Minister Kamp

Wat is ie toch een eng, ENG man.

Never ending story

... bedoelde Geert deze ontwikkelingshulp te stoppen???




...daar zou ik hem wel gelijk in kunnen geven. Maar wel dan onze houding wijzigen en druk op Israel zetten!!!

The legal basis for the war in Iraq

Does it even matter any more? To me it does, especially when i read this:

Tony Blair was named winner of the prestigious Liberty Medal last night by America's National Constitution Centre for "his steadfast commitment to conflict resolution" in Northern Ireland and the Middle East.

It makes me want to hurl. Like I said before, what use are international law & treaties if there's no way of holding people/governments accountable when they trample all over them? In this entire sorry situation, the perpetrators have been rewarded every step of the way and still are. The ones who are paying, have no voice and no recourse.

Yesterday, at a public inquiry that is going on unnoticed, official documents were released for the first time...

Just another postscript.

Brave New World

Op volledig ondemocratische wijze, in achterkamertjes, worden onze rechten en privacy volledig verkwanseld.

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Dit verdrag moet piraterij op intellectueel eigendom stoppen en wordt in het diepste geheim uitonderhandeld. Uit uitgelekte concepten wordt duidelijk dat het controleren van computers of mp3-spelers aan de grens, controle door providers van internetverkeer, het uitsluiten van internet en allerhande strafrechtelijke maatregelen tot de mogelijkheden gaan behoren.
bron

...en de nationale regeringen hebben hier niets over te vertellen. Denk je in: bij de grenzen mogen mensen je computer of mp3-speler doorspitten om te kijken of alles echt wel je eigendom is! Leuk, he.

Dank je wel Balkenende & Co. Jullie hebben het verdrag/grondwet er doorheen geramd zonder de Nederlandse volk hierin te kennen omdat jullie donders goed wisten dat de collectieve stem "NEE" zou zijn.


Nog meer uit bovengenoemd artikel:

Volgens In 't Veld is er een groeiende irritatie bij het Europees Parlement over de geheimhouding, terwijl transparantie formeel de norm is. “Het lijkt wel dat iedere keer als een land geheimhouding vraagt dat meteen ook gebeurt”, verzucht ze. Volgens haar inschatting is het Europarlement dat ook zat en momenteel “rabiaat tegen” de gang van zaken. Of dat het verdrag tegen gaat houden is onzeker.

Zelf probeert ze helder te krijgen wat nou precies bekokstoofd wordt in de vergaderkamers. Ze diende een Europees Wob-verzoek in, maar kreeg niets. “Daar zal ik binnenkort een rechtszaak voor starten.”

Ook het Ministerie van Economische Zaken claimt tegen de geheimzinnigheid te zijn. “Nederland heeft meerdere malen kenbaar gemaakt het proces niet transparant te vinden en die zorgen meerdere malen overgebracht in dit traject”, stelt de voorlichter. Maar ook Heemskerk weigerde documenten op verzoek van uw verslaggever te openbaren en voerde zeer vage redenen op waarom geen openheid hoefde te worden gegeven. Zelfs na een bezwaarprocedure kwam er geen openheid.

Democracy, my ass!

Wat een ongelofelijke komedie wordt hier gespeeld!!

Smoke and mirrors. Misdirection 101.

Ons hele kabinet speelt een cynisch spel met het volk. De conclusies van Commissie Davids liegen er niet om. In plaats van deze punten van kritiek te confronteren, komt Balkenende met een meesterlijk set: Hij snoeft en gooit alle negatieve conclusies resoluut in de goot met een paar koele woorden. Onmiddelijk hoog drama bij de coalitiepartner PvdA, die toch nog de schijn van links hoog moet houden. Vervolgens een hyperventilerende drama tot laat in de nacht waar Balkenende een soort van knieval maakt, om vervolgens toch te zeggen dat hij dus toch blijft staan bij wat hij eerst zei.

Selectieve doofheid preveleert. Iedereen in de pers roept dat een crisis is afgewend. Opluchting alom.

...en bijna niemand merkt dat met geen woord gesproken wordt over de bevindingen van Commissie Davids, die zeer ernstig zijn en die toch ten minste zouden moeten leiden tot het opstappen van Balkenende.

Zo luchtig wordt er omgegaan met zulk diepgaande onderwerpen als internationaal volkerenrecht.

Inmiddels gaat het over dooien en ijs. En Haiti.

Hoezo, democratie.

The Iraq war and accountability

I have been watching the Chilcot inquiry in the UK unfold. I have been listening and reading and hearing what people said. What a craven spectacle it is!

Counter to what some politicians seem to believe, most of their constituents don't have the attention span of a gnat. I remember very well what was said and done, years ago - and to me, it does not matter that it happened many years ago. And it should not, in such matters. Many agree with this way of thinking, which is why a 90-year old Nazi criminal had to stand trial in Germany for WW2 war crimes! Even after all that time, it is just to prosecute such crimes.

If the rule of law has to mean anything, it has to be blind. These days, it is not. If people can waltz all over international laws prohibiting wars of agression and never have to be held accountable (even with this inquiry, I see Blair is going to give evidence in secret. Par for course, isn't it?), then the law itself is useless. The entire concept of democracy and a just society based in law is a joke.

This was a war of choice, Blair is increasingly open about it:

"I would still have thought it right to remove him. Obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat," he said.
"I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons still in charge but it's incredibly difficult."

And still as unapologetic as ever.

The Independent's headline this morning read "Untouchable". Yes, it seems so. The evidence that has come out of this inquiry makes clear there was no case to go to war. Period.

I am beyond angry and disgusted. It seems there will be no consequences for anyone. No accountability. If so, I hope they will just drop the masks. I hope that when the next war of choice is started, our politicians won't bother with the horse and pony show. Just say "hey we don't like this person, so we are going to bomb the country to smithereens". And then go out and do it. I for one would at least appreciate the honesty.

I wonder if Trafigura can be prosecuted

...for murder?
Or, the individuals working for Trafigura who are responsible for this - I really do wonder.

If not, they damn well should be, in my very humble opinion.

I hope some justice will prevail even if the victims have been suddenly compensated when it became evident the truth was coming out (liberally tossing out threats and legal actions to muzzle the news organisations who were publishing the proof):

Trafigura said the deal – for an undisclosed amount – was likely to be acceptable to most if not all of the claimants. It was based on an acceptance that the company had no liability for the most serious deaths and injuries alleged in the dumping scandal. Trafigura says it is the world's third-biggest private oil trader, and declared a $440m profit last year. Its 200 traders are reported to receive annual bonuses of up to $1m each.
source

Even in these cynical times, this behaviour is totally beyond anything a civil society should tolerate.
I hope there are criminal prosecutions of the individuals concerned!

Bombing of Gaza a war crime

These academics and law professionals certainly think so and clearly say so in this open letter.

January 11, 2009
Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime

ISRAEL has sought to justify its military attacks on Gaza by stating that it amounts to an act of “self-defence” as recognised by Article 51, United Nations Charter. We categorically reject this contention.

The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence. Under international law self-defence is an act of last resort and is subject to the customary rules of proportionality and necessity.

The killing of almost 800 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than 3,000 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire.

For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade on the coastal strip that brought Gazan society to the brink of collapse. In the three years after Israel’s redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. And yet in 2005-8, according to the UN, the Israeli army killed about 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. Throughout this time the Gaza Strip remained occupied territory under international law because Israel maintained effective control over it.

Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defence, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary. Israel could have agreed to renew the truce with Hamas. Instead it killed 225 Palestinians on the first day of its attack. As things stand, its invasion and bombardment of Gaza amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s 1.5m inhabitants contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law. In addition, the blockade of humanitarian relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to basic necessities such as food and fuel, are prima facie war crimes.

We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes. Israel has a right to take reasonable and proportionate means to protect its civilian population from such attacks. However, the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas.

Ian Brownlie QC, Blackstone Chambers

Mark Muller QC, Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales

Michael Mansfield QC and Joel Bennathan QC, Tooks Chambers

Sir Geoffrey Bindman, University College, London

Professor Richard Falk, Princeton University

Professor M Cherif Bassiouni, DePaul University, Chicago

Professor Christine Chinkin, LSE

Professor John B Quigley, Ohio State University

Professor Iain Scobbie and Victor Kattan, School of Oriental and African Studies

Professor Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva

Professor Said Mahmoudi, Stockholm University

Professor Max du Plessis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban

Professor Bill Bowring, Birkbeck College

Professor Joshua Castellino, Middlesex University

Professor Thomas Skouteris and Professor Michael Kagan, American University of Cairo

Professor Javaid Rehman, Brunel University

Daniel Machover, Chairman, Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights

Dr Phoebe Okawa, Queen Mary University

John Strawson, University of East London

Dr Nisrine Abiad, British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Dr Michael Kearney, University of York

Dr Shane Darcy, National University of Ireland, Galway

Dr Michelle Burgis, University of St Andrews

Dr Niaz Shah, University of Hull

Liz Davies, Chair, Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyer

Prof Michael Lynk, The University of Western Ontario

Steve Kamlish QC and Michael Topolski QC, Tooks Chambers

source

Okay then, who has the bell and who will bind it to the cat's tail...???
Easier said than done. Call it what you like, it happens and has happened and will happen again and every time, unopposed. But at least some are saying it out loud.

(defence instead of defense: it's not a typo, it's the British spelling of the word)