TOKYO MASTER BANNER

MINISTRY OF TOKYO
US-ANGLO CAPITALISMEU-NATO IMPERIALISM
Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies
Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships
Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY
[LINK | Article]

*U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR*

Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
[info from Craig Murray video appearance, follows]  US-Anglo Alliance DELIBERATELY STOKING ANTI-RUSSIAN FEELING & RAMPING UP TENSION BETWEEN EASTERN EUROPE & RUSSIA.  British military/government feeding media PROPAGANDA.  Media choosing to PUBLISH government PROPAGANDA.  US naval aggression against Russia:  Baltic Sea — US naval aggression against China:  South China Sea.  Continued NATO pressure on Russia:  US missile systems moving into Eastern Europe.     [info from John Pilger interview follows]  War Hawk:  Hillary Clinton — embodiment of seamless aggressive American imperialist post-WWII system.  USA in frenzy of preparation for a conflict.  Greatest US-led build-up of forces since WWII gathered in Eastern Europe and in Baltic states.  US expansion & military preparation HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE WEST.  Since US paid for & controlled US coup, UKRAINE has become an American preserve and CIA Theme Park, on Russia's borderland, through which Germans invaded in the 1940s, costing 27 million Russian lives.  Imagine equivalent occurring on US borders in Canada or Mexico.  US military preparations against RUSSIA and against CHINA have NOT been reported by MEDIA.  US has sent guided missile ships to diputed zone in South China Sea.  DANGER OF US PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES.  China is on HIGH NUCLEAR ALERT.  US spy plane intercepted by Chinese fighter jets.  Public is primed to accept so-called 'aggressive' moves by China, when these are in fact defensive moves:  US 400 major bases encircling China; Okinawa has 32 American military installations; Japan has 130 American military bases in all.  WARNING PENTAGON MILITARY THINKING DOMINATES WASHINGTON. ⟴  
Showing posts with label 1998 Rome Statute (ICC). Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1998 Rome Statute (ICC). Show all posts

April 05, 2016

Latin America: Article 98 Agreements & US Empire Influence & Control Arsenal

Article
SOURCE
*PART 4

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/55410

Latin America:
Article 98 Agreements & US Empire Influence & Control Arsenal
SUMMARY / Understanding:
SOURCE -
*PART 4

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/55410

Title:  "WikiLeaks shows how US threatened Ecuador"
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
By Linda Pearson
More:

Part 1
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/55239

Part 2
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/55285

Part 3
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/55320

SUMMARY / Understanding:

*PART 4
Re:  4-part series | WikiLeaks revelations | US attempt to secure immunity for war crimes

International Criminal Court (ICC)
-- established at The Hague:  2002
-- investigate & prosecute:

  • war crimes
  • crimes against humanity
  • crime of genocide
2002-2009
George W Bush admi
n 


IMPOSES sanctions re:
    1.  military aid
    2.  economic aid
        - Economic Support Funds (ESF) assistance

re states refusing to sign Article 98 Agreements
-- agreeing not to transfer US nationals to


-- International Criminal Court (ICC)
-- without consent of US govt

-- Article 98 Agreements arose due to Bush admin fear
-- US leaders & military could face court at The Hague

-- for trial re war crimes & abuses committed during 'global war on terror'
 


*sanctions policy eventually lifted in order to give US domestic influence leverage, that it had denied itself as an unintended consequence of imposing sanctions.

Reasons lifted / unintended consequences:

-- US loss of influence LatAm
-- reduction of LatAm sanctioned countries'
   capacity to support US 'war on terror'
-- reduction of LatAm sanctioned countries'
   capacity to support US 'war on drugs'
-- concern for
unintended consequences of sanction policy on other US policy agendas
 

*example of unintended consequences:

    eg. International Military Education Training (IMET) restricted by sanctions
    *therefore US influence over military limited due to US sanctions
    *concern that other countries (eg China) fill the gap
    = unintended loss of overall US *influence*


Including loss of ability to influence outcomes re key US agenda: 
  • -- Free Trade Agreement
  • -- Forward Operating Location (at Manta)
  • -- security cooperation
x12 LatAm Countries refused to sign Article 98 Agreement

-- Ecuador one of those countries & was sanctioned by US

Other US/Western means of influencing sovereign state:


-- eg. via Ecuadorian military, urging them to lobby govt for Article 98 Agreement
-- so Ecuadorian military could *regain* US military assistance
-- withholding of equipment (eg. helicopters)
-- joint special forces counter terrorism ops - using fancy US helicopters
-- in hope of inducing officers to push superiors for similar
 -- other US embassy intended efforts involved:

  • personal diplomacy
  • media 'education'
*hosting round-tables w/ journalists to correct 'misconceptions'

*potential INTERNATIONAL VISITOR (IV) PROGRAM for country's
  •         -- think-do tanks
  •         -- media circuit talking heads
-- recasting existing US govt. assistance efforts as political ‘payback’ re Article 98
-- repackaging existing programs for maximum political benefit
-- ESF cutbacks as pressure to reconsider

    *not sure what ESFs are:  possibly 'Economic Support Fund'
-- embassy seizes on new appointments to push agenda
-- attempt to exploit military interest angle as leverage
-- say to military leaders to 'concurrently lobby' their envoy
-- lure: extradition of corrupt bankers suspected of embezzlement
-- as trade off


-- using International Military Education Training (IMET)
-- as a cheap means of influencing another country's military


'DEMOCRACY' PROMOTION
-- neocolonialist practice
-- used by Western powers as a means to INFLUENCE POLITICAL & ECONOMIC CHANGE
-- in countries of STRATEGIC INTEREST


Ecuador
-- neoliberal economic policies
-- carried out by successive governments
-- Western-backed
-- increasing public opposition to neoliberal policies
-- with THIRD-LARGEST OIL RESERVES in South America
-- *Ecuador prime candidate for 'democracy' promotion US influence-seeking neocolonialist practice

Sanctions on such a country by US / West:
    1.  hinder ability to influence & effect change
    2.  deny US influence over an entire generation of military staff
    3.  undermines US govt. influence over local govts re reform tools (on central govt institutions)
  •         -- incl. electoral tribunal
  •         -- courts
  •         -- trade & environment ministries
Alfredo Palacio
President Ecuador 2005-2007
VP 2003-2005
-- proposed constitutional referendum (to be negotiated w/in Ecuador congress)
-- development considered involving *risk to US govt interests
 


US embassy, as part of it's 'democracy promo' Western neoliberal propaganda & influence ops routine:

*planned on encouraging 'informed abate' re prosed reforms: 
    -- electoral 
    -- political
    US aimed protect following US interests from any proposed referendum:
    • -- Free Trade Agreement
    • -- Forward Operating Location (at Manta)
    • -- security cooperation
    2006:  Bush then lifts sanctions
    -- on the basis of US national interests

    *election of Palacio 


    -- successor Rafael Correa (2006)
    -- insufficiently controlled by US, hence justified US concern re lack of influence
    -- lack of influence/control risk to US strategic interests

    -- Ecuador had annulled operating contract (US firm:  Occidental Petroleum Corp)
    -- US deemed this 'seizure' of assets of US company

    -- *Ecuador would not sign free trade agreement with US


    -- 2007:  Correa follows through on electoral promise:
    -- US lease re Ecuador Manta airbase (US surveillance base)
    -- declined to be renewed by Ecuador
    -- 2008:  Ecuador adopts new constitition
    -- foreign military bases & foreign facilities for military purposes
    -- banned on Ecuadorian soil

    -- 2011:  Ecuador discontinues sending military to:
    -- US School of the Americas



    *graduates of US army training schools responsible for executing:
    -- US-sponsored:

    •     -- coups
    •     -- massacres
    •     -- torture
    -- in LatAm since 1950s 

    SUMMARY
    SOURCE - *PART 4https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/55410

    ---------------------- ----------------------



    COMMENT

    THE MEANS OF INFLUENCE on foreign affairs from within foreign nations are extensive.

    It's hard to understand why anyone would want a US embassy around, when the US is looking to influence even the military along with other sections of society, in order to manipulate those inside their host nations to act towards manifesting what is favourable to US interests (and not necessarily favourable to the host population).

    No foreign nation ought to have any kind of influence on a sovereign nation's military.

    Ecuador did an amazing job of standing up to the US ... but that potentially makes Ecuador's politicians, institutions, activists etc, either targets of US aggression, or tools the subject of US influence ops, to be deployed to further US-serving aims.  Especially, seeing Ecuador has large oil reserves, which must be so attractive to the exploiting and pillaging empire.

    Iran and Cuba had better watch out, too, I think.

    [ Formatting this is sending me mental.  Blogger keeps inserting codes I don't want.]


    March 29, 2016

    Karadzic will be in jail, but what about Bush, Blair, Clinton ...


    Article
    SOURCE
    http://archive.is/drTMu


    English
    http://archive.is/drTMu

    Original Serbian
    http://www.vesti-online.com/Vesti/Svet/561374/Karadzic-ce-u-zatvor-a-sta-cemo-sa-Busom-Blerom-Klintonom


    Vesti Online

    Sunday 27/03/2016.
    15:51
    Vestionline

    Edited English Translation

    *confirm original text(s) for quotation purposes

    Karadzic will be in jail, but what about Bush, Blair, Clinton ...


    Karadzic will be in jail, but what about Bush, Blair, Clinton ...

    If you are a member of the Western alliance, you are free to commit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity,  ... [according to] ... a writer and blogger Neil Clark. Attached to the "Rasa USA Today," Clark asks why are people responsible for much greater crimes than those for which Radovan Karadzic
    was found guilty, still at large and why will they never be criminally prosecuted.

    A year ago, the report "Counting Bodies", collected by international physicians, says that at least 1.3 million people died in the 'war against terrorism' led by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
     
    US worse than Hitler

    This dreadful figure must be added the numbers killed during and after the NATO bombing in Libya (more than 50,000), with starvation due to lack of basic means of subsistence and famine. There are also those who died in the Iraq war and those who were killed by terrorists in Syria by armed and financed by the West and its regional allies.
    -------/\/\/ 
    The evil if you are dark-skinned, or Serbs

    As regards this analyst, the International Criminal Court is biased as the Tribunal in The Hague. Before that court has so far indicted 36 accused and they are all dark-skinned Africans. White war criminals (unless they are Serbs) do not have to worry.

    -------/\/\/
    - In reality, the Western neo-conservatives and their allies are responsible for a large number of deaths, destruction and human suffering, even compared with the dark days of the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler. But they are not brought to trail in The Hague - said Clark and specify:

    - If you no one is really above the law, then we would see George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Tony Blair and Clinton
    in the courtroom; and not only Radovan Karadzic.

    What is worse, Clark believes, is that the Western war lobby is trying to use the charges against Karadzic as a justification for their own bloody interventionist policy. The war in Bosnia is not, as the neoconservatives argue, an example of "what happens when the West does not intervene." In contrast, the war in BiH has caused quite excessive interference of the West.

    - We should all be focusing our attention on the "evil Karadzic," but let's not go too deeply into the question of how the secessionist wars in Yugoslavia started and when he lit the fuse - says Clark.

    For the US and its allies, Yugoslavia of the
    1990s was the "sacrificial" country. The West has supported those who aspired to the disintegration of Yugoslavia, such as the Croatian leader Franjo Tudjman and Alija Izetbegovic in Bosnia, says Clark.

    He estimated that they were much more extreme in their policy than "official specific bad guy" Slobodan Milosevic, who [was in the way with a united or federated] Yugoslavia.

    During 1992, the Lisbon agreement was reached on the peaceful division of BiH and Karadzic was one of the signatories. However, the agreement has sabotaged the intervention of US Ambassador Warren Zimmerman, who asked Izetbegovic to withdraw his consent.

    - This does not reduce the charges against Karadzic for his later actions, but without the intervention Zimmerman, it is likely that the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina could have been avoided - Clark notes and points:

    ...

    Does anyone really can not believe that Karadzic would have faced with 40 years of imprisonment had he served US interests in the Balkans? 

    Indonesian dictator General Suharto committed not one, but two massacres during his career and the number of those killed exceeded one million, but he died a free man after 86 years. Unlike Karadzic, Suharto was a favorite of the US State Department, said Clark.

    - International Tribunal for War Crimes in the former Yugoslavia is very good on the radio judgments against Serbs, but declined to file charges against leaders and officials of NATO for war crimes committed during the illegal bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999. When asked why the court does not consider the crimes of NATO, former Chief Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal Carla Del Ponte replied that it was then "perfect justice".

    Part of the problem for indictment against Western leaders, Clark thinks, is that the International Criminal Court
    has not adopted an amendment to its Rome Statute to come under the jurisdiction of the "war of aggression".  [comment:   see below]

    - What we have now is a system of international justice, according to which those who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, are prosecuted only if they are "official enemy" the United States, but those who start wars are protected with immunity. 

    So Karadzic, who, according to the indictment responsible for the deaths of several thousand people, was sentenced to 40 years in prison, while those responsible for several million dead, after initiating the wars of  aggression, remain free to enrich themselves and to begin new military conflicts. - Indicates Clark for "Rasa USA Today". 




    ---------------------- ----------------------

    COMMENT


    If one subscribes to what is, presumably (and ostensibly), a 'universal justice' ideal -- upon which is based, the establishment  of supranational bodies with jurisdiction over the free peoples of sovereign, foreign nations in the name of the concept known as 'international law' -- then the real problem here is that this is a 'universal justice' court which has no teeth and, furthermore, that this cannot be remedied without a serious military challenger willing to invoke the threat of military might to coerce the powers that be, should they play unfair (as they do) ... so it's yet another joke institution, to be manipulated by the powerful at the expense of the weak in geopolitical terms:

    (a) the Western camp (effectively, under protection of the military might of USA) and Israel have 'unsigned' themselves from the Rome Statute, & USA holds financial & trade powers over less powerful nations outside the aggressive Western & Middle Eastern coterie seeking global hegemony;

    (b) the US has threatened less powerful nations with sanctions should they fail bow to the US (and associates') demand  for impunity to commit war crimes.   

    (c) more significantly, USA has threatened military action against any country that attempts to bring the US & its accomplices to account for war crimes.

    Finally, all things are not & cannot be 'universal' or 'equal' -- ever.  Nor should they be.

    Therefore this is a faulty doctrine.





    Meanwhile in Serbia ...







    Americans Ensure
    US Regime
    is Not Held Accountable
    for US War Crimes

    America's illegal wars: Kosovo & Iraq
    LINK | Post


    USA 'UNSIGNS' - ROME STATUTE - ICC
    LINK | Post




    .... meanwhile in Serbia


    SERBIA
    10,000 supporters of the Serbian Radical Party
    on Belgrade's Republic Square
    mark the 17th anniversary
    of bombing of Yugoslavia
    by  North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

    also
    opposition to
    International Criminal Tribunal (ICC)
    verdict & sentencing
    former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic
    to 40 years in prison for genocide and war crimes




    ---------------------- ----------------------






    December 25, 2015

    USA - Rome Statute - ICC

    Info
    ROME STATUTE
    as marked



    USA & ISRAEL - 'UNSIGN' AS SIGNATORIES
    TO ROME STATUTE

    [Click on Image for Clear View, or link to article(s)]

    [Click on Image for Clear View, or link to article(s)]

    USA THREATENS MILITARY FORCE
    IF USA BROUGHT BEFORE
    INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
    [Click on Image for Clear View, or link to article(s)]

    [Click on Image for Clear View, or link to article(s)]



    US-NATO / CIA PROPAGANDA
    SELLING AFGHANISTAN WAR

    USA UNSIGNING ROME STATUTE

    USA THREATENING MILITARY ACTION RE BRINGING USA BEFORE ICC

    CIA PROPAGANDA & MEDIA CONTROL - GENERAL


    ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

    COMMENT

    As at 2015, USA is not party to the Rome Statute (nor is Israel ... and some others).

    However, both USA and Israel were parties to the Rome Statute, but both 'unsigned' themselves -- in the US case, by the Bush-Cheney administration in 2002 (post invasion of Afghanistan, and just prior to illegal invasion of Iraq).

    I'd forgotten that the US has threatened to USE FORCE if its citizens were brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC), per the Rome Statute.

    How shady is this?  

    And how hypocritical is it to then expect (and lobby) to bring other states before the ICC for war crimes prosecution?  Especially states targeted for regime change:  Libya and Syria.

    -------/\/\/


    Edit  |  March 2016:


    In the lead-up to the establishment of the ICC, USA signed up to the ICC just before the December 2000 deadline:

    -- to ensure that it would be a State party to the agreement
    -- that could participate in DECISION-MAKING on how the Court works

    To make certain it would remain immune to prosecution:
    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.

    Washington ... has no intention to join the ICC, due to its concern about possible charges against US nationals.

    https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/us-opposition-to-the-icc.html

    'Hague Invasion Act
    - Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA) (2002)

     
    In addition:
    US threatens military force if personnel held at The Hague:
    -- U.S. President George Bush
    -- 3 August, 2002, signs:
    -- Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA) (2002)

    -- dubbed the 'Hague Invasion Act'
    -- because the law:
        -- law authorises the use of US military force
        -- to liberate any American or citizen of a US-allied country
        -- being held by ICC in The Hague

    -- USA punishing those that ratify ICC treaty
        -- Servicemembers Protection Act
        -- provides for withdrawal of US military assistance
        -- from countries ratifying the ICC treaty
        -- reconstructs US participation in UN peacekeeping, unless US obtains immunity from prosecution
        -- but provisions may be waived on 'national interests' grounds

    -- however, the US has written into law, the provision that the US may:
        -- assist internationally to 'bring to justice' those accused of:
            -- genocide;
            -- war crimes;
            -- crimes against humanity;
        -- including assistance with efforts of ICC.

    *USA makes an exception of itself and its partners in crime
    .

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/490/united-states-and-the-icc



    [Think I might need to re-work this untidy post some time  :)  ]





    2012 - 'Afghanistan: The First Feminist War?'

    Article
    SOURCE






    Afghanistan: The First Feminist War?

    Dan Ehrlich
    Posted: 16/03/2012 22:37 GMT Updated: 16/05/2012 10:12 BST

    The tragedy in Afghanistan of a US soldier murdering 16 civilians has given President Obama a greater urgency in getting American troops out of that country. Yet, he finds himself in a similar situation as President Nixon during the latter days of the Vietnam War...Securing Peace (leaving) with honour.

    With America's "puppet" Afghan ruler Hamid Karzai now asking NATO troops to stay in their camps, abandoning one of their main goals of winning the hearts and minds of the people...one question resonates: Why are we sill there?

    Leaving Afghanistan was a main topic Obama discussed with British Prime Minister David Cameron this past week. And it's a cinch one of the talking points was that question: Why are we still there? What are our goals?

    Now that Osama Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaida is opening up chapters all over the Islamic world, the only concrete answer to that question is the protection of women.

    The feminist victory may be complete in America, but on the international stage it's not doing so well with three quarters of the world's women still under often-severe male domination. Afghanistan is an extreme case in point in what might be termed the first feminist war...a war that now may not be won even if Hillary Clinton dons a flack jacket and shoulders an M16 on the front lines. Still, since the Bush Administration to the present America's top foreign policy office has been held by women...women who have promised not to desert their Afghan sisters.

    I say that since there has yet to be a credible explanation as to why we, and other NATO nations, are sill there, except to keep the extreme male chauvinist and misogynist Muslim Taliban from power. Our main goal of defeating Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida group and international terrorism is over...at least there.

    Remember, America originally helped arm the Taliban in its fight against the Soviets. As far as anyone can tell the reason for our conflict with them, as with Iraq, is regime change. We have also accomplished that. How long Karzai remains in power after NATO leaves is questionable.

    Yet, unlike Iraq, which had a strong central autocratic government, the Taliban is a theocracy made up of hill tribesmen who simply abandoned Kabul when we arrived and took the mountains and friendly villages for a protracted war against NATO.

    Of course it doesn't have to be that way. If we had the money and popular support we could stay there as long as we wanted. We have maintained forces in South Korea since the end of WW2, most of that time under a cease-fire agreement with North Korea.

    But, this is the main weakness with progressive democracies when pitted against stagnant theocracies. Like sharks, we have to keep moving or we eventually will perish. Many Islamic states simply exist as shellfish, going where the tide takes them, in a non-evolutionary permanent state shielded by their faith.

    But, for us, as usual there's more at stake in Afghanistan than our war on terror, women being forced to wear burkas and our international reputation. There are big, big bucks in the form of natural gas and minerals. And there's one more thing...narcotics. The country's biggest cash crop is opium poppies, another battle that hasn't been going well. Because as with our similar efforts to eradicate South American cocaine, we're fighting an indigenous people's traditional work.

    President Obama's original contention during the GW Bush years that we should be concentrating on Afghanistan rather than invading Iraq was good politics in the aftermath of 9/11. Our invasion of Iraq wasn't based so much on Saddam Hussein's brutality as it was on reports of his so-called weapons of mass destruction aimed at the West...a claim that has since been proven false.

    So, it was left to the media to ramp the US population up for our Afghan adventure. Photos and videos of women being tortured and executed for trying to have jobs or enjoy some western music, inflamed many of us against the brutal Taliban religious fanaticism. As it should have. Develop a war on terrorism and couple this with the Taliban and nine years later we are still there with more NATO troops dying every week.

    But wait! There's one more weakness progressive democracies
    have: We won't do what some of our enemies would do to win. We are limited by our civility, rules of warfare, the Geneva Convention, etc. That's partly why those 16 senseless civilian deaths is so difficult to stomach.

    During the Korean War General Douglas MacArthur, one of the most brilliant military tacticians we have ever had was fired by President Truman because he wanted to bomb the railroads in Manchuria. That was from where China's Red Army supplies were being funneled into Korea. He felt if we broke the supply line, the Chinese offensive would collapse. Truman, however, felt such as action might bring Russia into the conflict and trigger WW3. We didn't win in Korea...but eventually bargained for a truce.

    In Vietnam we tried everything except invading North Vietnam and nuclear weapons. But, those options were nixed for fear of bringing the Chinese into the war.

    We are not about to nuke Afghanistan, killing everyone that isn't waiving Old Glory or even try to fight a war of attrition, which we would lose. That's possibly because we are still too nice to win. We will eventually just leave...but probably without that infamous Mission Accomplished banner.

    And, hopefully we may at long last learn that our nation is best defended by guarding our own borders and fighting a never-ending battle at home for truth, justice and the American way, if anyone can recall what that way is. 



    Decades-old CIA crack-cocaine scandal gains new momentum

    Published time: 11 Oct, 2014 01:47
    Edited time: 13 Oct, 2014 14:52


    Nearly two decades after a US reporter was humiliated for connecting the CIA to a drug-trafficking trade that funded the Nicaraguan Contras, important players in the scandal – which led to the journalist’s suicide – are coming forward to back his claims.
     

    Back in 1996, Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury News broke a story stating not only that the Nicaraguan Contras – supported by the United States in a rebellion against their left-leaning government – were involved in the US crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s, but also that the CIA knew and turned a blind eye to the operation.

    As a result, Webb concluded, the CIA was complicit in a drug trade that was wreaking havoc on African American communities in Los Angeles.

    The bombshell report sparked outrage across the country, but when national newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post weighed in on the matter, they dismissed Webb and attacked his story to the point that it was disowned by the Mercury News. Webb was forced out of journalism and ultimately committed suicide in 2004.

    Now, however, the whole ordeal is being looked at with fresh eyes in the form of two new films: “Kill the Messenger” and a documentary called, “Freeway: Crack in the System.” Additionally, several figures involved in the operation have recently spoken out, lending further credibility to Webb’s original reporting. 




    ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

    COMMENT

    I'm not really good with subtlety.  I don't get it.  I find it annoying.

    What exactly is this, a piss-take?  We know it wasn't a 'feminist war' and the writer himself goes on to discuss the big draw-cards of Afghanistan:

    1.  "big, big bucks in the form of natural gas and minerals."

    2.  "country's biggest cash crop is opium poppies" (narcotics).

    So that probably explains what the Americans are doing there.  That and the regime change the Americans sought.
    And regime change was accomplished, according to the author.  By installing  Hamid Karza.

    So what else is there?

    Seeing a military base in Korea was discussed (a base that is like an occupation since WWII), I'm going to guess that the Americans also want a military base in Afghanistan, so they can permanently occupy the country.


    There's a large number of military bases in Afghanistan.  Wow, who knew? 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISAF_installations_in_Afghanistan

    The writer comes across as rather unpleasant, the way he keeps referring to the American invaders and aggressors as 'too nice' to win the invasion, yet he admits that the Americans will not win a war of attrition.  So short of dropping nukes on Afghanistan, what is there?  Whatever it is, it's not a case of being 'too nice' to win.

    This is a nation of invaders and destroyers that have killed for decades on a worldwide scale.

    The reference to progressive democracies being limited to rules of war, the Geneva Convention and so on, are total crap.

    The US has refused to ratify protocols of the Geneva Convention, the US has denied detainees basic human rights and denied detainees rights as combatants, and the US has engaged in torture of detainees, rendition (kidnap & transfer abroad), and was/is running black sites.  Plus the US has bailed out of the Rome Statute, so that it is not subject to provisions of the International Criminal Court (thus to avoid conviction for:   genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression).
    The illegal invasion of Iraq would, I believe, be considered a 'war of aggression' and therefore a war crime.

    Chauvinism & burqas, and exporting 'feminism' (democracy or anything else), have absolutely nothing to do with American (or Western) NATO motivations.

    And as the CIA was involved in trafficking drugs in South America to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, even the mention of eradicating cocaine in South America is suspect.

    What's the bet that the CIA is just repeating the same patterns in the Middle East?

    P.S.

    Following is link to USA Rome Statute (ICC) unsigning:



    USA - Rome Statute - ICC
    -- USA 'unsigns' Rome Statute
    -- USA threatens military force
    -- USA hypocrisy re ICC & regime change Targets
    (Libya & Syria)
    Link | Post




    September 22, 2015

    National Sovereignty vs European Union

    Article
    SOURCE

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1489643/Vote-for-EU-constitution-or-risk-new-Holocaust-says-Brussels.html



    Vote for EU constitution or risk new Holocaust, says Brussels

    By David Rennie in Brussels

    12:05AM BST 09 May 2005
     
    A senior European Commissioner marked VE Day yesterday by accusing Eurosceptics of risking a return to the Holocaust by clinging to "nationalistic pride".

    Margot Wallstrom, a Swede and the commissioner who must sell the draft constitution to voters, argued that politicians who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s.

    Mrs Wallstrom, vice-president of the commission for institutional relations and communications, was speaking in the former Jewish ghetto of Terezin in the Czech Republic.

    She blamed the Second World War on "nationalistic pride and greed, and … international rivalry for wealth and power". The EU had replaced such rivalry with an historic agreement to share national sovereignty.

    Her fellow commissioners also issued a joint declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second World War by voting Yes to the draft constitution for Europe.

    The commissioners also gave the EU sole credit for ending the Cold War, making no mention of the role of Nato and the United States.

    Richard Shepherd, the Tory MP for Aldridge-Brownhills, said it was "breathtaking" to link Nazism to the defence of national sovereignty.

    "It's a monstrous rewriting of history to promote a profoundly undemocratic project."
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1489643/Vote-for-EU-constitution-or-risk-new-Holocaust-says-Brussels.html


    ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

    COMMENT

    Blast from the past:  2005.
    Check out the US puppet No. 1, Sweden and the propaganda:
    Pay tribute to the dead:  Vote YES!
    But the dead didn't die in vain, so that their nations would be usurped by supranational bodies and corporate interests.
    Meanwhile, the US refuse to stand by the 1998 Rome Statute (re war crimes, genocide etc) because it means avoiding prosecution for war crimes ... so the US uses the argument that to be party to the Rome Statute is an assignment of national sovereignty contrary to the US Constitution, or something like that.
    And here's US puppet Sweden using preposterous emotionally manipulative propaganda and alluding to promises of some non-competitive and eternally peaceful 'European' nirvana, to urge sovereign nations to "share national sovereignty."
    It doesn't matter who voted for this or which politicians agreed:  national sovereignty cannot be assigned and these agreements are void, in my opinion.  lol

    Stand up, Europe.


    Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE)
    (commonly referred to as the European Constitution or as the Constitutional Treaty)

    Would have replaced the existing European Union treaties
    with a single text
    establishing: 
    • Charter of Fundamental Rights
    • Qualified Majority Voting
    into policy areas which are decided by unanimity among member states
     [ ** I'm not following what is ultimately in effect
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe






    September 20, 2015

    International Law - 1998 Rome Statute - International Criminal Court (ICC) - US & Western War Crimes

    Law
    1998 Rome Statute (ICC)
    Adopted:  adopted on 17 July 1998



    Signatories
    1998 Rome Statute
    Post  |  here


     #1
    Dec 2, 2014
    Prosecutor
    International Criminal Court (ICC)
    report re:  War Crimes in Afghanistan 
    – including US interrogation techniques
    - War Crimes Committed by Western States
    Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2014


    II Situations Under Phase 2 (subject-matter jurisdiction)
    *Honduras
    *Iraq
    *Ukraine

    III Situations Under Phase 3 (Admissibility)
    *Afghansitan
    *Colombia
    *Georgia
    *Ginea
    *Nigera

    IV Completed Preliminary Examinations

    *Central African REpublic
    *REpublic of Korea
    *Registered Vessels (ie ships) - of Comoros, Greece & Cambodia

    ICC Report - Dec 2, 2014
    http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-Pre-Exam-2014.pdf#search=afghanistan%20torture

    #2
    Dec 9, 2014
    US Senate - CIA Torture Report 




    Washington Post article re above & chances of USA facing ICC for violation of international law re war crimes:

    Stephen Rapp, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues:
    Insists that:  as USA not a member-state (signatory) to Rome Statute, the court has no right to investigate alleged war crimes committed by its citizens.
    Eugene Kontorovich
    professor at Northwestern University School of Law
    expert on constitutional & international law:

    ... observes, the torture report “gives significant impetus and ammunition to the ICC’s investigation."
    Afghanistan War Crimes Prosecution
    of USA - Requires:

    going high up the political food chain
    ie.  Bush administration “most responsible”
    for deploying torture as a means of war

    [Mark Kersten, WashingtonPost]


    NOTE
    There's provisions in international law that enable states to prosecute those that admit to having committed crimes in other states (or something like that).  But I can't see any takers challenging the imperial might of USA.
    Related Blog Post & link to Washington Post article | here




    USA & Israel
    Not Party to Rome Statute
    USA
    refused to ratify on the basis that this is assignment of SOVEREIGNTY

    ISRAEL
    signed and withdrew - fear of interpretation that following a war cime:  transfer civilian population by occupying power to occupied territory

    2002
    United States +   Israel "unsigned" the Rome Statute [wikipedia]
    NOTE
    Afghanistan War commenced:  2001

    Other
    31 States have not ratified

    Blog Post | here


    America & UK - Response to 'Refugee Crisis'

    Article
    SOURCE


    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/where-americas-response-middle-east-refugee-crisis-89876193#sthash.TTVXD7DE.dpuf



    Where is America's response to the Middle East refugee crisis?

    Peter Van Buren
    Friday 18 September 2015 16:55 UTC

    The answer lies in empty rhetoric from those who began America's wars in the region under the guise of humanitarian intervention.

    A searing image of a refugee child lying dead on a beach finally alerted the world to a crisis now entering its fifth year. Awareness is never bad, but here it too easily bypasses the question of where all the refugees come from, in favour of a simpler meme. One is reminded of Malala, one story that pushes aside millions.

    Such narratives bait a familiar trap: the need to “do something”. That “something” in the Middle East is often the clumsy hand of military intervention under the thin cover of humanitarian rhetoric. Cries answered that way have a terrible history of exacerbating a problem they ostensibly set out to solve.

    The scope of the problem is staggering. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, there are more than three million Syrian refugees in the Middle East. Inside Syria itself, over 17 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, including those internally displaced. Only 350,000 Syrians are estimated to have travelled to Europe. They are the ones you see on television.

    In Iraq, some 1.8 million people were displaced between January and September 2014, a declared United Nations emergency, and Iraqis are currently the second-largest refugee group in the world. Yet even now the New York Times speaks of a "new wave" of Iraqi refugees, driven in part by "years of violence and unmet promises for democracy by a corrupt political elite".

    The situation in Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere is much the same.

    There is a common denominator behind all of these refugee flows: they are, in whole or in part, the product of American "humanitarian interventions".

    In 2003, President George W. Bush declared the goals of the United States in invading Iraq included freeing its people. In case that was not clear enough, in 2007 Bush proclaimed the American military the "greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known". Yet by 2007 the number of displaced persons in Iraq had grown by some 50 percent.

    President Barack Obama used similar rhetoric in 2014, when he revived the United States' war in Iraq in response to a "humanitarian crisis that could turn into a genocide" for the Yazidi people. “One Iraqi cried that there is no one coming to help,” President Obama said at the time. “Well, today America is coming to help.” A senior administration official went on to explicitly describe the action as a humanitarian effort.

    Some 5,000 airstrikes later, that humanitarian effort is now a bloody war with Islamic State, metastasized across multiple nations, exacerbating the refugee flow. For the Yazidis, long-forgotten by Americans as the no longer needed casus belli, the war enveloped them in Islamic State's slave trade.

    The conflict in Syria remains connected to the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, in the form of militarised Sunni militias which took up arms, the growth of al-Qaeda and its off-shoots in Iraq, and of course the birth of Islamic State. Add to that the elimination of any effective border between Iraq and Syria to allow those forces to flow freely back and forth. American intervention in Syria ratcheted up seemingly on a schedule, all around the theme of saving the Syrian people from their dictator, Bashar al-Assad (similarities to George W Bush's 2003 wording in reference to Saddam Hussein are noted).

    After it appeared Assad used chemical weapons in 2013, it was American Secretary of State John Kerry who insisted that it was “not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter”. Airstrikes were forestalled for a time, then popped up in 2014 aimed not at Assad, but at Islamic State. Chaos has gone on to drawn numerous foreign powers into the conflict.

    With Libya in 2011, there was again a "humanitarian effort," led by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton sold intervention as a necessity: “Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands had fled. The cries would be, ‘Why did the United States not do anything?’That “doing something” helped push Libya into failed state status, feeding the refugee flow and bleeding conflict into neighbouring countries.

    It is foolish to claim the United States alone "caused" all of these refugee flows; multiple factors, including the aggressiveness of Islamic State, are in play. But it would be equally foolish to ignore American culpability, directly in Iraq and in Libya, and via arms flows and the fanning of flames, in Syria and Yemen. The common element is a stated intent to make things better.  The common result is the opposite.

    To many, particularly outside the United States, political rhetoric is just the aural garbage of imperialism. But inside the United States, military “humanitarian” intervention generally enjoys robust support. It may look like a shoddy product to some, but people continue to buy it, and thus it continues to happen. Politicians seem to know how to feed the public's demands to “do something” triggered by an emotional photograph for their own purposes.

    There exists an inverse relationship between those that create refugees and those who help them. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees referred 15,000 Syrians to Washington for resettlement over the last four years; the United States accepted only 1,500, citing, among other issues, concerns over terrorists hiding among the groups.

    But that was then, pre-photo.

    Post-photo, with no apparent irony, United States Senator Patrick Leahy stated the refugee crisis “warrants a response commensurate with our nation’s role as a humanitarian leader”. Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States is “looking hard at the number” of additional Syrian refugees it might accommodate, given America's “leadership role with respect to humanitarian issues and particularly refugees”.

    Right on schedule following Kerry's remarks, President Obama promised, per the New York Times headline, to "Increase Number of Syrian Refugees for US Resettlement to 10,000." With the problem seemingly solved, albeit only 10,000 out of millions, the plight of the refugees disappeared from America's front pages.

    Left unsaid was the emptiness of even such non-military humanitarian rhetoric. President Obama did not mention, nor was he asked about, the reality that refugees to the US are processed, not accepted. That processing can take years (the average out of Syria is two years at present), indefinite if enough information on a person's security background cannot be amassed. If a positive "up" decision cannot be made that a person is "safe," then the default is indefinite pending status. Such a conundrum has, for example, stymied the applications of many Iraqis and Afghanis who served as translators for the American military and fear for their lives, only to have been left behind.

    There also remain voices calling for another escalation of war in the Middle East to deal with the “root causes” of the refugee crisis, loosely defined for now as Islamic State's continued existence.

    There is an immediate need to do more to help the refugees moving into Europe, and those still in the Middle East. That, and that alone, should comprise the “do something” part of a solution. Long term, if the primary response is simply more military intervention in the name of humanitarianism, or more empty promises, the answer is best left as “doing less”.

    - Peter Van Buren is a retired 24-year veteran of the US Department of State, including service in Iraq. He is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99 Percent. He lives and writes from New York City.


    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/where-americas-response-middle-east-refugee-crisis-89876193#sthash.TTVXD7DE.dpuf


    ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
    COMMENT

    Military 'interventions' abroad are nothing to do with 'humanitarian' concerns.  Even if the media and those in power pretend they are.
    The bottom line is strategic aims & profit making.  Nothing more.
    I don't think politicians in the US actually feed a demand to 'do something,' following political and media exploitation of emotive imagery.

    In my opinion, it is more a case of providing themselves with a pretext for the acts that they intend to perform, rather than some general public overwhelming care-factor demanding US action.

    USA takes 15,000 refugees in 4 YEARS and then accepts only 1,500.

    Meanwhile look at what Europe, particularly Germany and Sweden, are taking in -- despite opposition. 
    Sweden and Germany are the biggest American puppets in Europe, and they're selling out their domestic populations for the Yankee Dollar.
    Australia has pledged as follows:
    "It will also pay to support 240,000 people who have fled Iraq and Syria and are now living in neighboring countries, a cost expected to run $44 million Australian dollars, or $31 million.
    Australia currently resettles about 13,750 people annually under humanitarian visas, a number scheduled to increase to 18,750 by 2018-19. The 12,000 places will be in addition to that quota, Mr. Abbott’s office said.
    [here]
    Therefore, Australia is taking 138,750 persons between 2015-2019 (inclusive), by my estimation.
    So the Liberal government  that's punishing the Australian unemployed, pensioners, homeless, and Australian families queued up for public housing, finds millions per annum towards mopping up the consequences of US and allied 'intervention' abroad.
    Meanwhile, Australian opposition politicians are calling on the Liberal government to do 'more' in the way of mop-up operations. 
    Obama, the current American stage manager of this entire Middle Eastern disaster, is only taking 10,000 (of which he'll be tossing 8,500 back). 
    What a rort.
    Kerry's come up with the 'looking hard' to 'see how many more' they can accommodate.  Brilliant move.  I can just see him sucking in some air while he's saying that.
    Obama says 10,000 ... but of that, expect them to actually take only 1,500, going by past record.

    This is insane.

    It's insane to create all this chaos in the first place. 
    And it's just as insane to expect various domestic populations to absorb the resulting mayhem, particularly given the disruption to native populations in Europe.

    The cowardice of the European politicians is astounding.

    This has been an ongoing problem for years now -- see Lampedusa -- locals were fed up with the non-stop arrivals from Africa, years ago.
    The European politicians would have known exactly what is going on, but they did nothing.
    We're talking about people that run countries and people who have advisers and a wealth of information and experience, not ordinary people who have no idea and no say.

    Yet they did nothing.

    Instead of setting up refugee facilities in situ in the Middle East and in Africa and instead of securing European borders, they've sat on this for years doing nothing but standing by letting this chaos home in on their domestic fronts
    Now, they've not only let Europe get swamped by a massive surge of uncontrolled immigration from all over, Germany's Angela Merkel went that step further and invited the chaos by announcement a month ago, probably to give Dave Cameron and the rest of the sell-out European politicians a face-saver excuse for taking on-board yet more alien arrivals.

    Check out Dave Cameron's slick apportioning of blame to Bashar al-Assad, whose government he and his corporate friends have been trying to depose for years now.
    Dave Cameron and his partners in crime have created the chaos in Syria by supporting terrorists, in order to take down the Syrian government.  And the chaos of their making isn't confined to Syria:  there's several countries that have been targets of Western 'intervention'.

    Dave Cameron's government (as America's second banana in the Middle East), acting on behalf of interests that have nothing to do with the average Briton, is responsible for creation of this mess. 

    But why should the chaos that these corrupt politicians create abroad become the financial and social burden placed upon the average Briton or European, whose present and future living conditions are detrimentally impacted?
    British and European vulnerable and working classes are punished by the aggressive foreign policies of these well-heeled corporate-serving politicians, who don't have to live with the immediate or future chaos they create at home (or abroad), as theirs is the buffer of wealth and privilege.
    You'll hear them and their media representatives exhort that there's a 'moral obligation' to bend over and take more of what they're serving up as a side dish to corporate servitude.

    As if these corporate puppet politicians give a damn about 'moral obligation'.   They're all the same.  They all serve the same interests.

    People need to resist and tell these middle-class lawyer-politicians to shove off. 
    Tell these representatives of corporate greed to make alternative arrangements for the consequences of their wars and proxy wars overseas -- arrangements that don't involve sucking up public funds, straining public amenities, or causing social problems for which there is no remedy.

    If governments acting for corporate interests want to pillage resources the world over to enrich Western corporate beneficiaries of capitalism and the parasites that attach, there's probably not much that can be done to prevent that without imposing an alternate economic and power structure (on a state and power structure that will not relinquish power willingly), which is unlikely to happen.

    However, I think domestic populations ought to at least come to consider such ventures as an external cost to be strictly borne by corporate beneficiaries, rather than funded by the state, underwritten by taxpayers, or subsequently imposed as a 'crisis' on the then domestically displaced and punished vulnerable and working class populations.

    That sounds really mercenary, but I don't see what the alternative might be.   Apart from maybe also campaigning against war and applying as much pressure to that, as applying pressure to maintenance of cultural and economic standards. 
    Demanding cultural integrity and economic security should be straightforward.  But it's not.  
    But people should at least consider demanding their due, making military interventions an unattractive business plan, the consequences of which are not going to be willingly mopped up by obliging domestic populations.
    To my way of thinking, it makes far more sense to forget the promised nirvana of universalism evangelised by missionaries, and to demand what is essential to survival, in this world.


    UK to take up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over five years, David Cameron confirms

    Britain is to respond to the refugee crisis facing Europe by taking 20,000 refugees from the camps on the borders of Syria over the next five years, David Cameron has announced.

    Cameron told the House of Commons the UK would “live up to its moral responsibility” towards people forced from their homes by the forces of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and the Islamic State terror group.

    The prime minister said the refugees would not immediately be granted full asylum status, giving them a right to settle, but instead a humanitarian status that will allow them to apply for asylum at the end of five years.

    [...]

    The European commission is understood to be preparing to ask EU member states to take part in a mandatory scheme to resettle 160,000 migrants who have already arrived on the continent. The French president, François Hollande, has said France is ready to take in 24,000 people.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/uk-will-accept-up-to-20000-syrian-refugees-david-cameron-confirms
     

     Britain
    current refugees:  30,000



    DAVID Cameron’s promise to take in 20,000 Syrian immigrants will spark a deep North/South divide across Britain with a single working class northern town taking more refugees than the entire affluent South East region.

    EXTRACTS

    Staggeringly just four towns within a few miles of each other - Bolton, Liverpool, Rochdale and Manchester - would become home to 2,903 refugees alone.

    "Little or no regard is given to the impact from the moment new arrivals move in – in terms of ongoing costs to vital local support services, like schools and GPs – or the impact on the neighbourhood.

    "The prime concern of the bean counters is to get this done as cheaply as possible and housing costs represent a significant part of the bill from accepting asylum seekers.

    "We know that when unmanaged and not properly understood, community change of any kind can lead to tensions which affect both the area hosting the new arrivals and those seeking safe refuge themselves. 

    "If government fails, they fail us all."


    "Since 2012, when the contract for managing the distribution of asylum seekers was handed to Serco, the number of asylum seekers in the North West has risen by 50% but fallen by 20% in London.

    Home Office currently uses private contractor Serco to home people seeking asylum in Britain, but not those who have already been granted refugee status.

    It is not yet clear whether or not the company will be used to allocate the 20,000 Syrians Mr Cameron has promised sanctuary to.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/604769/Migrant-crisis-north-England-David-Cameron-Syrian-refugees

    Other

    Serco Group plc
    British outsourcing company
    HQ Hook, Hampshire

    Operates public and private transport and traffic control, aviation, military weapons, detention centres, prisons and schools on behalf of its customers.

    "There has been a history of problems, failures, fatal errors and overcharging."
    Defence

    Serco held defence contracts in 2004, including the UK Government's contract for the maintenance of the UK Ballistic Missile Early Warning System at RAF Fylingdales; contracts are also held for the operation and maintenance of RAF Brize Norton, RAF Halton and RAF Northolt in the UK and RAF Ascension Island in the mid-Atlantic.  Serco also provides support services to garrisons in Australia.  Serco also manages many aspects of operations at the Defence College of Management and Technology in Shrivenham.  Serco is one of three partners in the consortium which manages the Atomic Weapons Establishment.  Serco also has a 15-year contract worth £400 million to provide facilities management services to the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl).

    Serco Marine Services is responsible for fleet support at the three main UK naval bases, HMNB Portsmouth, HMNB Devonport and HMNB Clyde.


    Serco is failing, but is kept afloat thanks to Australia's refugee policy
    Antony Loewenstein
    EXRACTS
    Serco shares dive after scandal
    According to Rupert Soames’s script, Serco will emerge in 2017 as a smaller and sharper operator. On the way, though, operating profits will fall as low as £100m.

    Tuesday 11 November 2014 12.41 AEDT  
    It’s a sign of the times that a company like Serco, with murky financial statements masking its true economic shape, is continually rewarded for failure by new and larger contracts

    Revealingly, the corporation admitted that without its Australian detention network, its profit would have been even worse. In other words, imprisoning asylum seekers in poor conditions for extended periods of time in remote locations is good for business. Serco won the contract to manage all of Australia’s mainland facilities and Christmas Island in 2009 – I was part of a team that first published the contract between Serco and Canberra in 2011 – and the profits have soared ever since.

    From a $370m contract in 2009 to well over $1bn today, surging refugee boats have been invaluable to Serco’s bottom line. Serco has benefitted from an opaque reporting process and desperate federal politicians and bureaucrats who needed corporate help with an immigration system that ran out of control when asylum seekers started arriving in large numbers from Sri Lanka, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and beyond. Neither the government nor Serco could handle the influx, and both detainees and guards suffered.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/11/serco-is-failing-but-is-maintained-afloat-thanks-to-australias-refugee-policy 

    Comment


    The amount of taxpayer money the Australian government spends on keeping unauthorised immigration at bay is staggering.
    Why is it that all those lawyer-politicians swanning around Canberra cannot come up with a simple proposal that says something like:  Nah.

    Take Israel as an example (and precedent) for bailing from international treaty:
    Although Israel has signed the 1998 Rome Statute on 28 August 2002, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel, the following communication: "...in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on 17 July 1998, [...] Israel does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, Israel has no legal obligations arising from its signature on 31 December 2000. Israel requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."  [here[those dates are conflicting ie signed:  28 Aug 2002 & 31 Dec 2000 ... which is it?]
    Once again, Israel is sane where other nations -- Australia, in this case -- appear positively insane for going through the expensive motions of what should be a very simple.
    Withdrawal is a sound solution to an obligation that does not serve one's national interests.
    Anyone who thinks it's in Australia's national interests to show any weakness whatsoever in respect of unauthorised immigration is insane.
    The desires of gullible well-meaning Christian grannies, saviours, martyrs, missionaries, intellectuals, and champaign socialists don't translate at all well in terms of the demands of concrete reality.