"It was a spectacular irony - a Republican senator using the word “fraud” about the presidential election," says Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. "More spectacular still, he was visiting his condemnation of apparent election manipulation on the incumbent party. And beyond all that, he and others based their conclusions largely on the incredible disparity between the last exit polls and the vote count itself. Of course, Indiana’s Richard Lugar was talking about the presidential election in the Ukraine."
Olbermann's Countdown show is one of the few sources of media coverage devoting time to ask questions that remain in the wake of the recent election. Keith interviewed the pollster John Zogby in his Nov 24 coverage report entitled Zogby Vs. Mitofsky regarding another poll this week - one that indicated that about four in five Americans thought President Bush had been legitimately elected three weeks ago: “But, Keith, 20 percent don’t think the president is legitimate. And worse yet, if you take the other half, those that didn’t vote for him, about half of the other side doesn’t think the president is legitimate. That just hasn’t existed for a long, long time in our system. We need to restore, I think, some semblance of legitimacy and honor to the system.”
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
The Geneva Conventions contain the following in the opening paragraph:
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat (out of combat) by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely...”
It goes on to explain, “The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
-- Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.
-- The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
And it adds that “the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.”
The Geneva Conventions are quite clear that the bombing of hospitals constitutes a war crime:
“Article 18: Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.
“Article 19: The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded. The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.”
Then... are these war crimes?
On November 6 the BBC reported on the effects of US bombing in Fallujah, “Witnesses said only a facade remained of a small Emergency Hospital in the centre of the city. A nearby medical supplies storeroom and dozens of houses were also damaged as US forces continued preparing the ground for an expected major assault.”
Ex-Navy Seal, Matthew Heidt, explains, “The shots fired at the ‘unarmed’ terrorist in that mosque in Fallujah are called ‘security rounds.’ Its (sic) a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a 'security round' in everybody's head. There's no time to dick around in the target, you clear the space, dump the chumps…”
The Global Policy Forum explains, "The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The Clinton administration participated actively in negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty, seeking Security Council screening of cases. If adopted, this would have enabled the US to veto any dockets it opposed. When other countries refused to agree to such an unequal standard of justice, the US campaigned to weaken and undermine the court. The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures. These exclusionary steps clearly endanger the fledgling Court and may seriously weaken its credibility and effectiveness."
Here's a complete Chronology of U.S. Opposition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) starting with the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA), a bill introduced on May 9, 2002 by Senator Tom DeLay (R-TX) and passed by the House and Senate within a month. On August 2, 2002 President George W. Bush signed HR 4775, making the ASPA U.S. law.
In September 2002 the Bush Administration released its National Security Strategy Policy. In reference to the ICC, it says:
"We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept. We will work together with other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect US nationals from the ICC. We will implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of US personnel and officials."
Never Fear...
Thanks to the ASPA we can continue to support our troops, despite the fact that they have been instructed to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Whew... for a minute there I was worried about being held complicit as an individual citizens who condones war crimes. No fear, our leaders have taken steps to insure that there will be no trial in the ICC.
RELATED STORY:
Embedded with the Marines in Iraq
Dead-Check in Falluja
"I had developed a strange relationship with the sight of dead Iraqis. I felt safer when I saw them."
Rest easy and have a Happy Thanksgiving!
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat (out of combat) by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely...”
It goes on to explain, “The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
-- Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.
-- The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
And it adds that “the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.”
The Geneva Conventions are quite clear that the bombing of hospitals constitutes a war crime:
“Article 18: Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.
“Article 19: The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded. The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.”
Then... are these war crimes?
On November 6 the BBC reported on the effects of US bombing in Fallujah, “Witnesses said only a facade remained of a small Emergency Hospital in the centre of the city. A nearby medical supplies storeroom and dozens of houses were also damaged as US forces continued preparing the ground for an expected major assault.”
Ex-Navy Seal, Matthew Heidt, explains, “The shots fired at the ‘unarmed’ terrorist in that mosque in Fallujah are called ‘security rounds.’ Its (sic) a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a 'security round' in everybody's head. There's no time to dick around in the target, you clear the space, dump the chumps…”
The Global Policy Forum explains, "The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The Clinton administration participated actively in negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty, seeking Security Council screening of cases. If adopted, this would have enabled the US to veto any dockets it opposed. When other countries refused to agree to such an unequal standard of justice, the US campaigned to weaken and undermine the court. The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures. These exclusionary steps clearly endanger the fledgling Court and may seriously weaken its credibility and effectiveness."
Here's a complete Chronology of U.S. Opposition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) starting with the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA), a bill introduced on May 9, 2002 by Senator Tom DeLay (R-TX) and passed by the House and Senate within a month. On August 2, 2002 President George W. Bush signed HR 4775, making the ASPA U.S. law.
In September 2002 the Bush Administration released its National Security Strategy Policy. In reference to the ICC, it says:
"We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept. We will work together with other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect US nationals from the ICC. We will implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of US personnel and officials."
Never Fear...
Thanks to the ASPA we can continue to support our troops, despite the fact that they have been instructed to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Whew... for a minute there I was worried about being held complicit as an individual citizens who condones war crimes. No fear, our leaders have taken steps to insure that there will be no trial in the ICC.
RELATED STORY:
Embedded with the Marines in Iraq
Dead-Check in Falluja
"I had developed a strange relationship with the sight of dead Iraqis. I felt safer when I saw them."
Rest easy and have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Sunday, November 21, 2004
In the Old Testament, locusts were the 8th of 10 plagues which God brought on the Egyptians to convince Pharaoh to release the children of Israel. Locusts can eat their own body weight in food, two to three ounces, each day. A single square mile swarm can contain from between 100 million to 200 million locusts, which can eat 220 tons to 720 tons of food every day - quantity enough to feed 200,000 humans.
A single swarm of locusts can be small, extending over a hundred square meters, or huge, composed of billions of insects. In one day, they can fly 100 kilometers in the general direction of prevailing winds. They may breed in one country and attack in another. The locust season usually runs from November through May.
BURKINA FASO: Up to 90 percent crops lost in north, food crisis feared
Locust swarms advance into Egypt
Drought, Locusts Heavily Damage Crops In Mauritania
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
