Amnesty International and the Human Rights Industry

November 08, 2012 Who Will Watch the Watchmen? Amnesty International and the Human Rights Industry by DANIEL KOVALICK When I studied law at Columbia in the early 1990s, I had the fortune of studying under Louis Henkin, probably the world’s most famous human rights theoretician.   Upon his passing in 2010, Elisa Massimino at Human Rights First stated in Professor Henkin’s New York Times obituary that he “literally and figuratively wrote the book on human rights” and that “[i]t is no exaggeration to say that no American was more instrumental in the development of human rights law than Lou.” Professor Henkin, rest his soul, while a human rights legend, was not always good on the question of war and peace.  I know this from my own experience when I had a vigorous debate with him during and continuing after class about the jailing of anti-war protestors, including Eugene V. Debs, during World War I.  In short, Professor Henkin, agreeing with Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, believed that these protestors were properly jailed because their activities, though peaceful, constituted a “clear and present danger” to the security of the nation during war time.  I strongly disagreed. That Professor Henkin  would side with the state against these war protestors is indicative of the entire problem with the field of human rights which is at best neutral or indifferent to war, if not supportive of it as an instrument of defending human rights.   This, of course, is a huge blind spot.   In the case of World War I, for example, had the protestors been successful in stopping the war, untold millions would have been saved from the murderous cruelty of a conflict for which, to this day, few can adequately even explain the reasons.   And yet, this does not seem to present a moral dilemma for today’s human rights advocates.  (I will note, on the plus side, that Professor Henkin did become increasingly uneasy with the Vietnam War as that conflict unfolded, and specifically with the President’s increasing usurpation of Congress’s war authority). In the end, it was not from Professor Henkin, but from other, dissident intellectuals who I learned the most about human rights and international law.  The list of these intellectuals, none of whom actually practice human rights in their day job, includes Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Jean Bricmont and Diana Johnstone.  And of course, I have read a lot of what they have to say on this subject on these very pages of CounterPunch. And, what all of these individuals have emphasized time and time again is that international law, as first codified in the aftermath of World War II in such instruments as the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter, was created for the primary purpose of preserving and maintaining peace by outlawing aggressive war.   And, why is this so?  Because the nations which had just gone through the most destructive war in human history, with its attendant crimes of genocide and the holocaust, realized full well that those crimes were made possible by the paramount crime of war itself.  As Jean Bricmont, then, in his wonderful book Humanitarian Imperialism, explains, the first crime for which the Nazis “were condemned at Nuremberg was initiating a war of aggression, which, according to the 1945 Nuremberg Charter, ‘is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes is that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’” In other words, the logic of the very founders of international law, including international human rights law, was that, to preserve human rights, the primary task of nations is to ensure peace and to prevent war which inevitably leads to the massive violation of human rights.  As Noam Chomsky has noted for years, quite notably in his 1971 Yale Law Review article entitled, “The Rule of Force in International Affairs,” 80 Yale L.J. 1456, one of the very first substantive norms established by the UN Charter is prohibition against aggressive war.   Such a norm is contained, as Chomsky relates, in Article 2(4) which provides that all UN members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force . . . .”   And, contrary to the position of the new humanitarian interventionists, Article 2(7) of the Charter specifically states that “[nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state . . . .” Sadly, as Chomsky noted even back in 1971, these norms, the paramount ones of the entire UN system, have sadly been read out of international law.   And, they have been read out by, among others, such chief human rights groups as Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW).   As Jean Bricmont, citing international law scholar Michael Mandel, explains in Humanitarian Imperialism, while AI and HRW urged all “’beligerents’” (without distinguishing between the attackers and the attacked) at the outset of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq to respect the rules of war, neither group said a word about the illegality of the war itself.  As Bricmont quite correctly stated, “[t]hese organizations are in the position of those who recommend that rapists use condoms,” ignoring the fact that once the intervention they failed to oppose  “takes place on a large scale, human rights and the Geneva Conventions are massively violated.” This brings us to the present time.   Just last week, Amnesty International issued a long statement in opposition to an article I penned for Counterpunch on “Libya and the West’s Human Rights Hypocricy.”   AI, in its counter-blog, entitled, “A Critic Gets it Wrong on Amnesty International and Libya” (see, owl.li/eYmTb), AI claims that I was wrong in stating that it had supported  the NATO intervention in Libya.  AI, affirming the critiques of Bricmont and Mandel, claims in this blog, that “Amnesty International generally takes no position on the use of armed force or on military interventions in armed conflict, other than to demand that all parties respect international human rights and humanitarian law.”  AI then goes on to try to clarify that, in advance of the NATO intervention in Libya, AI, in a February 23, 2011, release, merely called on the Security Council to take immediate measures against Libya and Gaddafi, including [but not limited to] freezing the assets of Gaddafi and his senior military advisers, and investigating the possibility of a referral to the International Criminal Court. In its blog contra my article, AI claims that it called for such action based upon Gaddafi’s  verbal “threat to ‘cleanse Libya house by house’” to end the resistance.  While this is true, this is not the whole truth.   Thus, in AI’s Feburary 23, 2011 release, it also based this call upon “persistent reports of mercenaries being brought in from African countries by the Libyan leader to violently suppress the protests against him.”   And, as we learned from our own Patrick Cockburn in an Independent article from June 24, 2011, entitled, “Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as a weapon of war,” Amnesty ended up debunking the reports (though well after NATO’s attack against Libya had begun)  that Gaddafi was bringing in foreign mercenaries to fight. As Cockburn, citing Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty International, explains:     “Rebels have repeatedly charged that mercenary troops from Central and West Africa have been used against them. The Amnesty investigation found there was no evidence for this. “Those shown to journalists as foreign mercenaries were later quietly released,” says Ms Rovera. “Most were sub-Saharan migrants working in Libya without documents.” In other words, AI, on Feburary 23, 2011, was calling for Security Council action against Libya based upon reports about foreign mercenaries which it would later conclude were false, and upon verbal threats Gaddafi had made  — very weak bases indeed for Security Council action. And what about the calls for such action themselves?  As we all know, the Security Council did act, authorizing a NATO attack upon Libya which began on March 19, 2011.  The ordering of such an attack was a possible and indeed likely action which the Security Council would take, especially given that countries like the U.S. and France were aggressively pushing for such action at the time.  And, AI full well knew this, and its calls for Security Council action worked in tandem with the efforts of the U.S. and France to obtain authorization for such an intervention. In other words, AI, based at least in part on false reports, was pushing for Security Council action which it knew could, and most likely would, result in the authorization of force against Libya.  And indeed, AI’s other call for possible referral of sitting Libyan officials to the International Criminal Court was tantamount to a call for armed intervention, including regime change, because only such intervention could bring about the hauling of sitting government officials to The Hague.   AI’s current professions of neutrality on the issue of intervention notwithstanding, it can truly be stated that AI supported the intervention that took place in March of 2011 as an objective matter. And sadly, this objective support was based in part on false reports of foreign, black mercenaries being brought into Libya.   These false reports of mercenaries, in addition to feeding the calls for intervention, had another terrible effect – they helped lead to the massive reprisals against black Libyans and foreign guest workers during the conflict in Libya and continuing after the time that Gaddafi was toppled.   The most notable of such reprisals was the utter destruction of the town of Tawarga, a town largely populated by black Libyans, by anti-Gaddafi rebels.  To its great discredit, AI, in its rush to push for Security Council intervention, spread the very false reports which fueled such acts of vengeance. And, what about AI’s response to crimes committed by NATO’s intervention in and bombing of Libya?  AI, in its response to my article, cites to its criticism of NATO as evidence of its even-handedness in responding to the conduct of all sides of the Libyan conflict.  Specifically, AI cites to the following criticism it made as such evidence:     Although NATO appears to have made significant efforts to minimize the risk of causing civilian casualties, scores of Libyan civilians were killed and many more injured. Amnesty International is concerned that no information has been made available to the families of civilians killed and those injured in NATO strikes about any investigations which may have been carried out into the incidents which resulted in death and injury. Of course, this mere criticism demonstrates AI’s utter lack of even-handedness.   First of all, in order to please its NATO patron, AI obviously felt compelled to lead its criticism with a compliment – patting NATO on the back for allegedly trying to “minimize the risk of causing civilian casualties,” as if aerial bombardment of major cities can ever constitute the minimization of such risks. Then, AI complains that “no information has been made available” to the families of civilians killed or injured “about any investigations which may have been carried out into the incidents which resulted in death and injury.”   What “investigations” is AI referring to here?  Clearly, AI is complaining that NATO, left to police itself, has not shared the results of its own investigations into its own crimes. The truth is that AI, which called for Security Council and possible ICC action against Libya as NATO was sharpening its knives to invade, has not called for a body outside NATO (e.g., the ICC) to investigate and possibly prosecute NATO officials for their crimes.  What is good for the goose then, is not good for the gander in AI’s view.  Of course, the ICC does not exist to prosecute those from the paler, Western countries.   No, the ICC (which the U.S. is not even a signatory to and is therefore exempt from) is, in practice, for the darker races of the poorer countries; for those from Africa, Asia, and from time to time, the lesser Slavic nations.  And, therein lies the problem inherent in the entire international human rights system of which AI is an integral part. As we learn from Diana Johnstone in a CounterPunch article entitled, “How Amnesty International Became the Servant of U.S. Warmongering Foreign Policy,”  AI’s journey to becoming an appendage of the U.S. and NATO recently became complete with its appointment of Suzanne Nossel as the new Director of Amnesty International USA.  Diana Johnstone explains that Suzanne Nossel openly advocated, and indeed coined the term, “soft power” projection by the U.S. when she served in her last job as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at none other than the U.S. State Department.  And, as Jean Bricmont notes in Humanitarian Intervention, and as Ms. Nossel herself and AI fully understand, “soft power” only works because it has the very real threat of “hard power” (including economic sanctions and military intervention) behind it.  AI has sadly forgotten that the wielding of such power by the rich countries to bully the weak is forbidden by the UN Charter which prohibits both the actual use and threat of force.   It is those prohibitions which must be enforced first and foremost to truly protect human rights. What’s more, as Diana Johnstone further explained in her CounterPunch article, Suzanne Nossel, just before being hired by AI, played a direct role while at the U.S. State Department in ginning up the pretexts for the NATO intervention in Libya.   Ms. Johnstone explains that,  “As Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, Ms. Nossel played a role in drafting the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution on Libya. That resolution, based on exaggeratedly alarmist reports, served to justify the UN resolution which led to the NATO bombing campaign that overthrew the Gaddafi regime. “  In other words, Ms. Nossel’s role in pushing the NATO intervention was similar to that of AI’s at the time, with both pushing exaggerated, and indeed false, claims to justify stepped up action against Libya. AI’s current attempts to distance itself from the very NATO intervention which AI and Ms. Nossel worked together to help bring about simply do not ring true.  I would submit that it is time for AI to do some real soul-searching on the issue of whether it wants to serve the interests of human rights or to serve the interests of NATO and Western military intervention, for it truly cannot serve both masters. Daniel Kovalik is a labor and human rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh.  He currently teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/08/amnesty-international-and-the-human-rights-industry/ COMMENT HILLARY CLINTON WE CAME, WE SAW, HE DIED .... HAHAHHAHHAAAA ***** International law and humanitarian organisations are a bad joke. How many acts of aggression has the US committed since the post WWII UN charter? The US 'defender' of the world's humanity, freedom, democracy, and all that manipulative pretext baloney, isn't even a signatory to the ICC and is exempt from being tried for war crimes, while the human rights brigade work in tandem with Western warmongers (serving corporate interests) to push the US-NATO imperialist war agenda. Note also, backing intervention based on false reports & massive reprisals against black Libyans as a result. Given that UN charter prohibits intervention, why are these people even backing intervention in the first place, and why aren't they all being tried somewhere? Gaddafi - Zenga Zenga Song (Noy Alooshe Extended Version) Source:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kygc0PzaQGY

HRW - UKRAINE GOVT CONTRIBUTED TO SERIOUS DELAYS, DELIVERY OF HUMANITARIAN & MEDICAL AID

HRW - UKRAINE GOVT CONTRIBUTED TO SERIOUS DELAYS, DELIVERY OF HUMANITARIAN & MEDICAL AID Ukraine: Civilians Struggle to Get Medical Care All Sides Should Ensure Delivery of Aid to Civilians in Rebel-Held Areas March 13, 2015 A woman standing in front of a bomb shelter in Petrovsky district of Donetsk, area of Trudovskaya mine, where locals have been hiding from attacks since August. February 9, 2015. © 2015 Dmytry Belyakov     © 2015 Dmytry Belyakov (Berlin) – Travel restrictions imposed by the government of Ukraine have contributed to serious delays in the delivery of humanitarian aid, particularly medicines and medical equipment, to civilians in rebel-controlled areas of eastern Ukraine, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch released a video based on interviews with medical personnel and patients in eastern Ukraine. The restrictions also seriously impede access to health care for civilians from rebel-controlled areas who need to use state-funded medical services available only in government-controlled areas, Human Rights Watch said. Human Rights Watch also found that patients receiving treatment for HIV, tuberculosis (TB), and opioid substitution therapy (OST) are facing interruptions of life-saving treatment. “Delays in delivering medicines, combined with a pass system and military hostilities, have created massive shortages at medical facilities,” said Yulia Gorbunova, Europe and Central Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch. “This is jeopardizing the lives of people with serious medical conditions and others who need medical assistance in rebel-controlled areas.” Human Rights Watch spent three days in Kiev and seven days in the Donetsk region interviewing, in person or by phone, doctors and other health workers, patients, local residents, volunteers, and members of independent humanitarian groups that provide humanitarian aid to conflict-affected areas. In a March 9, 2015 letter to Ukrainian officials, Human Rights Watch asked the Ukrainian government to ensure that its restrictions on movement in and out of areas not under government control do not adversely affect the health of the civilian population. Several local and international humanitarian organizations told Human Rights Watch that since January, they have experienced restrictions and delays when trying to move medicines and medical equipment that are essential for the health of the civilian population into rebel-controlled areas. In some cases these restrictions and delays did not appear to be justified on security grounds, Human Rights Watch said. In November 2014, the Ukrainian government stopped providing funding for government services and social benefit payments – including budgets for hospitals, pensions, and social security – in rebel-controlled areas. Civilians have to travel to government-controlled territories to get their social benefits. In January 2015, the government also began to enforce travel regulations that require civilians to obtain a special pass to move between rebel-controlled and government-controlled territories. Human Rights Watch found that rebel forces, who exercise effective control over areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, have failed to fill the gap left by the withdrawal of state funding for services and payments from rebel-held areas. People in rebel-controlled areas who need state-funded treatment now have to travel to government-controlled territory, but are often unable to, either because they do not have the financial and other resources to travel and register in government-controlled areas, they have to provide care for sick or elderly family members who are not able to travel, or they fear injury or worse due to the hostilities.  [Think it rather unrealistic to expect people defending a territory to suddenly begin administering an efficient welfare providing state, while under military fire from the Ukraine govt.] All parties to the conflict should uphold their obligations under international humanitarian law and their commitments under the February 13 Minsk ceasefire agreements to ensure access to humanitarian relief for civilians who need it, Human Rights Watch said. The Ukrainian government has the right to control movement in and out of rebel-controlled areas, but all parties to the conflict must allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded access for impartial humanitarian relief for civilians in need, Human Rights Watch said. Consent for access to humanitarian operations cannot be withheld for arbitrary reasons, and neither side should seek to impose intolerable conditions on the civilian population as a tactic of war.  [Obviously it can be, if you're sneaky & want to use harm to civilians as a tactic - and that would be the Ukraine govt tactic, as the civilians being referred to here are east Ukraine ethnic Russian civilians.] The government also maintains its obligations under international human rights law to respect the right to health and other economic and social rights, as well as rights such as freedom of movement for the civilian population. This includes, in particular, rights provided for in the treaties to which it is a party, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In areas under effective control of rebel forces, those forces have the primary responsibility to ensure that civilians have humanitarian essentials, including medical supplies, Human Rights Watch said. And, while the Ukrainian government has no obligation under international humanitarian law to provide direct financial assistance to authorities operating under the control of rebels, its human rights obligations to the civilian population do not cease due to the current conflict. In its letter, Human Rights Watch said the Ukrainian government and de facto authorities in rebel-controlled areas should not impede humanitarian assistance and should facilitate access to it for civilians in need. The government of Ukraine and rebel forces controlling those areas should issue instructions to troops and forces staffing checkpoints, and their commanders, to ensure that delivery of medication and medical assistance for civilians in rebel-controlled areas are not subject to arbitrary or unreasonable delays, in line with humanitarian law and the Minsk agreements. “Some of the most vulnerable civilians in rebel-controlled areas have no choice but to rely on humanitarian groups for certain medications and medical services,” Gorbunova said. “Impediments to delivering medications, such as arbitrary delays at checkpoints, can have a severe negative impact on their health with dire, and in some cases deadly, consequences.” Restrictions and Their Impact In November 2014 the Ukrainian government halted the provision of government services to rebel-controlled areas. Funds from the government budget for hospitals, including staff salaries, are no longer disbursed in rebel-controlled areas. On February 9, 2015, the Kiev District Court of Appeal partially annulled the decision, but it is not clear what steps the government has taken either to comply with the decision or to appeal. Travel regulations introduced by the Ukrainian government in January require a special pass, issued by a coordination group of the Security Service of Ukraine, to move between rebel and government-controlled territories. Civilians living in rebel-controlled areas need to apply for the pass at a government checkpoint in a bureaucratic process requiring a minimum of two visits. Many complained of long lines to hand in their documents. The regulations set out a maximum 10-day waiting period for a pass, but several people who live in or near Donetsk said they had been waiting for up to three weeks and some still had not received a pass. Independent humanitarian groups operating in the area, including Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and others, have said that they have been able to operate in rebel-held areas and successfully obtained these passes. But some spoke of difficulties they faced in delivering humanitarian aid and medical supplies. Volunteer groups in rebel-controlled areas that provide targeted assistance to the most vulnerable groups reported difficulties connected with delays or refusals to let humanitarian aid through at checkpoints. One of the organizers of the local group Responsible Citizens, Dmytro Shibalov, told Human Rights Watch of instances where both Ukrainian forces at government checkpoints and rebel forces at rebel checkpoints refused to let their cargo pass without a reasonable explanation. Treatment for Tuberculosis and HIV People receiving treatment for tuberculosis (TB) or HIV and those on opioid substitution therapy (OST) are among the most vulnerable in the rebel-held areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The travel restrictions and the protracted fighting have severely impacted their treatment and put some of them at great risk. Treatment of HIV, TB, and viral hepatitis in eastern Ukraine is under great strain, with hospitals lacking both medicine and diagnostic equipment. According to data provided to Human Rights Watch by the International HIV/AIDS Alliance in Ukraine, over 16,000 people are living with HIV/AIDS in rebel-held areas in eastern Ukraine, including over 7,000 people who receive antiretroviral therapy. At least 2,300 people there have active forms of TB, including about 500 people with multi-drug-resistant TB. Doctors who work with people receiving treatment for HIV and TB in rebel-controlled areas told Human Rights Watch in February that their staff had faced long delays in getting permission to move new supplies of these medications from government-controlled to rebel-controlled territories. The government has yet to approve a regulation drafted in January that would allow humanitarian groups to deliver methadone and buprenorphine, used in OST, to rebel-controlled areas. Medical centers in Donetsk and Luhansk regions may have to shut down these treatments when the supply runs out, which could have a devastating impact on patients receiving this therapy who would be at significant risk of relapsing into illicit drug use and of accidental overdoses. The Donetsk Regional Center for AIDS Prevention and Control is registered in Sloviansk, on Ukrainian government-controlled territory, and continues to operate its facility in Donetsk, in rebel-controlled territory. In early February, the center’s chief medical officer, Nikolai Grazhdanov, told Human Rights Watch that the travel pass system has significantly delayed the delivery of both diagnostic test kits and antiretroviral medicine to the region, including Donetsk and nearby towns such as Horlivka and Makeevka. The center’s deputy director, Valentina Pavlenko, MD, said in early February that her staff had been waiting three weeks for the travel passes to bring antiretroviral medicine and diagnostic kits from Sloviansk to rebel-held Donetsk. Although they eventually received the passes in early March, over 6,000 HIV-positive patents in the rebel-controlled territory of Donetsk were at risk of running out of medicine, Pavlenko said. A humanitarian aid convoy was eventually able to deliver treatment that is expected to last until April. Stopping the treatment may result in patients’ conditions deteriorating, with dire, and possibly deadly, consequences. [... EDIT ... ] Opioid Substitution Therapy Opioid substitution therapy (OST) is available in government-controlled territory but the government has not yet approved a regulation, drafted in January, to allow independent humanitarian groups to deliver the methadone and buprenorphine used in this therapy to rebel-controlled areas. In the meantime, the stock of buprenorphine in rebel-controlled parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions has been depleted completely and methadone supplies are running out. Igor Tsiba, the chief doctor of the regional drug treatment center in Donetsk treating patients in rebel-controlled areas, said in early February that while the center has been sporadically receiving necessary supplies and medicine with humanitarian convoys, delivery of OST therapy stopped in September 2014. The center had to discontinue treatment with buprenorphine in early January 2015 when the supplies ran out, and was in the process of drastically reducing methadone treatment. Tsiba said that some of the most vulnerable patients who receive opioid substitution treatment, including those who are living with HIV, also have TB or various forms of hepatitis. Discontinuing their opioid substitution treatment will result in significant deterioration of their condition and could possibly have fatal consequences for some of them. Yulia Drozd, MD, the head of the department for OST at the center, and head of Donbass Without Drugs, a nongovernmental group that provides medical treatment and social rehabilitation for patients in the Donetsk region, said in early February: “The most shocking thing is that these drugs are readily available but there is no way of getting them here because there is no procedure in place for delivering them.” Seventy percent of the patients who receive this therapy are also HIV-positive, and 25 percent have TB and are vulnerable to other infections, Drozd said. According to data provided to Human Rights Watch by the International HIV/AIDS Alliance in Ukraine, as of early March, at least 600 patients in rebel-held areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions had to discontinue their opioid substitution treatment due to shortages of medicines. Human Rights Watch interviewed three patients receiving OST. Elena, who had used heroin for over 30 years, said she turned her life around after she started OST a year ago and is terrified to think that she could lose it. Rita, 35, who has been receiving methadone therapy for six years and is living with HIV, said she could not leave Donetsk because she had no money and no relatives anywhere else. She looks after her 7-year-old son and her elderly mother, who recently had a stroke and cannot travel. “If I can’t receive treatment, I will not survive,” she said. http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/03/13/ukraine-civilians-struggle-get-medical-care COMMENT Well, this sketches out what the official obligations are.  But, obviously, they can be by-passed or stalled to inflict hardship on the other side.  In this case, by the govt of Ukraine against the civilians in independence-militia-held regions in east Ukraine. Shocked by the large number of people that have HIV (16,000 in east Ukraine independence militia held areas alone).  Seems like a huge number to me.

'Hague Invasion Act' 2002 & USA War Criminals

U.S.: 'Hague Invasion Act' Becomes Law White House August 4, 2002 (New York) - A new law supposedly protecting U.S. servicemembers from the International Criminal Court shows that the Bush administration will stop at nothing in its campaign against the court.   U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.     In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution. At the same time, these provisions can be waived by the president on "national interest" grounds.     "The states that have ratified this treaty are trying to strengthen the rule of law," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "The Bush administration is trying to punish them for that."     Dicker pointed out that many of the ICC's biggest supporters are fragile democracies and countries emerging from human rights crises, such as Sierra Leone, Argentina and Fiji.     The law is part of a multi-pronged U.S. effort against the International Criminal Court. On May 6, in an unprecedented move, the Bush administration announced it was "renouncing" U.S. signature on the treaty. In June, the administration vetoed continuation of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Bosnia in an effort to obtain permanent immunity for U.N. peacekeepers. In July, U.S. officials launched a campaign around the world to obtain bilateral agreements that would grant immunity for Americans from the court's authority. Yesterday, Washington announced that it obtained such an agreement from Romania.     However, another provision of the bill allows the United States to assist international efforts to bring to justice those accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity - including efforts by the ICC.     "The administration never misses an opportunity to gratuitously antagonize its allies on the ICC," said Dicker. "But it's also true that the new law has more loopholes than a block of Swiss cheese."   Dicker said the law gives the administration discretion to override ASPA's noxious effects on a case-by-case basis. Washington may try to use this to strong-arm additional concessions from the states that support the court, but Dicker urged states supporting the ICC "not to fall into the U.S. trap: the law does not require any punitive measures."     Human Rights Watch believes the International Criminal Court has the potential to be the most important human rights institution created in 50 years, and urged regional groups of states, such as the European Union, to condemn the new law and resist Washington's attempts to obtain bilateral exemption arrangements.     The law formed part of the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States. http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law COMMENT Well, here's Human Rights Watch on the Hague Invasion Act 2002: "the new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a US-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague." That's just mind-blowing. The law was passed during the time of George W Bush, President 2001-2009.  ............................................ Bush also happens have been convicted, in absentia, as a war criminal: Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. Bush Convicted in Absentia: IT’S OFFICIAL – George W Bush is a war criminal. By Yvonne Ridley Global Research, May 14, 2012 Foreign Policy Journal 14 May 2012 In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were today (Friday) found guilty of war crimes. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia. The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is also asking that the names of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and Haynes be entered and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals for public record. The tribunal is the initiative of Malaysia’s retired Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.globalresearch.ca/kuala-lumpur-war-crimes-tribunal-bush-convicted-in-absentia-it-s-official-george-w-bush-is-a-war-criminal/30839 It puts a new kind of spin on everything.

US Foreign Policy - Victoria Nuland - Syria - Israel

"VILE HYPOCRISY EXPOSED by reporter doing his job" Source - Representative Press - here. Published on 9 Jul 2012  Quote - Representative Press: So the next time Human Rights Watch comes out with a report that's critical of Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians, I'll assume that you're going to be saying the same thing, correct? That you think that the report is credible, it's based on eyewitness accounts? Uh, as -- And you're not going to say that it's politically motivated and should be dismissed? You know Matt, as you have made clear again and again in this room, we are not always consistent. "Associated Press' Matt Lee is one of those rare reporters who frequently challenges U.S. foreign policy hypocrisy, both in general and, even more rarely, as it pertains to the nation's support for Israel." As Glenn Greenwald points out, "a remarkably revealing exchange." Check it out in context. Source - Representative Press - check out Youtube - here.