Archive
Categories

Artikel-Schlagworte: „international law“

Libya: Action against Sarkozy for „crimes against humanity“ on the way

by Friederike Beck

Original title Libyen: Klage gegen Sarkozy wegen „Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit“ auf dem Weg, published september 26, 2011, on Friederikes Becklog

Translation by Google, revised by MKH

[Friederike Beck is among Germany’s most talented journalists. Her book Das Guttenberg-Dossier (The Guttenberg File), dealing with transatlantic networks of influence, has been issued earlier in this year. She is a regular columnist of the Zeitgeist magazine, a critical magazine for heretics and free-thinkers, challenging established mainstream views.]

Far from the German media spotlight three of the most respected lawyers in France are preparing a complaint for crimes against humanity before French tribunals. They will represent the interests of the victims of the ongoing NATO bombing in Libya. Defendant: Nicolas Sarkozy.

The lawyers are nobody less than former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, the extremely eloquent Marcel Ceccaldi, and the famous and notorious Michel Vergès.

Dumas is also willing to defend Muammar Gaddafi before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which has issued an international arrest warrant against the dictator. He said: „If they find him, they will kill him like Bin Laden. Some states now usurp the right to kill – against every international law. “

Attorney Vergès, born in Vietnam and the son of a Vietnamese woman and a Frenchman recalls the application of Agent Orange by U.S. troops during the Vietnam War and the fact that NATO has used for months even warheads containing depleted uranium – a worrying comparison!

The 88-year-old Dumas (foreign minister under Mitterand) was together with Vergès in May in Tripoli. They made ​​contact with the victims and survivors of NATO attacks, of which 30 issued a mandate to the lawyers.

The sharp-tongued Ceccaldi reported that the bombing had hit power, water and other supply facilities and points out: „After five months of daily bombing by NATO and thousands of dead people will stop supporting the regime – simply because they do not stand the situation any longer. “

Ceccaldi submits another interesting aspect : The Western leadershave lost their thread because of the first serious challenge referring to Libya. „If they stop the lawsuits that are brought to court, this will be evidence once and for all that the Western Justice is not ruled by law, but by the politicians -. “

The ICC in The Hague enjoys little prestige outside Europe, since it has so far dealt only with Africans. White offenders à la Tony Blair, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield are there not an issue.

The French ex-foreign minister stated also that he „was surprised that this (NATO) mission, which had been started to protect civilians, is about to kill them.“ It was described as a „brutal aggression against a sovereign country“ .
Michel Vergès also did not spare criticism, calling the countries of the Atlantic alliance  „murderers“. The „French state“, according to him, „is run by thugs and killers. We will tear down the wall of silence „.

***
The elites in the Sarkozy-land, one of the main perpetrators in the war of aggression against Libya, stand obviously not completely united behind their Premier. The war in Libya is even sloppily called „La guerre Sarkozy BHL contre  Kadhafi“.

BHL (= Bernard Henry Levy), millionaire, philosopher and political activist, had first talks with the „rebel leaders“ as a kind of substitute foreign minister in a special mission in Benghazi – on whose behalf whatsoever. He advised Sarkozy to officially recognize the rebel council, which he did on 03/10/2011 – without the actual French foreign minister Juppé being informed – the latter is said to have felt snubbed.

***
Bombing a country without any significant air defense is coward and disgusting. Germany’s political class that extorted Westerwelle a statement of respect and a humble loyalty to the NATO because of its successful bombing of Libya has now apparently made its peace with the military „solutions“ ​​.

Why „smart defense“ is the opposite of smart defense

by Skeptizissimus, october 10, 2011, translation by Google

First of all: defense is probably the most important prerequisite for the undisputed sovereignty of a country. And sovereignty in international law and state law includes the integrity of national territory and the decisions of government.

Those who have saved up some minimal residual sympathy for the Federal Republic and perhaps even secretly hope that the media are not brought into line as if by an invisible force, may, with Google’s new search algorithm, search for the term „smart defense“. Surprise! No German-language newspaper or television station reported on the results of the signing of the Brussels conference of NATO defense ministers.

Thanks to the semi-government Russian RIA-Novosti, there are fortunately a little clarification:

Again, a piece of the remaining residual sovereignty of Germany and of all Member States are being eroded. The defense of NATO is to be made in the field of armament „more efficient“.

[Read more …]

Is the ICC entitled to arrest Gaddafi?

[This article was published on july 29, 2011 (when Gaddafi was still in power) in Korrektheiten: „Darf der Internationale Strafgerichtshof (IStGH) Gaddafi verhaften?„, Author and translator: Manfred Kleine-Hartlage]

Does no one really wonder about the fact that the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against Muammar al-Qaddafi? Is he actually allowed to do so?

This court was established by the signatories of the Rome Statute to prosecute certain crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression) to punish countries whose own judiciaries are not willing or not able to prosecute such acts; thus, classically, for the prosecution of government crimes and crimes of private parties in „failed states“ with no working justice system.

The public was told that the Court will be active only for crimes on the territories of signatory states, and certainly any state is free to join such an agreement and to give its provisions domestic legal force. Equally obvious is that no state has the right unilaterally to subject another sovereign state to its jurisdiction or to authorize third parties to do so. And what is forbidden to one state is equally forbidden to many.

Here, however, there is the first oddity: Libya, whose president is about to be arrested because of acts he has committed on the territory of his own state, has not acceded to the Rome Statute. The activity of the International Criminal Court in the case of Gaddafi is based on an instruction from the UN Security Council. In fact, Member States decided that the ICC will also be responsible for non-signatory States, if required by the UN Security Council in the individual case.

With the Rome Statute, the signatories thus granted to the UN Security Council powers which they themselves have not, and had this is a flagrant violation of a fundamental legal principle: „Nemo plus iuris quam ipse habet potest transferre“.

Moreover, Gaddafi is said to have committed crimes against humanity in terms of the Rome Statute. This term encompasses a range of actions, such as willful killing, torture, imprisonment and the like. Two things are strinking:

First, that such crimes are committed by many, probably the majority of the world’s governments, in particular virtually all dictatorships without necessarily having to face criminal charges against the head of government. The constitutional principle that all known crimes are to be prosecuted, is not applied, not even postulated. However, this principle is not valid by chance, but serves to prevent the law being misused politically, and being arbitrarily used against unpopular individuals. A law that is applied at the discretion of governments sometimes and sometimes not, is none.

However, this is exactly what happens here: The Rome Statute in connection with the illegal authorization of the UN Security Council hangs a sword of Damocles over all the governments of the world, at least the authoritarian, but just does not lead (and isn’t intended to lead to) a more democratic world, but rather to empower the UN Security Council to arrest unwelcome heads of government. The Security Council – these are essentially his five constant members of which the USA, Russia and China have not signedor have not ratified the agreement, and which are able to free themselves by veto from the prosecution by the international penal court.

Second, that Gaddafi has commited his acts, f.e. deliberate homicide, in the framework and for the purpose of quelling a rebellion, i.e. to enforce the state monopoly. This monopoly, however, belongs to the essence statehood as such, and that it must be enforced if necessary by force, is almost a tautology.

The arrest warrant against Gaddafi means no more and no less than that enforcement of the state monopoly has been declared a crime. The consequence is that states are sovereign only as far as it appeals to the five permanent Security Council members, and that the sovereignty of any other state is suspended. Suspended but not in favor of a global legal system, but in favor of a global tyranny.