March 04, 2008 MSNBC Primary Coverage
***
Sen John Kerry interview w/ Keith Olbermann & Chris Mathews
see
Day: March 4, 2008
Mandatory Flu Vaccines & Anthrax by William Mac
Mandatory Flu Vaccines And Anthrax
This Week in Time is all about… fuck it. Just watch.
William Mac reads the newspaper and then comments on “Flu Shots Advised For Kids up to 18” in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
He then remarks upon the forced mandatory Anthrax vaccines for military personnel just approved by a Federal Judge, despite the fact that the FDA has, over a couple of decades, continued to find the vaccine dangerous and ineffective.
Check out the blog for more on the Anthrax decision:
Anthrax Vaccine — Law, Not Choice
By William Mac
This Week in Time
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
March 4, 2008
It’s safe to say that almost everyone in the United States remembers the brief and unexplained Anthrax attacks that occurred shortly after 9/11. Although there is much controversy surrounding the event, what we do know is that Anthrax is something that no every day pipe-bomb fanatic can produce. It takes a highly skilled professional with access to a variety of different kinds of lab equipment to actually produce various strings of Anthrax. It takes money, it takes credentials and it takes authority. However, I will not go into detail about this during this particular blog, but I will point out that Anthrax in a widespread bio-weapon attack will take tons of money, tons of time, tons of professional know-how and plenty of creativity. Otherwise, it is virtually impossible.
Another thing is that Anthrax can be absorbed through the skin as well as through the nostrils. There is virtually no way to prevent sickness in either case. But, even so, the new vaccine recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has become mandatory for all military personnel.
By all accounts, if an Anthrax vaccine actually prevents an individual from getting the “bug” then I would be all for it. The only thing is that I believe the Anthrax vaccine to be more harmful than any potential threat of Anthrax, especially when its use becomes mandatory.
This vaccine’s mandatory use has actually been being battled for quite sometime, as far back as the middle 80s in fact.
Judge Rosemary M. Collyer says that the FDA acted appropriately when it found the Anthrax vaccine to be safe. She approved its mandatory use. But, she dismissed a lawsuit by military officials who argue that the drug is unproven and the scientific data unsound, which it is.
James Turner, a Washington, DC attorney has pushed for the vaccine to be ruled as a Class II dangerous drug. Back in 1985 the FDA recognized that this same vaccine was not safe or effective against inhaled anthrax. However, still during that time, the then acting FDA Commissioner Michael Friedman told the military to go ahead and use it – basically, to experiment.
Despite years of battling this vaccine’s mandatory use and despite countless allegations that the information of its effectiveness, usefulness and safety is unfounded, Federal judge Rosemary M. Collyer says, “the court will not substitute its own judgment when the FDA made no clear error of judgment.”
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman even went so far as to state, “we owe it to our service members to give them every possible protection,” by explaining that, “force protection is the number one priority in the Defense Department and Anthrax inoculation program is an important force-protection measure.”
Yet, the eight military officials combating this vaccine’s mandatory use are not opposed to “every possible protection”, they’re simply opposed to mandatory protection. They want the vaccine to be optional, which by all logical reasoning should be a no-brainer.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Mark Zaid, says that the FDA relied on outdated studies that didn’t prove the vaccine is safe or effective against inhaled anthrax. He also stated, “It would appear the court has condoned an agency’s manipulation of decades-old data to support a present-day policy objective.” Mark Zaid will immediately appeal the decision.
The main issue here isn’t so much safety, but choice. It is incomprehensible to me as to why anyone, civilian or military, should be forced to have a vaccination of any kind, especially considering the dangers that come with vaccinations and, even more especially, the dangers that may come with a vaccination such as this, which does not seem to have been thoroughly proven effective or safe in the least.
The worst part is that the Homeland Security Force now wishes to make the vaccine available to the entire population. Will that, too, become mandatory? Yikes.
VT, OH, TX & RI 03.04.08 Primary Results
Updated
March 4, 2008 Primary Results
| Vermont Democratic Primary Results | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | % |
| Barack Obama | 91,829 | 59% |
| Hillary Clinton | 59,854 | 39% |
| John Edwards | 1,969 | 1% |
| Dennis Kucinich | 1,003 | 1% |
Key:  WinnerPrecincts: 99% | Updated: 3:48 PM ET | Source: AP |
||
| Vermont Republican Primary Results | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | % |
| John McCain | 28,554 | 72% |
| Mike Huckabee | 5,607 | 14% |
| Ron Paul | 2,625 | 7% |
| Mitt Romney | 1,793 | 5% |
| Rudy Giuliani | 930 | 2% |
| Key: Winner Precincts: 99% | Updated: 3:48 PM ET | Source: AP |
||
| Ohio Democratic Primary Results | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | % |
| Hillary Clinton | 1,207,806 | 54% |
| Barack Obama | 979,025 | 44% |
| John Edwards | 38,076 | 2% |
| Dennis Kucinich | 0 | 0% |
| Key: Winner Precincts: 100% | Updated: 3:47 PM ET | Source: AP |
||
| Ohio Republican Primary — At Large Results | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | % |
| John McCain | 636,256 | 60% |
| Mike Huckabee | 325,581 | 31% |
| Ron Paul | 49,027 | 5% |
| Mitt Romney | 34,978 | 3% |
| Fred Thompson | 16,434 | 2% |
| Key: Winner Precincts: 100% | Updated: 3:47 PM ET | Source: AP |
||
TX also has a Democratic caucus today.
| Texas Democratic Caucus Results | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | % |
| Barack Obama | 21,955 | 56% |
| Hillary Clinton | 17,393 | 44% |
| Uncommitted | 39 | 0% |
| Other | 5 | 0% |
| Key: Winner Precincts: 38% | Updated: 3:50 PM ET | Source: AP |
||
***
| Texas Democratic Primary Results | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | % |
| Hillary Clinton | 1,453,139 | 51% |
| Barack Obama | 1,354,672 | 47% |
| John Edwards | 29,808 | 1% |
| Bill Richardson | 10,667 | 0% |
| Joe Biden | 5,297 | 0% |
| Chris Dodd | 3,718 | 0% |
| Key: Winner Precincts: 99% | Updated: 3:49 PM ET | Source: AP |
||
| Texas Republican Primary Results | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | % |
| John McCain | 707,622 | 51% |
| Mike Huckabee | 521,951 | 38% |
| Ron Paul | 69,824 | 5% |
| Mitt Romney | 27,579 | 2% |
| Uncommitted | 17,611 | 1% |
| Fred Thompson | 11,786 | 1% |
| Alan Keyes | 8,571 | 1% |
| Duncan Hunter | 8,254 | 1% |
| Rudy Giuliani | 6,169 | 0% |
| Hugh Cort | 918 | 0% |
| Hoa Tran | 623 | 0% |
| Key: Winner Precincts: 100% | Updated: 3:50 PM ET | Source: AP |
||
| Rhode Island Democratic Primary Results | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | % |
| Hillary Clinton | 106,471 | 58% |
| Barack Obama | 73,609 | 40% |
| John Edwards | 1,112 | 1% |
| Uncommitted | 1,012 | 1% |
| Joe Biden | 0 | 0% |
| Chris Dodd | 0 | 0% |
| Mike Gravel | 0 | 0% |
| Dennis Kucinich | 0 | 0% |
| Bill Richardson | 0 | 0% |
| Key: Winner Precincts: 98% | Updated: 3:50 PM ET | Source: AP |
||
| Rhode Island Republican Primary Results | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | % |
| John McCain | 17,342 | 65% |
| Mike Huckabee | 5,766 | 22% |
| Ron Paul | 1,761 | 7% |
| Mitt Romney | 1,173 | 4% |
| Uncommitted | 565 | 2% |
| Alan Keyes | 114 | 0% |
| Hugh Cort | 24 | 0% |
| Rudy Giuliani | 0 | 0% |
| Duncan Hunter | 0 | 0% |
| Tom Tancredo | 0 | 0% |
| Fred Thompson | 0 | 0% |
| Key: Winner Precincts: 98% | Updated: 3:50 PM ET | Source: AP |
||
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
see
Mike Huckabee Drops Out! + Olbermann: Kerry
Kucinich and Paul safe in their Congressional Seats
I and Thou: The Road of Jewish Anti-Zionism by Chris Floyd
Note: please read the entire post by Chris Floyd, it’s very well worth your time. ~ Lo
by Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque
Tuesday, 04 March 2008
It is of course a sad fact that many people who call themselves “anti-Zionists” are, when you peel back enough layers, actually racists who hate Jews in general, and ascribe any sinister acts perpetrated by individual Jewish people or organizations to some sort of racial, genetic or cultural taint that pervades the entire group. I’ve gotten emails from many such folks over the years, who begin the exchange with justified blasts at war criminals like Paul Wolfowitz and Ariel Sharon and end up with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a wholesale, often word-for-word re-write by the Tsarist security services of a French satirical novel that had nothing to do with Jews), Rothschilds under the bed, the whole schmeer.
Venezuela: The Spectre of Big Oil by Paul Kellogg
by Paul Kellogg
Global Research, March 4, 2008
The Bullet, Socialist Project e-bulletin
“Never again will they rob us — the ExxonMobil bandits. They are imperial, American bandits, white-collared thieves. They turn governments corrupt, they oust governments. They supported the invasion of Iraq.”
This was the response from Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez to the successful lawsuit by the world’s biggest corporation (ExxonMobil), freezing $12 billion in assets of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, PDVSA — a serious escalation in Big Oil’s long running dispute with Chávez and the movement he represents.
ExxonMobil isn’t suing PDVSA because it needs the money. The world’s largest publicly traded corporation recorded profits of $40.6-billion (U.S.) in 2007, up three per cent from 2006’s record of $39.6-billion. “If Exxon were a country, its 2007 profit would exceed output of two-thirds of the world’s nations. Its 2007 revenue of $404-billion (U.S.) would place it among the 30 largest countries, ahead of such middle powers as Sweden and Venezuela.”
ExxonMobil claims it is suing PDVSA because of a June 2007 deadline given by Chávez to Exxon and other Big Oil corporations operating in Venezuela, demanding they cede majority control in their heavy-crude upgrading projects in the country. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips filed arbitration requests with the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, and ExxonMobil simultaneously took legal action in courts in the U.S. and Britain, which on February 7 agreed with their claim, and ordered the freeze of PDVSA assets.
But there is much more at stake than a simple legal disagreement. First — many other Big Oil companies have agreed to Chávez’ terms and not gone to court — among them, Chevron Corp., Norway’s Statoil ASA, Britain’s BP PLC and France’s Total SA. Second, Venezuela is not the only country to confront Big Oil and demand that old contracts be renegotiated. Here in Canada, Newfoundland’s Danny Williams demanded and won an ownership share in the multi-billion-dollar Hebron offshore oil deal. Even the Tories in Alberta are forcing Big Oil to pay higher royalties. And in Russia, “both BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC have ceded control in big, lucrative Siberian projects to Russian gas monopoly OAO Gazprom.”
The truth is, ExxonMobil’s ultimatum has more to do with politics than economics. Russia’s ruler Vladimir Putin holds office because of his ties to the secret service, his crackdown on public debate, and his commitment to pushing Russia back into the world of Big Power politics. That world of corruption and repression is comforting and familiar to the owners of ExxonMobil. Chávez, by contrast, holds office because millions have again and again been willing to put their bodies on the line against multinational corporations and their local allies. That revolutionary movement is terrifying to ExxonMobil.
So — working with courts in the U.S. and Britain (the two biggest western imperialist powers) — ExxonMobil is testing the water, seeing just how strong the revolutionary movement in Venezuela is. This is especially critical, given the setback faced by Chávez in the recent constitutional referendum.
And we shouldn’t doubt the capacity of multinational corporations to use a legal fig leaf to pursue their “right” to pull exorbitant profits out of the Global South. “BP won an arbitration case against Libya in the 1970s … and chased tankers of Libyan crude around the world to seize them as payment.” In 2006 and 2007, “Western companies that purchased debt for unpaid construction work in the Congo have tried to seize tankers of Congolese oil to satisfy arbitration awards.”
The ExxonMobil attacks have been met with defiance in Venezuela. PDVSA denies that any significant assets have been affected by the court action. “PDVSA is operating at 100 percent and is exporting oil all over the world,” said Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez. February 11, Chávez said that if ExxonMobil does succeed in freezing PDVSA assets, he would halt oil exports to the United States. This is a threat the U.S. has to take seriously. As well as being the fourth largest exporter of oil to the U.S., if Venezuela succeeds in certifying an additional 200 billion barrels of oil reserves to the 100 billion already certified, it will officially have the most proved reserves of oil, in the world.
With so much at stake, U.S. imperialism and its corporate allies are not at the moment in a position to launch a sequel to the failed coup of 2002. Venezuela’s movement is too big, and Venezuela’s oil is too important for that to happen — for now. But we know from the bitter history of Big Oil and the Global South that this is not the last confrontation between corporate and popular power in Venezuela.
Paul Kellogg is a member of the International Socialists and blogger — PolEconAnalyss (www.poleconanalysis.org) — where this article was originally published.
*** Stop ExxonMobil’s theft from the poor!
*** Support Venezuela’s right to sovereignty!
United States oil giant ExxonMobil Corporation has launched a major attack on the Venezuelan people’s right to independence and self-determination.
In January and February, ExxonMobil used the courts in Britain, the U.S. and the Netherlands to get injunctions that freeze up to $12 billion in assets of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), in those countries. The British injunction, granted on January 24 without any prior notice to PDVSA, will be heard again on February 22. The U.S. injunction was upheld by a February 13 ruling of the U.S. Federal Court.
ExxonMobil’s economic thuggery is an attempt to undermine and reverse the Venezuelan government’s decision last May to nationalise ExxonMobil’s 41.7% stake in the Cerro Negro project in the Orinoco oilfield. The nationalisation was part of the revolutionary government’s efforts to recover Venezuela’s sovereignty over its natural resources. ExxonMobil rejected the Venezuelan government’s offer of compensation, instead using the legal system in various First World countries to punish the country. In contrast, France’s Total and Norway’s Statoil have agreed to accept from Venezuela close to $1 billion compensation for part of their holdings in the oil project.
ExxonMobil is the world’s largest oil company, and was a key “stakeholder” in the US’s bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq. The corporation’s attack on Venezuela is a continuation of its aggressive response to any government daring to assert its nation’s right to own and control their natural resources. More fundamentally, the attack also aims to destabilise Venezuela and undermine the socialist revolution being constructed by the Venezuelan people.
PDVSA accounts for some 90% of Venezuela’s foreign exchange and half of its federal tax revenue, and it is the crucial source of funds for the Venezuelan government’s programs that provide free education and health care to the poor. In 2006, the state-owned oil company spent $13.3 billion on such programs, up from $6.9 billion in 2005 and more than double the $5.8 billion it invested in new domestic gas and oil projects.
ExxonMobil’s actions have angered poor Venezuelans, who have held protests around the country. As oil workers’ union leader Luis Carvajal said: “This transnational has exploited our wealth, has exploited our workers and violated our rights. All the workers in the Orinoco oil belt support the nationalisation.”
Venezuela supplies about 10% of the US’s oil. On February 14, PDVSA halted oil supplies to ExxonMobil and the government is now considering suspending oil supplies to the USA. As Venezuela’s energy minister, Rafael Ramirez, has emphasised, the interests of the Venezuelan nation are more important than any corporation, and Venezuela will not back down from its policy of full oil sovereignty.
In light of these events, we the undersigned:
** Support the Venezuelan government’s efforts to defend and extend the Venezuelan people’s common ownership and control over Venezuela’s natural resources, and defend the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s right to assert its social, political and economic sovereignty.
** Condemn ExxonMobil’s economic blackmail against Venezuela and call for it to immediately withdraw its legal campaign against PDVSA.
** Reject as illegitimate and immoral the British, U.S. and Dutch courts’ order to freeze PDVSA’s assets. Only Venezuela, through its own courts and in accordance with its own Constitution, has the right to decide the ownership and control of the resources in its territory. So-called “international arbitration” on Venezuela’s resources via courts in the First World countries is colonialism.
** Stand in solidarity with the protest actions of Venezuela’s people, trade unions and social organisations against ExxonMobil and the U.S. government’s economic and political thuggery, and commend the words of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez: “They will never rob us again, those bandits of ExxonMobil.”
Show your support by Signing on – http://venezuelasolidarity.org/?q=node/2397
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Paul Kellogg, The Bullet, Socialist Project e-bulletin, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8252
Sue Israel for Genocide before the International Court of Justice by Prof. Francis A. Boyle (1998)
by Prof. Francis A. Boyle
Global Research, March 4, 2008
MSA News – 1998-03-20
The following article was written more than ten years ago In Honor of the Tenth Anniversary of the Intifadah Gaza City, Palestine – 13 December 1997
I would like to propose publicly here in Gaza, Palestine–where the Intifadah began ten years ago at this time–that the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine and its President institute legal proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague (the so-called World Court) for violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I am sure we can all agree that Israel has indeed perpetrated the international crime of genocide against the Palestinian People. The purpose of this lawsuit would be to demonstrate that undeniable fact to the entire world. These World Court legal proceedings will prove to the entire world and to all of history that what the Nazis did to the Jews a generation ago is legally similar to what the Israelis are currently doing to the Palestinian People today: genocide.
There are three steps that should be taken for Palestine to sue Israel before the International Court of Justice for genocide. First, the President of the State of Palestine must deposit an Instrument of Accession to the 1948 Genocide Convention with the U.N. Secretary General, the depositary for the Convention. This Accession would become effective in ninety days.
Second, the President of the State of Palestine should deposit a Declaration with the International Court of Justice accepting the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and with the terms and subject to the conditions of the Statute and Rules of the Court, and undertaking to comply in good faith with the decisions of the Court and to accept all the obligations of a Member State of the United Nations under Article 94 of the United Nations Charter. Article 35(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice gives the Security Council the power to determine the conditions under which the World Court shall be open to states such as Palestine that are not yet Parties to the ICJ Statute. These conditions have been set forth by the Security Council in a Resolution of 15 October 1946. I would recommend that the State of Palestine consider making a “general declaration” accepting the jurisdiction of the World Court generally in respect of all disputes which have already arisen, or which may arise in the future, as permitted by paragraph 2 of this 15 October 1946 Security Council Resolution.
Pursuant to the terms of paragraph 5 of that Resolution, “All questions as to the validity or the effect of a declaration made under the terms of this resolution shall be decided by the Court.” Therefore, it would be for the World Court itself to decide whether Palestine is a State entitled to exercise the powers conferred by the Security Council in its Resolution of 15 October 1946. For reasons explained in more detail below and elsewhere,1 I believe the World Court will decide in favor of Palestine on this matter of its Statehood.
To the same effect is Article 41 of the Rules of Procedure of the International Court of Justice:
Article 41
The institution of proceedings by a State which is not a party to the Statute but which, under Article 35, paragraph 2, thereof, has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court by a declaration made in accordance with any resolution adopted by the Security Council under that Article, shall be accompanied by a deposit of the declaration in question, unless the latter has previously been deposited with the Registrar. If any question of the validity or effect of such declaration arises, the Court shall decide.
The Security Council Resolution referred to in Article 41 that is now in force is the Resolution of 15 October 1946 mentioned above.
In addition, that same Article 35 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice also permits a State such as Palestine that is not a Party to the ICJ Statute to file a lawsuit against another State without making the above-mentioned Declaration provided that both States are parties to a treaty that contains a compromissory clause submitting disputes arising thereunder for adjudication by the World Court:
Article 35
1. The Court shall be open to the states parties to the present Statute.
2. The conditions under which the Court shall be open to other states shall, subject to the special provisions contained in treaties in force, be laid down by the Security Council, but in no case shall such conditions place the parties in a position of inequality before the Court. …. [Emphasis added.]
Article IX of the Genocide Convention, to be quoted in full below, contains such a “special provision” or compromissory clause.
Indeed, the World Court clearly envisioned and expressly approved such a lawsuit by a State Party to the Genocide Convention, which is not a Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice and has not even made the aforementioned Declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court, by means of Paragraph 19 of its 8 April 1993 Order in Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, (Bosnia and Herzegovina vs. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, which I personally filed, argued, and won for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its President Alija Izetbegovic:
19. Whereas Article 35 of the Statute, after providing that the Court shall be open to the parties to the Statute, continues:
“2. The conditions under which the Court shall be open to other States shall, subject to the special provisions contained in treaties in force, be laid down by the Security Council, but in no case shall such conditions place the parties in a position of inequality before the Court”;
whereas the Court therefore considers that proceedings may validly be instituted by a State against a State which is a party to such a special provision in a treaty in force, but is not party to the Statute, and independently of the conditions laid down by the Security Council in its resolution 9 of 1946 (cf. S.S. “Wimbledon”, P.C.I.J. 1923, Series A, No. 1, p. 6); whereas a compromissory clause in a multilateral convention, such as Article IX of the Genocide Convention, relied on by Bosnia-Herzegovina in the present case could, in the view of the Court, be regarded prima facie as a special provision contained in a treaty in force; whereas accordingly if Bosnia-Herzegovina and Yugoslavia are both parties to the Genocide Convention, disputes to which Article IX applies are in any event prima facie within the jurisdiction ratione personae of the Court;
[Emphasis added.]
Notice that in the language emphasized above, the World Court ruled that a State Party to the Genocide Convention could file a lawsuit against another State Party even “independently of the conditions of the Security Council in its resolution 9 of 1946.” In other words, Palestine can sue Israel for violating the 1948 Genocide Convention so long as Palestine becomes a Contracting Party to the Genocide Convention. For reasons explained in more detail below and elsewhere,2 I believe the World Court will find that Palestine is a State entitled to become a Contracting Party to the Genocide Convention. Out of an abundance of caution, however, I still recommend that Palestine file the above-mentioned Declaration generally accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Third, and finally, the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine and its President must file an Application against Israel instituting legal proceedings for violating the Genocide Convention on the jurisdictional basis of Article IX thereof, which provides as follows:
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
In accordance with Article 36(6) of the ICJ Statute, in the event of a dispute as to whether the World Court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit between Palestine and Israel on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention, “the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court.”
Therefore, the filing of this genocide Application should be enough to get Palestine into the World Court against Israel for quite some time. And once Palestine is in the World Court, we can then consider requesting from the Court at any time an Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection against Israel to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Palestinian People. This international equivalent to a temporary restraining order would be similar to the two cease-and-desist Orders that I won from the World Court against the rump Yugoslavia on behalf of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 8 April 1993 and 13 September 1993.3
Furthermore, in its Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Bosnia case, the World Court ruled in Paragraph 34 that there is no reservation ratione temporis to be implied into the Genocide Convention and in particular Article IX thereof, in the following language:
34. Having reached the conclusion that it has jurisdiction in the present case, both ratione personae and ratione materiae on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention, it remains for the Court to specify the scope of that jurisdiction ratione temporis. In its sixth and seventh preliminary objections, Yugoslavia, basing its contention on the principle of the non-retroactivity of legal acts, has indeed asserted as a subsidiary argument that, even though the Court might have jurisdiction on the basis of the Convention, it could only deal with events subsequent to the different dates on which the Convention might have become applicable as between the Parties. In this regard, the Court will confine itself to the observation that the Genocide Convention — and in particular Article IX — does not contain any clause the object or effect of which is to limit in such manner the scope of its jurisdiction ratione temporis, and nor did the Parties themselves make any reservation to that end, either to the Convention or on the occasion of the signature of the Dayton-Paris Agreement. The Court thus finds that it has jurisdiction in this case to give effect to the Genocide Convention with regard to the relevant facts which have occurred since the beginning of the conflict which took place in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This finding is, moreover, in accordance with the object and purpose of the Convention as defined by the Court in 1951 and referred to above (see paragraph 31 above). As a result, the Court considers that it must reject Yugoslavia’s sixth and seventh preliminary objections. [Emphasis added.]
In other words, Palestine would be able to claim in its World Court Application against Israel that the Israeli genocide against the Palestinian People commenced with the Zionist war, conquest, ethnic cleansing, and occupation of 1948–“the beginning of the conflict,” to use the precise words of the World Court itself. Indeed, in the Bosnia case I already successfully argued to the World Court that ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide.
Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention defines the international crime of genocide as follows:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
[Emphasis added.]
Certainly, Palestine has a valid claim that Israel and its predecessors-in-law–the Zionist Agencies and Forces–have committed genocide against the Palestinian People that actually started in 1948 and has continued apace until today in violation of Genocide Convention Article II(a), (b), and (c), inter alia.
For at least the past fifty years, the Israeli government and its predecessors-in-law–the Zionist Agencies and Forces–have ruthlessly implemented a systematic and comprehensive military, political, and economic campaign with the intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical and racial group known as the Palestinian People. This Zionist/Israeli campaign has consisted of killing members of the Palestinian People in violation of Genocide Convention Article II(a). This Zionist/Israeli campaign has also caused serious bodily and mental harm to the Palestinian People in violation of Genocide Convention Article II(b). This Zionist/Israeli campaign has also deliberately inflicted on the Palestinian People conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in substantial part in violation of Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention.
Of course, the downside of bringing this lawsuit is that at some point in the future the World Court could rule that the State of Palestine does not exist as a “State” entitled to accede to the Genocide Convention. But I think that there is a high probability that this World Court, as currently constituted, would rule in favor of the existence of the State of Palestine.
Today the State of Palestine is recognized de jure by about 125 states or so around the world, the only significant geographical exception being Europe. Even then, most of the states of Europe accord Palestine de facto recognition as an Independent State. The only reason why these European states have not accorded Palestine de jure recognition as an Independent State is massive political pressure that has been applied upon them by the United States Government.
Palestine is also a Member State of the League of Arab States, which is the appropriate “Regional Arrangement” organized under Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. In addition, Palestine has Observer State Status at the United Nations Organization. Indeed, today Palestine would be a Member State of the United Nations Organization if not for illegal threats made by the United States Government to keep Palestine out of the United Nations.
Nevertheless undaunted, on 15 December 1988 the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 43/177, essentially recognizing the then month-old State of Palestine. That Resolution was adopted by a vote of 104 in favor, the United States and Israel opposed, and 44 states abstaining. For reasons fully explained elsewhere,4 such General Assembly recognition of the State of Palestine is constitutive, definitive, and universally determinative.
I believe the World Court will rule in favor of the de jure existence of the State of Palestine for the purpose of mounting this lawsuit against Israel for genocide. We might not get the vote of the Judge from the United States who was a State Department Lawyer during the Reagan administration. But I believe that a majority of the fifteen Judges on the International Court of Justice will rule in favor of the de jure existence of the State of Palestine.
To be sure, we can expect that the United States Government will do everything possible to line up the votes of certain Judges against Palestine. But it is no longer the case that the United States Government controls the World Court. In this regard, recall the high degree of independence the World Court demonstrated by condemning the United States Government throughout the proceedings of Nicaragua v. the United States of America over a decade ago.5
Of course, if necessary, I could also sue the United States before the International Court of Justice for aiding and abetting Israeli genocide against the Palestinian People in violation of Article III(e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention that expressly criminalizes “complicity” in genocide. This separate lawsuit against the United States would be similar to the proceedings that President Izetbegovic of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina authorized me to institute against the United Kingdom on 15 November 1993 for aiding and abetting Serbian genocide against the Bosnian People. In this regard, you should consult the Statement of Intention by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Institute Legal Proceedings Against the United Kingdom Before the International Court of Justice of 15 November 1993, which I drafted for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and filed with the International Court of Justice on that same day.
The Bosnian U.N. Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey also circulated this Statement to the Member States of both the General Assembly and the Security Council as an official document of the United Nations Organization.6 This document should give the reader a fairly good idea of the legal basis for Palestine to sue the United States at the World Court for aiding and abetting Israeli genocide against the Palestinian People.7 In regard to this proposed lawsuit, the U.S. government’s reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention is invalid and severable.
Quite obviously, I cannot promise the Palestinian People a clear-cut victory in these two lawsuits. But the mere filing of this genocide lawsuit against Israel at the World Court would constitute a severe defeat for Israel in the Court of World Public Opinion. The Palestinian filing of this genocide lawsuit in 1998 would deliver yet another body-blow to Israel along the same lines of the major body-blow already inflicted on Israel by the creation of the State of Palestine in 1988. Israel has never recovered from the creation of the Palestinian State. So too, Israel will never recover from this genocide lawsuit brought against it by Palestine before the International Court of Justice. Likewise, the United States government will never recover from a World Court lawsuit brought against it by Palestine for aiding and abetting Israeli genocide against the Palestinian People.
For these reasons, then, I would ask all the Palestinian People around the world to give the most serious consideration to backing my proposals: Tell the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine and its President to sue Israel for genocide before the International Court of Justice! Tell the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine and its President to sue the United States before the International Court of Justice for aiding and abetting Israeli genocide against the Palestinian People! May God be with the Palestinian People at this difficult time in your Nation’s history.
Notes
1. See Francis A. Boyle, The International Legal Right of the Palestinian People to Self-determination and an Independent State of Their Own, 12 Scandinavian J. Development Alternatives, No. 2 & 3, at 29-46 (June-Sept. 1993); The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy 135-96, 268-73 (1989) (Creating the State of Palestine).
2. Id.
3. See Francis A. Boyle, The Bosnian People Charge Genocide (1996).
4. See note 1 supra.
5. See, e.g., Francis A. Boyle, Determining U.S. Responsibility for Contra Operations Under International Law, 81 Am. J. Int’l L. 86-93 (1987); Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law 155-210 (1987).
6. See U.N. Doc. A/48/659-S/26806, 47 U.N.Y.B. 465 (1993).
7. See also John Quigley, Complicity in International Law: A New Direction in the Law of State Responsibility, 57 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 77-131 (1986).
Copyright 1997 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved.
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Francis A. Boyle, MSA News, 1998
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8254
Dennis Kucinich’s Media Fight by John Nichols
by John Nichols
The Nation
03/03/2008
Ohio voters head to the polls for a primary election Tuesday, and that can mean only one thing: The Cleveland Plain Dealer is griping about Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
There is nothing new, nor anything wrong, with newspapers holding members of Congress to account.
Extraordinary Rendition (video)
In 2003, Abu Omar was kidnapped by CIA agents in Italy on suspicion of being involved with al Qaeda. He was transported to Egypt, where he was tortured by Egyptian intelligence services. Abu Omar was later released, only to be recaptured after speaking about his experience in Egypt.
In the latest issue of Mother Jones magazine, New America Fellow Peter Bergen uses Abu Omar’s story to explore the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. Bergen chronicles the rise in extraordinary renditions since 1995 with the help of Program Associate Katherine Tiedemann.
Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod
.
see
Tell Bush: Don’t Veto Torture Ban
Mosaic News – 03/03/08: World News From The Middle East
Warning
.
This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war and should only be viewed by a mature audience.
For more: http://linktv.org/originalseries
“More Than 100 Palestinians Killed in Gaza,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
“Israel warns it will be back as Gaza incursion is finally ended,” IBA TV, Israel
“Ahmadinejad Wraps Up Trip to Iraq,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“Organized Theft of Iraqi Artifacts,” New TV, Lebanon
“Waiting Neighborhood in Mauritania Continues to Wait,” Dubai TV, UAE
“Royal Intervention in Jordan Housing Market,” Jordan TV, Jordan
“Medvedev Wins Russian Presidential Elections,” Abu Dhabi TV, UAE
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.
Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod
.
***
Support the Palestinian-Israeli call for Ceasefire
see
Over 112 Palestinians Killed in Five-Day Israeli Attack, Mohammed Omer Reports from Gaza
Condoleezza Rice News Conference in Ramallah
Double Standard by Ralph Nader
by Ralph Nader
Monday, March 3. 2008
The breaking news about 23 year old Prince Harry secretly being deployed in Afghanistan as a “battlefield air controller” since December created a public sensation in Britain. It also resulted in the quick return home of the Prince – third in line to the British throne – for security reasons.
The episode pointed to the British tradition of expecting the sons of British kings and queens to enter military service during periods when their country is at war.
The same was true during World War II when four of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s sons entered the armed forces, as did General Eisenhower’s son, John Eisenhower.
Since the expansion of the number of women in the military, what about George W. Bush’s daughters – Barbara and Jenna? Their father repeatedly describes the war in Iraq as crucially important to protect the United States and to spread democracy in the Middle East. Early on, he called it a “crusade” until his advisers made sure he never mentioned this word again, since it has a special meaning for the Islamic world.
President Bush also repeatedly asserted that the losses of life and the costs of the Iraq war are “worth the sacrifice.” Whose sacrifice? Certainly not that of the family in the White House. There have been no indications in this town of 24/7 gossip of either the parents urging or the daughters considering joining the armed forces.
Recently, a Midwestern mother, who lost her son in Iraq, declared, half weeping, “Why am I planning for a funeral when George W. Bush is planning for a wedding?”
Is this mother being unfair? Or is she reflecting a feeling that there is a double standard operating here? Senator Jim Webb and Senator John McCain, against and for the war respectively, each have a son who has served in Iraq. No double standard for them.
There is a certain moral authority to govern—setting an example—sharing in the sacrifice initiated by the White House – that escapes both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney – both early draft dodgers who were gung-ho for the Vietnam war so long as someone else in their age group was doing the fighting. They both have children who have declined to serve during the Iraq war—occupation.
It would be a different question if the Bush and Cheney offspring had come out publicly against the war or were conscientious objectors. No signs of these positions thus far.
Although Bush and Cheney register very low in the polls; they were re-elected in 2004, with some help from Republican voting shenanigans in Ohio. It was already known that both Bush and Cheney were against full Medicare for all Americans, against raising the minimum wage to 1968 levels, adjusted for inflation, against a decent budget for investment in public housing, against defending the pensions of millions of workers from the erosions and crimes of their corporate bosses.
Yet both Bush and Cheney received a big pay increase from a big tax cut for the wealthy President Bush signed that included their total investment income and salary. They live in exquisite public housing, with great pensions and marvelous health insurance.
This double standard between the political rulers and the ruled extends to Congress as a whole and mirrors the double standards between corporate executives and their workers.
There is a simple safeguard regarding the decision to make war while leaving the younger adult sons and daughters of Congress and the White House enjoying civilian life as the casualties and illnesses of the “other Americans” keep mounting in counted and deliberately uncounted ways.
Ask your member of Congress to introduce a one page bill that says the following: Whenever Congress and the White House take our country to war, all able-bodied military-age children of every member of Congress, the President and the Vice-President will be conscripted automatically into the armed forces.
That simple law will generate deliberations containing relevant, accurate information and assumption of proper constitutional responsibilities by the Congress and the President.
When politicians’ children are required to go off to war, it tends to concentrate their minds toward waging peace before waging false pretense wars.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
see
Late Again on Cuba By Jim Ryerson
Sent to me by the author. ~ Lo
By Jim Ryerson
Los Angeles
(jim at travelingman dot net)
The writer is a documentary film producer specializing on Cuba, which he’s visited more than 30 times. He formerly worked as a television news reporter in Los Angeles, and won all of the major broadcasting awards.
Condoleezza Rice News Conference in Ramallah
March 04, 2008 BBC World
Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod
.
Support the Palestinian-Israeli call for Ceasefire
see
Over 112 Palestinians Killed in Five-Day Israeli Attack, Mohammed Omer Reports from Gaza
Morning Joe: 9/11 Truther should be taken to Secret Prison (video no longer available)
Note: video no longer available; Feb. 10, 2011
video replaced Sept 13, 2010
setfree70 | March 04, 2008
March 04, 2008 MSNBC Morning Joe
Vodpod videos no longer available.“I hope there a secret prison for all 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists in Eastern Europe somewhere”
Unbelievable, and outrageous Watch as the reporter sardonically states “you don’t do that because that’s when the secret service steps in”, while his yes people, including Joe Scarborough himself, who seem to be having their own conversations in the background, start braying “Tase him, tase him bro” like automated robots.
Israel may reoccupy Gaza Strip
Press TV
Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:25:21
The Israeli regime is mulling over the reoccupation of the Gaza Strip amid military attacks against civilians in the coastal territory.
Israel’s foreign ministry told foreign diplomats that the regime would reoccupy Gaza even as it makes efforts to make peace with Palestinian Authority Chief Mahmoud Abbas.
Israel evacuated Gaza “not in order to come back, but we might find ourselves in a situation where we have no choice,” foreign minister Tzipi Livni told diplomats based in occupied Palestine on Tuesday.
On Sunday, Abbas called off talks with Israel to protest “an exceptionally high death toll” from Israel’s latest military incursion into Gaza.
Last week, Israel launched a large-scale military offensive on Gaza that killed more than 100 Palestinians.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
***
Support the Palestinian-Israeli call for Ceasefire
see
Over 112 Palestinians Killed in Five-Day Israeli Attack, Mohammed Omer Reports from Gaza
Revealed: the US plan to start a Palestinian civil war
Report
The Electronic Intifada
4 March 2008
United States officials including President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice participated in a conspiracy to arm and train Contra-style Palestinian militias nominally loyal to the Fatah party to overthrow the democratically-elected Hamas government in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, an investigative article in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair has revealed. [1]
The allegations of such a conspiracy, long reported by The Electronic Intifada, are corroborated in Vanity Fair with confidential US government documents, interviews with former US officials, Israeli officials and with Muhammad Dahlan, the Gaza strongman personally chosen by Bush.
The article, by David Rose, recounts gruesome torture documented on videotape of Hamas members by the US-armed and funded militias under Dahlan’s control. Hamas had repeatedly alleged such torture as part of its justification for its move to overthrow the Dahlan militias and take full control of the interior of the Gaza Strip in June 2007.
…
Endnotes
[1] “The Gaza Bombshell,” Vanity Fair, April 2008, (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804)
…continued
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
***
Support the Palestinian-Israeli call for Ceasefire
Dandelion Salad 