There must be a lot of things which we have been doing for thousands years which we don’t believe should be done now. Abuse of human rights in its various forms are now not acceptable. Discrimination against women, child labour, public execution, the gibbets, torture, slavery etc etc are no longer acceptable now.

6. It is admitted that there are places where some of these practices are still carried out but generally the civilized world rejects them even if they had been common for thousands of years of their history.

7. So why cannot we reject war? Why cannot we make war a crime, a dastardly crime deserving of the most severe punishment.

8. Because we do not regard war as a crime, the mass killings have not stopped. In the 1st and 2nd World Wars 70 million people were killed. But the world today accepts this with equanimity. They were wars, so the killings were justified.

9. And today we are still seeing people being killed in wars, as the great military powers resort to it to resolve any problem, big and small which they may have with other countries, especially those which are no match for them.

10. 7000 years ago the number of people killed in any war must be very small. This is because the capacity to kill was limited. The weapons would be wooden clubs or sharpened sticks.

11. Then the more “civilized” began to invent new weapons. From stick to stone to ever harder metals. Knives, swords were invented. Sharp edges or points made killing much easier.

12. Bows and arrows followed, extending the reach of the weapons of war. The Chinese invented gun-power but not for killing. Mostly the explosives were for chasing imaginary devils and dragons, which threaten to swallow the moon.

13. The Europeans came across the gun-powder and immediately thought that it could be used in war for throwing projectiles a longer distance than the catapult or bows and arrows.

14. From then on the search for ways to hurl weapons further and further has never stopped. Apart from that the killing power of the missiles had been enhanced continually.

15. Now we can literally throw, shoot or rocket the most destructive weapons right round the globe and beyond. We now have the capacity to literally blow up this whole planet and every living soul on it.

16. The search for the most powerful weapon should really be over. Everyone should now know that a war can actually exterminate the whole of humanity, including the very people who use the nuclear weapons. Using it would amount to mass suicide. Both the victors and their victims would perish. War would therefore be totally counter productive.

17. Imagine a nuclear war with bombs and nuclear warheads being hurled at each other. If there are survivors, radiation would kill them all.

18. Truly war should no longer be an option in the settlement of disputes between nations.

19. But the fact is that the powerful nations of the world were not affected by the devastations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mostly they see nuclear weapons as deterrents against attacks against themselves. Far from outlawing nuclear weapons as they did with poison gas, they began developing ever more powerful nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

20. As a result the United States and Soviet Union, France and Britain rushed to acquire the knowledge and the capacities to produce nuclear weapons. During the Cold War years the United States and USSR built up huge arsenals of nuclear warheads. Between them there are more than 20,000 nuclear warheads sufficient to destroy the whole world many times over. China, France and Britain also have huge arsenals of nuclear weapons.

21. Germany and Japan are not allowed to posses nuclear weapons. But Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear capabilities.

22. There seems to be some basis for the idea of nuclear deterrents. Although the United States appeared ready to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban crisis, in the end it decided to compromise by removing its nuclear missiles in Turkey which was obviously threatening Russia.

23. It was fortunate that both the leaders of these two nuclear powers came to their senses in time. Otherwise the world would have been devastated by nuclear weapons in the arsenals of these two countries.

24. We cannot afford to have this kind of brinkmanship. We cannot live in fear of one or two persons destroying this world and its 6 ½ billion people. We cannot allow our civilization to be terminated by some crazy President.

25. A nuclear deterrent is just too risky and too very dangerous. Maybe it was this thought that prompted the idea of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

26. But all these international resolutions were non-starters because the big nuclear powers blatantly ignored them. As a result we see other countries developing their own nuclear weapons. There is much ado about these countries having nuclear weapons. These countries would be mad to use the few primitive nuclear weapons that they have. Should they do so the powerful nuclear countries would wipe out these countries from the surface of this earth?

27. The real danger is still from the rich and powerful nuclear powers. It is they who must reduce and finally eliminate their nuclear weapons if they want to have the moral ground to enforce the non-proliferation treaty.

28. Unfortunately these great nuclear powers are still developing, testing and producing more nuclear weapons. They talk of safe nuclear bombs, of small nuclear bombs and tactical nuclear bombs. Already they are using depleted uranium in their bombs and missiles which are causing diseases like cancer to spread among hundreds of thousands who had survived their attacks.

29. But they are not stopping there. They have developed bombs to penetrate deep into the ground so that bomb shelters buried deep in the ground would provide no protection.

30. New weapons are being developed as the industrialists see profits in the research and developments of weapons. In this their military has cooperated and played a big role as they would be the only organisation to need and use the new weapons.

31. The industrialists not only produce sophisticated new weapons but they invariably follow up with the defences against the weapons they have developed. Nations, rich and poor have been forced to buy and equip their armed forces with these offensive and defensive weapons or systems.

32. After this the industrialists would come up with a new weapon that could penetrate the defence system they had sold previously.

33. Should the country refuse to buy these the producers would hint at offering the weapons to the potential enemy of the country. Fearing the enemy would posses the weapon, which could penetrate its defence, the country would be forced to acquire the new weapon.

34. Then the industrialist would come up with a new defence system against the weapon they had just sold. Again the buyer would be forced to buy this defence system.

35. And so this would go on endlessly. The industrialist would wax rich even if the weapons would not be used. This is not my imagination. It is happening now even to Malaysia. We have to buy expensive aircrafts and submarines although we don’t expect to go to war with anyone. And we have to upgrade them every now and then.

36. The weapons merchants would try to create an arms race between neighbouring countries or rival countries in order to be able to sell the arms that they produce. The arms race would create fear and tension between countries, yet fearing mutual destruction few of these countries would go to war with each other. Not being used the expenditure on arms would be wasted. The urge to try out these weapons in real life situation would be irresistible. And so proxy wars and wars against weaker nations would be started.

37. But the countries of the world never learn. They would upgrade their weaponry continuously even though they know they have very seldom any use for the weapons.

38. Along the way the industrialists and the military have developed a symbiotic relation. Always desirous of becoming more and more powerful, the military would build a case for the need to develop new weapons against the possibility of attacks by potential enemies whose weapon might be superior.

39. Unable to recoup the money spent the industrialist marketed their weapons to the world. They work hand-in-hand with their Governments, the military, the banks and the media. Together they and their sales talk would be irresistible.

40. The weapons trade has developed and grown until it has become a big part of world trade. The effect of this trade is to impoverish countries which have to continually upgrade their weaponry at considerable cost and the arms race which invariably follows as neighbouring countries compete in upgrading their weaponry.

41. The weapons producing countries are still spending trillions of dollars conceiving, inventing, developing, testing and producing weapons. This is being done at the behest of the military, but often the defence industries would come up with frightening scenarios which could be handled by their latest multimillion dollar weapons. It is not the defence of their countries which they care about. It is the money to be made.

42. Any new scientific discoveries would be thoroughly studied for use in weapons. Thus firecrackers, noxious gases, bacteria, chemicals, metal alloys, new metals, lasers, radio waves, electrical and electronic devices, composite material, carbon fibres, and just about anything would be examined, analysed, studied, tested for applications in weapons, to make the killing of people more efficient.

43. Almost without exception some application would be found for use in killing people. Radio control toy cars and model aeroplanes have now evolved into remotely controlled, unmanned aircrafts, land and sea vehicles to deliver bombs and other explosives and even biological and chemical weapons without risking the lives of the attackers.

44. The technology for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) which could carry cameras and radio transmitters has now been applied to full-size military aircrafts. The pilot would be on the ground facing their numerous consoles, monitoring and controlling the aircrafts by radio, programming their flight and releasing their murderous cargo of bombs or firing their rockets. The pilots are not exposed to any danger by the bombs and rockets they fire from hundreds and thousands of miles away. Without the risk of being killed the urge to war and kill is enhanced.

45. The pilot of Enola Gay had to fly his plane thousands of miles to be over Hiroshima city in order to drop his beloved Little Boy to kill 100,000 people and destroy the whole city. He ran the risk of being attacked by enemy fighters and being shot down and killed.

46. The modern pilot can now fly the more sophisticated radio controlled bombers from his base in his country to drop the atomic bomb precisely over the target city. 100,000 people or even a million people would be killed and the whole city totally destroyed, just as was done by the pilot of Enola Gay. And all this can now be done between games of cards or watching a football match over a glass of beer. The pilot risks nothing at all yet the men, women, children, the aged, the sick and the disabled would all be killed and many thousands more wounded, losing their arms and legs, having their abdomen ripped open and their guts spilling on the ground.

47. Hospitals, schools, markets, shopping complexes and buildings of all kinds would be pulverised. Fires would start and a fire-storm would suck up all the oxygen, suffocating the survivors.

48. Even if no nuclear material is used, the power of modern explosives and the size of the mega bombs – each weighing more than 15 tons would do enough damage to devastate whole cities.

49. There would be nowhere to hide. The new bombs and rockets have the ability to pierce through earth and concrete to great depths before exploding so that those in bomb shelters would no longer be safe, be protected from the new weapons.

50. Noxious gases and radiation would kill rescuers, and would be blown for hundreds of miles, killing and spreading diseases of all kinds.

51. The great military powers have all these destructive weapons and delivery systems. They know that they don’t need huge armies to launch their attacks. All they need is a few men manning the consoles and they can literally wipe out hundreds of thousands or millions even of people, devastate whole countries and render them no longer habitable.

52. They have this capacity, they have this power. But they are still researching, developing, testing and producing more and more lethal weapons, gleefully predicting their use in future wars. They cannot conceive of a world at peace.

53. They believe that only they can be trusted with these weapons. The world need not fear them. They are reasonable people, caring people whose respect for human lives cannot be questioned. But are they?

54. They may not use the nuclear weapons and other WMD in their possession yet. But knowing that they have and knowing that no one would dare to attack them, they have shown their willingness to provoke weaker nations and to attack them with their so-called conventional but no less destructive weapons.

55. They claim their use of the power to kill people indiscriminately as making the world safe for democracy. They seem to think that only they as democrats have a right to live, to be safe and secure. It is right and proper to make those who are not democratic unsafe and insecure. It is proper to kill other people in order to promote democracy.

56. They fail to appreciate that the people who are not democratic are also people, are human beings whose right to live are no less than those who are democratic. The people who would be killed are innocent of any crimes against the democratic people, even if their leaders may be dictators. To deprive them of their rights to life must constitute as heinous a crime as the deprivation of the rights to life of innocent democrats.

57. Human rights is not for democratic people only. Every human life is sacred; every person has a right to live. Those who say that only democrats have a right to live in security are no less authoritarian than the dictators the democrats condemn. In fact in many cases authoritarian leaders or rulers have given their people a better life than some democrats whose countries have been made unstable and insecure because of the weaknesses and uncertainties of the democratic systems.

58. What I am saying is sacrilege of course. But if we look at recent events we would not fail to notice that it is the democratic countries which have been quick to use violence, who have violated international laws and shown disregard for the very human rights they so strongly advocated. It is they who resort to wars, to killing people to achieve their national agenda. Truly they are hypocrites.

59. Irrespective of whether the warmongers are democrats or not, we must regard war as a crime. No matter how just may the cause be, wars of aggression must still be regarded as crimes, crimes on a grand scale for that is what war means.

60. I am aware that in struggling to make war a crime we are calling for a radical change in the human mindset and value system. War had been with us since prehistoric times. Whenever human communities came into conflict with each other, they would resort to what we call “war” to resolve their conflicts i.e. they would kill each other so that one of the other of them would be defeated or cease to exist.

61. The primitive people of the past knew no other way but to kill and exterminate the opponents.

62. But today we claim to be no longer primitive. We claim to be civilise. We look upon killing as a heinous crime. We want every country to uphold human rights and the Rule of Law.

63. Besides today the population of the world is ten or more times bigger than the primitive populations of just a few centuries ago. Modern wars kill vast numbers of people. In the two World Wars 70 million people were killed. The number of seriously wounded and maimed for life is countless. And the devastation wrought is beyond imagination as whole cities were wiped out.

64. In the wars of the past, battles were fought on battle fields. The people killed were largely soldiers who had been trained to kill and were equipped to defend themselves.

65. Today everyone, combatants and non-combatants, male or female, the old, the young, the children and the new born, the sick and the incapacitated – all of them would be killed and wounded. They have no means to defend themselves.

66. They may not seek shelter underground even because diabolical new bombs have been designed to penetrate deep into the earth, to pierce concrete and to explode and to destroy the shelter and all in it.

67. Besides killing everyone, the whole country would be devastated, reduced to rubble. Water pipes, barrage and dams, power lines, and power generating plants would all be destroyed.

68. Those who survive the bombs and the missiles would have no food and water, no electricity, no toilets and no shelter of any kind. Disease would spread to decimate more of the survivors.

69. Truly modern war is total war sparing nothing and no one. Our capacities for killing and destroying have passed the limit that the world and its population can bear. We are now capable of wiping out the whole human race and render this planet uninhabitable.

70. Even if the war is limited i.e. confined to a pair of countries or region, it would still be inhuman as in most instances the aggressors would have such superior capacities to kill and destroy that gross injustice would be done. The weaker countries would not be able to defend themselves. Frequently they would be the only one to suffer while the aggressors continue to live in peace and security.

71. And when the war ends with victory for the powerful, only the vanquished would be blamed and punished. The victors would demand reparations although the vanquished had suffered more.

72. There is a need, to uphold justice, a need for the people including the leaders who launch the wars to be made accountable for the death and destruction resulting from their decision, their instruction and their command. It does not matter whether the aggressors win or not. They must be regarded as guilty and their leaders must be tried and punished, punished severely. Only this would deter the aggressive from resorting to war.

73. The United Nations was set up by the victors of 60 years ago and they still control and direct the Untied Nations today. Even the courts are under the control of the victors, in particular the veto powers.

74. For so long as the United Nations and its agencies are under the direction of the victors of 60 years ago, we cannot expect fairness and justice from them for the crimes of killing people in wars.

75. We can only expect fairness and justice if the agencies, in particular the Security Council and the international courts are made up of truly neutral people with no stake in the matters being decided. In particular the courts must be free and independent and must hear all complaints by both the victors and the vanquished without fear or favour.

76. Because we are not going to see such an independent court in the foreseeable future PGPO (the Perdana Global Peace Organization) has taken the initiative to set up a tribunal. We may be accused of being biased but we find reluctance on the part of neutralists to participate in our initiative. There is evidence that even those who are neutral fear retaliation by the powerful.

77. Since we cannot wait for the neutralists the tribunal we have set up is made up of judges who have been trusted to be impartial, fair and just. They will act in accordance with the rules and regulations which have been drawn up and be subjected to international laws as well as natural justice.

78. If the accused persons fail to present themselves then they may appoint counsel to represent them or failing that we will appoint counsels for them.

79. The proceedings of the courts will, as far as possible follow the usual court procedures under the British Common Law System.

80. The Commissioners will determine whether there is a case to be heard. Only if they find that there is will they submit their findings to the Tribunal. Then the victims or their proxies and representatives will present their cases.

81. The rest is up to the tribunal.

82. We may not be able to carry out the sentence passed by the Tribunal. But we hope Governments and NGO’s world wide will take note and try to make the punishment meaningful at least by ostracising the guilty ones.

83. We seek moral force as physical force will not be available to us. But the important thing is to make people everywhere appreciate the horrors of war and the criminal who without fear of any retribution have so carelessly issued orders for hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be killed, many to be tortured and for whole countries to be devastated.

84. We believe that eventually the peoples of the world will come to accept that war is a crime and will condemn the warmongers and regard them as criminals. And when this happens we may see the world becoming a more peaceful place.

85. That is our hope. It will take time for the mindset of the denizens of this planet to change with regard to the nature of war.

86. We may not see this happen in our lifetime, at least for most of us.

87. But the fact that we are not likely to see it in our lifetime must not stop us from this noble struggle. As Confucius said, a journey of thousand miles begins with the fist step. Without taking the first step the journey will never be made at all.

88. What we are doing is to take that first step.

89. God willing other steps will follow. Man must come to their senses some day. It will be a journey worth starting even if it takes a thousand years.

90. May God give us strength to struggle to eliminate the killing of people in the quest for solutions to human conflicts.

91. May Allah help us make war a crime, the worse crime that the human race can be guilty of.

 

# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $#

George Galloway MP speech (VIDEO): Please watch on this other site:

http://palestinevideo.blogspot.com/2009/11/galloway-war-crimes-conference-speech-3.html

# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $#


Cynthia McKinney’s speech:

Cynthia McKinney
Flouting International Law and the Failure of International Institutions
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

October 28, 2009
 
To all of you here, I continue to be amazed by Tun Dr. Mahathir and Tun Dr. Siti for their vision, understanding of politics in the real world, and their willingness to confront the purveyors of evil in order to make the world better for all of us.

This Conference and Tribunal are the culmination of thousands of hours of hard work and is an incredible investment on behalf of justice.

Everyone in this room today is hungry for justice.  We are impatient for peace.

War is criminal and leaders who take their countries to war must be held accountable.

But sadly, we need Dr. Mahathir’s leadership even more than ever now because of the abject failure of national and international institutions to hold accountable those who have the power to call nations to arms.

It was Haris Silajdzic who said, “”If you kill one person, you’re prosecuted. If you kill ten people, you’re a celebrity; if you kill a quarter of a million people, you’re invited to a peace conference.”

That, I believe is an indication of the total and complete collapse of the system of accountability that is supposed to mark the progress of man.  Rogue operators are able to foment death and destruction, murder and torture, and general sociopathic recklessness and get away with it.

Sometimes, those rogue operators are Presidents and Heads of State.

What are the people to do when their justice system fails to render justice?

I believe we have seen a proliferation of People’s Tribunals because it is clear that many national justice systems and our international justice system rarely deliver justice.

Shortly after the outbreak of the “War on Terror,” the people of Japan came together and correctly saw that, amid the failure of international institutions to hold the United States accountable for war crimes in Afghanistan, they, themselves would have to do it.  So, the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan was born.

The Japanese Tribunal found President George W. Bush guilty of war crimes for attacking civilians with indiscriminate weapons and other arms and also issued recommendations for banning depleted uranium munitions and other weapons that could indiscriminately harm people.  The Tribunal recommended compensating the victims in Afghanistan and reforming the United Nations for its failure to stop the U.S.-led operation there.

Even in the domestic setting, those seeking justice seldom find it inside U.S. courts.  In the U.S. setting, injustice is all too often reserved for those without money, without power, and without white skin.

One need only look at the plight of Hurricane Katrina survivors who still want to go home, but they have no right of return.  That’s because the developers, facilitated by weak or ineffective elected leadership, swooped in early and quickly and staked their claim to the people’s land.  Only the financial crisis has slowed the pace of the organized theft.

Consequently, Hurricane Katrina survivors, themselves, organized a People’s Tribunal to try U.S. elected leaders for committing multiple crimes against their own people.  I was a Co-Convener of this Tribunal, and we found all levels of government, including President George W. Bush’s Executive Branch of government guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.

The Brussels Tribunal, about which we will hear more later, has filed a brief in Spanish courts against U.S. Presidents and other Heads of Government responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq.  Unfortunately, under tremendous pressure from the rich and the guilty, Spain is in the process of changing its universal jurisdiction laws and that removes that venue that was available for the people to get even a hearing.

So, rather than survey the juridical landscape with despair, some have gone one step further and attempted to serve warrants on the obviously guilty in their capacity as citizens.  One such individual is John Boncore, also known as Splitting-the-Sky.

Splitting-the-Sky is a Mohawk, member of the American Indian Movement, that was targeted by the United States government in its infamous and illegal Counter-Intelligence Program, known as COINTELPRO.  On March 17th of this year, Splitting-the-Sky was arrested in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where he tried to serve a citizen’s warrant for the arrest of President George W. Bush who had been invited to Canada to give a speech.  Splitting-the-Sky has asked me to testify at his March 2010 trial and I intend to be there.

In the advent of this War on Terror, it is clear that governments are straying far away from the wishes of the very people who elect them.  I served twelve years in the United States Congress and while I was there, I:

1.  Filed articles of impeachment against George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice;

2.  Voted against every Pentagon appropriation, considering it immoral to spend so much money on war when millions of our children go to bed hungry every night;

3.  Wrote legislation to ban the use of depleted uranium munitions;

4.  Was the first Member of Congress to ask the Bush Administration of the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States, what did it know and when did it know it;

5.  Led the Congressional Black Caucus Task Force at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, defying President Bush’s boycott.

In December of 2007, I tried to take humanitarian supplies to the people of Gaza after the outbreak of Operation Cast Lead and the Israeli military rammed and destroyed our Free Gaza boat.

In June of this year, I tried to take crayons to the children of Gaza and the Israelis hijacked our boat, kidnapped us, took us to Israel, where I spent seven days in an Israeli prison because I wanted the people of Gaza to live–as I have been given life.

George Galloway finally got me into Gaza with Viva Palestina, U.S.A.

But my point of view was a decided minority in the powerful halls of Washington, D.C.

I left Washington, not because I chose to, but because the Israel Lobby inside the United States targeted me.  They targeted me because I dared to believe that all human beings, including Palestinians, have human rights.

In 2007, at a peace rally in front of the Pentagon, I declared my independence from a national leadership that had caused my country to become complicit in war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the peace.

I joined the Green Party and in 2008, ran for President of the United States.  I traveled the length and breadth of my country and went around the world carrying the message of truth, justice, peace, and dignity.

That is how I arrived here.  Because people who want peace are drawn to Kuala Lumpur.  The people of Malaysia long ago learned that there can be no peace where there is no justice.

As the coup in Honduras unfolds, and countries are able to kill, maim, and attack other people with impunity, we must not give a pass to the new President of the United States whose slogans were “hope” and “change.” Sadly, “Yes We Can” has become “But he didn’t mean that he would.”

The people of the United States await action on jobs, the  economy, the war, the budget, education, and health care.  Yet, President Obama is responsible for overseeing the largest and swiftest transfer of wealth out of the hands of the middle class in the history of mankind:  over $12 trillion gone and another commitment for an additional $12 trillion whenever the bankers need it.

Meanwhile, the people of the U.S. scrape by on food stamps, unemployment, while they pray not to get sick, because that will bankrupt them.

The situation continues to deteriorate even as Nobel Peace Prize winner President Obama waits to announce his decision to increase the already 68,000-strong U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan.

Adding insult to injury, President Obama has sent his Justice Department officials into courtrooms across America to defend the illegal acts of the Bush Administration.  I have warned the President that he risks becoming an accessory to Bush’s crimes if this continues.  Now, the New York Times has picked up on the theme headlining:  “Bush’s Cover-Up of Abuse Turning into Obama’s Cover-Up.”

But, it was President Kennedy who reminded us that we do not want a Pax Americana enforced by U.S. weapons of war; he said, “What we seek is a genuine peace, that makes life on earth worth living—the kind of peace that enables nations to grow and build a better life for their children.”

If we had democracy in the U.S., we would not have war.

All of this is why we are now in Kuala Lumpur.  If Kuala Lumpur is the peace capital of the world, then it is to here that we must come for justice.

I’d like to introduce a song now that has been banned in South Africa, but that deserves to be heard all over the world.  It is a song about war and Gaza.

Thank you.

(The song can be found on the internet on youtube at:  www.youtube.com/

# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $#

Proceedings and Hearing of KL War Crimes Commission and Tribunal respectively Bookelt

 

 

# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $#

Notes on International law pertaining to the execution of war crimes by Bush, Blair et al.

Some of these notes are patchy. sorry about that, they will remain so until I have time to fully expand upon all of them.

Carl von Clausewitz theory of war. Frankfurter. When the judiciary engage in illegal acts, the only appeal is to the conscinece and condemnation of the people. War OF Terror torture victim said to his captors, I don’t know what you want of me. “We’ll fill in the blanks, you just sign the confession document’ said his captors. In Guantanamo a War OF  Terror torture victim was brought a written confession and was told if he didn’t sign it he would be executed. He signed the confession as that he may get to a court (intested of being stuck in the current torture camp). He said there was no end to this. A physchaitrist went to him and gave him detailed instructions as to how to commit suicide. Tazi to the dark side – a movie includes US soldiers testimony about the things they did to their victims. Musharraff’s book ‘in the line of fire’ said he received millions in payment of counties from the capture and selling of al Quaida / Taleban ‘suspects’.  The psychological effects {of torture} were worse than the physical effects. Every 6 months we were forced to take injections. They didn’t know what was in them but they were told it was influenza jabs. They felt drowsy, lazy and sleepy. Sami al Hajj: After injections they became dizzy, some when insane. They promised him american citizenship and care(/education?) for his family if he agreed to work for the CIA. Abu Graib female torture victim (Ms. Abas Hamidi?) was arrensted for apparently being linked to (funding) the Iraqi Resistance. Offers of clothing was used for leverage for compliance by the Americans. They had women and children at Abu Graib which they attempted to keep hidden from the occasional media ‘tour’ then Abu Graib became known. She was placed at the open doors of a US helicopter on the way to Abu Ghraib and was told it was so that if there was any firing on the helicopter they would be hit and not the US soldiers. The US tried to get info from her about Dr. Huda Hamash.

1977 treaty covered the supression of terrorist bombings. Judge F. Boyle, Judge Shad Saleem. 1984 Torture convention says NOBODY can be subjected to torture. 1977 treaty protocol 1 and 2 dealt with terrorism < Judge F. Boyle. Female judge = Niloufer Bhagwat.  Proceedings from London peace conference 8th August 1945. US Army field manual. Nuremberg may have been ‘victors justice’ but after Nuremberg, the law used in Nurembers was unamamously (globally) agreed upon.

# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $# $ # $ # $#

LINKS:

0.01) This link was added Nov 12th 2009 : Criminalise War YOU TUBE channel
at http://www.youtube.com/user/criminalisewar#p/u/9/dwRPLPSeaYg

0.1) Matthais Chang The links below are in effect stolen from the superb Matthais Chang – in fact his website: Future Fast Forward website. I’m putting them here for continuity and in case they one day vanish from his website.

BUSH AND BLAIR ACCUSED OF WAR CRIMES: KUALA LUMPUR TRIBUNAL: CRIMINALIZE WAR – BY SHAD SALEEM FARUQI (9/11/09)
http://futurefastforward.com/feature-articles/2773

GEORGE GALLOWAY, BRITISH MP AT THE WAR CRIMES INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION, KUALA LUMPUR (article posted 5/11/09)
http://futurefastforward.com/feature-articles/2757

Opening Ceremony, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luhSPoQd1DA

Multimedia Presentation, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-c1UY35gQA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7xqyh39whs&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7xqyh39whs
Keynote Address By Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwRPLPSeaYg

Keynote Address By Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5S1wkc39c8

Keynote Address By Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An1lbEC3K7Y

Keynote Address By Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aX-CWDz44E

Keynote Address By Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn7scC4NHCo

Muhammad Umar, Chairman of the Ramadhan Foundation on Peace And Justice, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prQhHTOLPK4

Muhammad Umar, Chairman of the Ramadhan Foundation on Peace And Justice, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgIKKZGFZ5Y

Muhammad Umar, Chairman of the Ramadhan Foundation on Peace And Justice, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nozlh404EAw

Muhammad Umar, Chairman of the Ramadhan Foundation on Peace And Justice, War Crimes International Conference & Exhibition 2009, Kuala Lumpur Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1ilK37I-hs

Video Interview with Muhammad Umar, Chairman of the Ramadhan Foundation, on Astro Awani Malaysia
http://www.futurefastforward.com/feature-articles/2756-posted-by-administrator

George Galloway, British MP At The War Crimes International Conference and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur
http://www.futurefastforward.com/feature-articles/2757-posted-by-administrator

 Related:

Is Tony Blair Fit To Become The President Of The European Council? – Is It Possible That He Should Be Tried For War Crimes? – By Peter Eyre (9/11/09)
http://www.futurefastforward.com/component/content/article/2770

Former UK Ambassador: CIA Sent People To Be ‘Raped With Broken Bottles’ – By Daniel Tencer (6/11/09)
http://www.futurefastforward.com/component/content/article/2762

 –

1) “Illegal In Any Circumstances Whatsoever”
By Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C.
Chairman, Middle Powers Initiative
Address to Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Symposium
Nuclear Weapons and
the Abandonment of International Law
http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/programs/international-law/annual-symposium/2006_papers/roche-douglas_napf-2006-international-law-symposium.pdf

2) http://www.criminalisewar.org/

3) http://perdana4peace.org

4) Torture exhibition photo gallery: http://subangdailyphoto.blogspot.com/2009/10/criminalize-war-torture-exhibition.html

5) Brief summaries from some of the speakers at the Conference: http://mathaba.net/

6) News about the Conference and Tribunal & Ruhal Ahmed’s story – http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/10/30/nation/20091030191203,

7) http://ppium.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/criminalise-war-conference-and-war-crimes-tribunal-2009/ Indonesian students soc blogpost Note:  damam bahasa Indon (In Indonesian/Malaysian language)

8) Touching upon the Jurisdiction of civilian courts: Bush and Blair accused of War Crimes:
Kuala Lumpur Tribunal: Criminalize War by Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15950

9) World Tribunal On Iraq – The New York Hearings”… http://www.blip.tv/file/293217 (something similar to the KL conference to Criminalize war)  Special thanks to George Dutton, on Craig Murrays website
Synopsys: http://www.deepdishtv.org Part of Deep Dish TV’s extensive video coverage of the war on Iraq. See also our 12 part series “Shocking and Awful” and our coverage from the final session in Istanbul of “The World Tribunal on Iraq” at http://www.deepdishtv.org. Have leaders of the United States committed war crimes in Iraq? The evidence is beyond doubt or questiiom. The verdict is YES. The World Tribunal on Iraq was a global citizens inqiry of conscience that examined the charges of criminality in the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Modeled after the Satre-Bertrand Russell Vietnam War Tribunal, the WTI held 16 sessions around the world and assembled outstanding panels of jurists and witnesses to expolre and expose the ugly reality and intentionality of the American destruction of Iraq. Hearings were held in Genoa, Rome, Barcelona, Seoul, Mumbai, Brussels, Hiroshima, Copenhagen, New York City, with the concluding session in Istanbul, Turkey. In New York witnesses included Peter Weiss, Ayca Cubukca, Roger Normand, Mike Hoffman, Jenifer Ridah, Dr. Gert Van Moorter, Asil Bali and John Buroughs. Jurists included Eve Ensler, Hamdi Dabashi and Ibrahim Ramey. The film is overwhelming. Do not be complicit with the U.S. goverments war crimes. Show this evidence to as many people as possible.

 

 

 

 

I’m a scholar – so push off!

I’m a scholar – so push off!

 

I often get that feeling when hearing so called ‘knowledgeable people talk’. But as it’s a feeling, I concede it could be wrong. Such harsh and direct words are seldom spoken, but is it entirely your fault if that is the impression you are given?

 

Can scholars only be taught things from scholars above them? I don’t think so, but again, that’s the impression that comes across quite often when I hear supposed ‘scholarly’ people speak. “Your opinion isn’t more correct than mine because I have more knowledge that you” That seems very arrogant. How does the ‘scholar’ know the full extent of the “less scholarly” persons line of reasoning and the extent of his knowledge?

 

This does NOT mean a supposedly learned person should not be allowed to say “No”, or “I think you are wrong” to somebody, but they MUST EXPLAIN WHY it may be wrong. Because the scholars explanation might be flawed and if so, it should show itself as the scholar is delivering his explanation.

 

Failure to openly discuss sounds alarm bells with me. It’s a near sure-fire sign that the ‘scholar’ is grasping at straws – and I suspect if they were honest with themselves – they would admit it.

 

And it’s worse when others blindly defend so called scholars/wise men. Admiration of some flawed man to the extent that you will never listen to others pointing out the flaws in his argument is actually a disgrace on you. For you attribute flawlessness onto that person which is dabbling in Shirk (putting something at the same level of God). If you want to stick up for someone, fine! Good! Some people are great people. Some are very wise, some very moral. But you too must address the issues relating to the criticism of that person.

 

Aren’t all men (and all men that have ever been) flawed in some way. They are MEN yes? They are NOT God, yes? So aren’t they flawed?

 

Idolisation of men is rife these days. By that I mean idol supporters refuse to listen to valid criticism of their idols/heros – and most importantly refuse to see if there is any basis behind such criticism.

 

What’s this latest thing that is putting ants in my pants?

 

 

All this kicked off from the following article: Conspiracy Practice by Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi, which honestly speaking, contains really preposterous elements to it. I sent off a letter to the gentleman concerned and got no reply. I then had a ‘conversation’ about it with someone who I would regard as scholarly. The author of the piece, Shaykh Abdal Qadir as Sufi is a respected scholar., indeed one of my good friends told me about him some time ago.

 

 

The heart of a discussion involved God, 9-11 and Evil. {BTW: The scholar rejected forensic evidence as the basis for saying it legally proves(within Islamic jurisprudence that  9-11 was an inside job, and Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi totally ignored any mention of any physical evidence}

 

Does God ‘do’ evil? Does God create evil? Is God responsible for evil? Did God ‘do’ 9-11? Are there any differences between those statements?.. etc…

 

In the conversation, the scholarly person said the answer was “Yes”. God Decrees evil.

 

It presupposed some Islamic beliefs. As we are both Muslims, that is understandable. The scholars reasoning went something like this…

 

Nothing can be outside the Tawhid (Oneness) of God. Everything is created by God. If evil or badness exists it is because God created it. Everything is within Gods domain. The scholar is saying God has decreed everything, evil and 9-11.

 

I was told “there is no dispute among people of knowledge about this.”

 

I could feel sore about the insult, I want my Islamic brotherly feeling towards him try and help me ignore it, although I would be lying to say I have the strength of character to let it go without residual unhappy feelings :(

 

But to me, what this person said seemed to be something like blasphemy. I was willing to accept this view if it was explained to me.

But it wasn’t.

A few interpretations which could equally be interpreted in another way was all that was offered.

 

Thing is, I feel like I’m in a bit of a panic! Because if he is right, then I must be a terrible Muslim because he is saying I am putting something outside Gods power.

 

I certainly don’t intend to say that, but I know full well that people who believe in something can be blinded by it, and in fact, the Qur’an warns that there are people who have no perception of them being on the wrong path. Is this happening to me? Am I somehow unable to see any really bit pitfall that I’m in? It could well be – The Qur’an indicates so, and I’m not going to argure against the Qur’an.

 

 

So I pursued the matter, quite scared that my belief and understanding of God* had for years been seriously flawed.

 

I put to him my understanding of the situaton, and asked a few Q’s of him, but my points went unanswered as were my questions, unless you call ‘answering a question with a question’ an answer. On rare occaison ok, I can tolerate that, but surely, to keep on doing that gets a bit silly.

 

When one answers a Q with a Q, (in terms of having honourable intentions) is usually to get the questioner to reflect on their initial Q, because the initial Q may have been flawed/illegitimate, and the person bouncing back the Q, wants the initial questioner to see that. But surely there is a fine line between doing that (as a way of improving learning and discourse) and being annoying. When abused, it can be a sign of “I’m an intellectual fortress don’t you know?” or “I’m a scholar – so push off!” It’s dam easy to answer a Q with a Q. Repeatedly doing so isn’t polite when it provokes agitation. And there is no sanctity of conforming to the movie portrayl of Asian-mystic/Kung-Fu/Buddhist apprentice scenes, where it’s a measure of the ‘good apprentice’ is governeed by how much he can take all the riddles and so forth from his ‘wise’ master like the modern characterature of Confucius or Lao Tzu.

 

Is it an absolute necessity for a wise man to answer a question with another question? I think just giving the answer is useful too! But hey, I’m not a scholar so I would say that right???

 

On one occasion however, the scholar took what I said, inverted it and said words to the effect that he couldn’t believe I said that. I was flabbergasted.

 

I said “there is no dependence on the Creator by creation”

 

He replied: “[the statement] is entirely the opposite of the reality; the creation is completely dependent on the Creator for its existence, for its attributes and for its actions.”

 

Was my crappy typing and worse spelling wasn’t to blame here? I don’t think so. What I said was perfectly clear. When I pointed out to him that his ‘correction’ was in fact exactly what I had said, he offered no apology at all, even though what he said I had ‘said’, was really something terrible!

 

Well, more of the convo was quite unsatisfactory. In line with what we were saying I said to him “I have never found any reference to ‘God decrees evil’ in the Qur’an. this could well be a failing on my behalf. Could you please give me the Surah and Ayat? It is quite important.”

 He offered:

35 Every self will taste death. We test you with both good and evil as a trial. And you will be returned to Us.” (21:35)”

 

Now I may be wrong here, but in the context of My belief that God does NOT ‘do’ evil, the ‘test’ here is, man by his free will, has the ability to do good and evil. If he is righteous he will pass the test and avoid doing evil? the scholar seemed to be saying God will put evil upon us and if we come through that evil then we have passed the test. I think our lines of reasoning are quite different.

 

The scholar said supported his position The good and the evil are of His decree. and “Iman is that you believe in… and that the decree, the good of it and the bad of it is from Allah.

 

The scholar quoted:

 

Every self will taste death. We test you with both good and evil as a trial. And you will be returned to Us. (21:35)” Remember we inherited an idea of evil as an absolute, but that is not our perspective as Muslims. Good and evil are relative. Allah is the absolute.

 

“He [Jibril] said, ‘Tell me about iman.’ He [the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace] said, ‘That you believe in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day, and that you believe in the Decree, the good (khayr) of it and the bad (sharr) of it.’ He [Jibril] said, ‘You have told the truth.’”

 

Imam an-Nawawi said: The position of the people of Truth is confirmation of the Decree. Its meaning is that Allah decreed things before time, and He knew that they would come about at times known to Him and in places known to Him, and that they would come about according to how Allah had decreed.

 

Imam an-Nawawi further said: Allah created good and bad, and decreed their coming to the slave at known times. … He (Allah) said, “Say, ‘I seek refuge with the Lord of daybreak, from the evil of what He has created…'””

 

 

It is clear the scholar is saying my understanding of God is wrong and that he believes evil is by Gods decree.

 

Frustratingly he repeatedly failed to answer my subsequent points.

 

I replied:

 

[That] Is very interesting statement (Re:He decreed everything that has been, that is and that is to be. The good and the evil are of His decree.). No body can second guess God, but I’ve never heard anyone claim God decrees evil! I was of the opinion God decreed within man the abilty of free will. That free will and physical eminations thereof, is allowed to have consequence. {I’m saying when man exercises that free will he causes evil}

 

The 99 names Allah Ta’ala are positivisms. They are not coupled or in anyway connected with their antonym. {I am saying there is no ‘bad’ attributes of God}

 

The evil will of man did 9-11, not God’s evil.

 

 

It was immensely frustrating that he totally avoided the ‘free will’ issue. I see it like this… God knows everything. He knows the tiniest details of our lives, even those which haven’t happened yet. He knows ALL pathways our lives could ever travel down.

 

His decree is that that we have free will – the choice. His Decree means that if we choose a branch point on the path of life, then his prescribed decree for that particular choice or path will therefore happen. He therefore knows the outcome of our choices before we make them. A critical question is, does he know WHICH choice we will make. I would have to say yes, but then we run into the problem of “Was it then free will?” and “Did God decree that choice?” I’d have to say No, God didn’t decree/force us to make that choice (but he does and can force a consequence of that choice). If he Decreed that path it wouldn’t have been an actual ‘choice’. It would make an irrelevance out of our free will. So what of the question “Did he know the choice we were going to make?”

 

The scholar (if we were to actually address my points) might have said “You are saying Allah(SWT) doesn’t know which path we are going down and therefore God is ignorant of something – which is clearly impossible.

 

I think it’s fair to say without question that he knows the outcome of the choice, but did he know which choice we would make? Yes, God knows everything, but he didn’t force it upon is. I don’t see any problem with that.

 

Well, we are trying to second guess God using Human logic which seems very likely to me to actually be a ridiculous thing to do. And for a human stuck in physical time to understands things that don’t conform to linear time is also very difficult. God of course not only because he is indepenedent of and the creator of time, knows everything. He knows what is uncertain for us.

 

 

At the risk of repeating myself, Can what the scholar said “Allah creates and decrees both good-khayr and bad-sharr.” Could that mean He Decrees if man decides to do an evil act then that evil act shall come about – i.e. God creates /brings forth the pathway that the evil doer wants to happen? The scholar seemed to say no (but didn’t say so directly) and me, of the unscholarly opinion, thinks the answer is yes.

 

If there was no man, would there be evil? I don’t think there would. The Angels are incapable of evil as they have no free will. Didn’t Iblis exercise free will (and therefore can’t be an angel) and refused to obey Gods command to bow before man? Is there not another lesson that free will allows for the evil to occur? Allah(SWT) allowed the choice for evil to actually bring about evil.

 

 Is my understanding of God wrong? Should I see evil as a Decree from God in the sense that God initiates evil as the scholar was suggesting, and not that God creates it in the sence he creates it and allows it to happen consequentially on the desires of men to do evil acts?

 

-As usual I’ll probably have to come back at a later date and ‘fix’ aspects this post. Try as I might I seem unable to adjust my copy and paste composition / multiple rewrites of various parts, even on the small scale, So there is likely to be silly errors and typos and other errors in this post. But it is sincere, and I really want to know..

 

  

footnote:

 

* I mean in as much as a person can understand God. I have often thought it futile to understand/debate God because I, as a silly little human with a brain the size of melon, with a conscious mind so full of silly things and strange habits/behaviours, and being a person of a meaningless life (outside worshiping Allah(SWT) and that such a life span is really amazingly short, and that I need to rely on silly human flawed models to understand the physical universe, entirely based on things I have previous knowledge. All that means, if such an explanation was ever needed in the first place, that I or anyone can never ever hope to understand God in anything near His Glory. It is not debated that we have the choice to do evil right?. Anyway, to end with, the best case for God, to stop second guessing him according to silly human notions, is the Qur’an. I as a silly person cannot ever hope to explain God even on the tinyest scale than the Qur’an can.

 Reading the Qur’an is the guidance for everyone.

How HypocrisyAndPropagandaWorks

There is a piece of political trash masquerading as “science” reporting here:

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/09/25/excuse-me-sir-but-is-that-covert-nuclear-facility-making-nuclear-weapons-or-nuclear-power/

 Here’s my reply to Loudermilk.

Allison Loudermilk and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Allison Loudermilk.
Your writing here is utterly disgraceful. It reeks of  example of political Xenophobia verging on the imperialist supremacy.

Is it in your job specification on this site to rub your crystal ball and reveal the actual intent of the Iranian powers that be?

You said

“But how can they tell the Iranian operation is intended to make nuclear weapons rather than nuclear power? Secrecy, of course is a big clue. If the facility is above board, then there’s no point in hiding it”

That is a disgraceful accusation that Iran intends to make nuclear weapons.

So you 0.2 second armchair analysis trumps the CIA, NSA and IAEA amongst others.

I’d be tempted to advise you to go back to Wallmart and return your super discount acetate ball, but that would be putting the emphasis for wishful quazi-factoids on the ball, and not you, whereas it is no one other than YOU who are responsible for this drivel.

And you even ‘apparently’ contradict yourself in mentioning the plant is operating yet.

If I was able to probe your political perspective and ‘values, I wonder how many cigars I’d win.

The argument ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you have no reason to do something in secret’ is utterly bogus and discredited fallacy, and is best left to the murky realms of your own dark fantasy.

Seeing as you quote Obama, Brown and Sarkozy without question, I have the compulsion to do the same for (the largely ceremonial President) Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“We don’t have any problems with inspections of the facility. We have no fears,” said Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, referring to calls for immediate access to the site by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN watchdog.

He countered the Obama/Brown and Sarkozy’s accusations of concealment saying there were no international requirements to declare any nuclear facility until 180 days before fissile material was introduced into it.

“Mr Obama is not a nuclear expert. We have to leave it to the IAEA to carry out its duties” he added.

You also said

“Iran might even let the U.N.’s nuclear detectives inspect it occasionally, rather than bar them and stockpile plutonium as North Korea has done.”

There is no night about it. Iran HAS allowed IEAS inspections of its facilities. You portray it as something that’s in the offing, and shovelling North Korea as a benchmark to Iran is preposterous.

Iran’s supreme leader has declared nuclear weapons as anti-Islamic. The authorities in Iran have said numerous times they are not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Most industrial militarised countries around the world have secret facilities. Do they draw your fire? Not to mention The US and Israel who use illegal white phosphorous weapons against civilians as demonstrated in places like Fallujah and Gaza.

Channel Four – Mark Thomas – Secret Map Of Britain (2002)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2130977739763182534

Channel Four – Mark Thomas: Weapons Inspector
Mark takes on the role of UNTHOM weapons inspector, and sets out to find WMD – not in Iraq – but in Britain and the US
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/unthom.rm

Cold War, British Dirty Science
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/coldwar_dirtyscience.rm

What a miserable sloppy and unprofessional article you wrote. I feel the compulsion to review your other ‘articles’ to see what lurks within them, and your morbid cander with nuclear weapons

Really! How anti-scientific of you.

Now, lets look forward to you writing of nuclear issues in the context of the US/UK/Russia/France/china/India/Pakistan and Israel – the former five being in breach of the NPT by constantly upgrading their weapons systems, and lets not forget, the first of those is the only country ever to use nuclear weapons – on civilians – TWICE!

How long will my wait be?

 

:


Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!

JUST:

JUST - International Movement for a Just World

ICH:

Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
May 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031