If you have watched the documentary 'taxi to the dark side' you realise that there is very serious ground to incriminate high officials in the Bush administration including Cheney and Rumsfeld, and probably Bush himself.
Consequently, there is very serious ground for a pardon and it will be, as Martin kettle from The Guardian puts it, a lawless outcome to a lawless war.
UPDATE: Report finds Rumsfeld behind detainee abuse
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
11.8.08
The War in Ossetia
I have not been contributing with meaningful posts on this blog as of late. But the war in Ossetia clearly needs our attention and this very informative post from The Two Wolves actually cheered me up.
Read here on Israel's role in this war as a top arms and training provider to Georgian troops.
From Jews Sans Frontières: Pulling an Israel in the Caucasus.
Putin Outmaneuvers The West
Mikhail Gorbachev: Russia had no choice
UPDATE, WOW...'Georgia War A Neocon Election Ploy?' (And the answer to the question...)
UPDATE, August 28th 08: Putin accuses Bush of provoking Goergia crisis to help elect McCain
Read here on Israel's role in this war as a top arms and training provider to Georgian troops.
From Jews Sans Frontières: Pulling an Israel in the Caucasus.
Putin Outmaneuvers The West
Mikhail Gorbachev: Russia had no choice
UPDATE, WOW...'Georgia War A Neocon Election Ploy?' (And the answer to the question...)
UPDATE, August 28th 08: Putin accuses Bush of provoking Goergia crisis to help elect McCain
26.6.08
On Attacking Iran: A Fictional but Plausible Scenario
I am not a war expert and I cannot judge many of the elements imagined in this scenario about the possible consequences of a war on Iran by Mr DeBatto, a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent. But there is one thing I can judge and of which I have got a very close experience, the state of anarchy and civil unrest when basic needs, like energy and food, become scarce and even missing.
My first experience comes from the civil war in Lebanon in 1976. And ironically, my second comes from Montreal, Quebec, 1998, when an ice storm deprived most of this Canadian province's inhabitants from electricity. A simple matter that initiated a chain reaction nearing a state of anarchy in the city to the point where the Canadian government had to dispatch its army in the streets of Montreal in order to control possible and real unrest.
Imagine, you are in the middle of the winter and your heating does not work. Even though you have oil heating, it should be started with electricity. So you go to the nearest convenience store and you buy a generator which, 24 hours after the beginning of the catastrophe, has become rare and very expansive. Then you go to the gas station where the credit or bank cards cannot work without electricity. So you have to pay cash. However, the banks aren't open because their employees cannot reach their workplace having to cope with children out of school, unaffordable gas prices, and stalled public transportation, and so on...You become really frustrated and angry.
If there is a war on Iran, and if the war lasts, this will surely be the case in our cities. And our armies won't be even around to defend us, they will be stretched thin defending Afghan and Iraqi 'democracies', and Israel's interests, against Iran's, as the only nuclear superpower in the ME...
Read here Seymour Hersh reporting on US secret operations in Iran
My first experience comes from the civil war in Lebanon in 1976. And ironically, my second comes from Montreal, Quebec, 1998, when an ice storm deprived most of this Canadian province's inhabitants from electricity. A simple matter that initiated a chain reaction nearing a state of anarchy in the city to the point where the Canadian government had to dispatch its army in the streets of Montreal in order to control possible and real unrest.
Imagine, you are in the middle of the winter and your heating does not work. Even though you have oil heating, it should be started with electricity. So you go to the nearest convenience store and you buy a generator which, 24 hours after the beginning of the catastrophe, has become rare and very expansive. Then you go to the gas station where the credit or bank cards cannot work without electricity. So you have to pay cash. However, the banks aren't open because their employees cannot reach their workplace having to cope with children out of school, unaffordable gas prices, and stalled public transportation, and so on...You become really frustrated and angry.
If there is a war on Iran, and if the war lasts, this will surely be the case in our cities. And our armies won't be even around to defend us, they will be stretched thin defending Afghan and Iraqi 'democracies', and Israel's interests, against Iran's, as the only nuclear superpower in the ME...
Read here Seymour Hersh reporting on US secret operations in Iran
Admiral Fallon acknowledged, when I spoke to him in June, that he had heard that there were people in the White House who were upset by his public statements. “Too many people believe you have to be either for or against the Iranians,” he told me. “Let’s get serious. Eighty million people live there, and everyone’s an individual. The idea that they’re only one way or another is nonsense.”
When it came to the Iraq war, Fallon said, “Did I bitch about some of the things that were being proposed? You bet. Some of them were very stupid.”
12.9.07
Jean Bricmont on Why Bush Can Get Away With Attacking Iran
That's the Guy. I love everything he writes. One of the last few remaining true rational academics and a committed public intellectual.
"All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American "left". The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not according to our views -- but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.
Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media. The antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to seriously defend Iran and it won't attack the real architects of this coming war--the Zionists-- for fear of "provoking antisemitism". Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite debatable, but, in the case of Iran, since the country is about to be bombed but not invaded, there is no reason whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed to the Zionists. In fact, Big Oil is probably very much opposed to the war, but it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us."
Relevant links:
Another proxy war with Iran ? Israel hit Missiles in Syria-The US pleased-story stinks.
A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.
"All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American "left". The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not according to our views -- but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.
Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media. The antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to seriously defend Iran and it won't attack the real architects of this coming war--the Zionists-- for fear of "provoking antisemitism". Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite debatable, but, in the case of Iran, since the country is about to be bombed but not invaded, there is no reason whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed to the Zionists. In fact, Big Oil is probably very much opposed to the war, but it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us."
Relevant links:
Another proxy war with Iran ? Israel hit Missiles in Syria-The US pleased-story stinks.
A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.
30.5.07
UNSC Votes a Resolution for an International Tribunal on the Assassination of Lebanese Billionnaire Rafiq Hariri
Just In from Angry Arab. To those who don't know him (and who doesn't know Angry Arab ?), Angry Arab writes in allegories, often on the satirical side.
Also from Angry Arab. UN team investigationg soil samples related to the assassination in Saudi Arabia.
So the infighting between Fatah El-Islam in Northern lebanon and the Lebanese government led by the Hariri coalition has had at least one clear conclusion; the establishment by the UN security council of the controversial and controversed international tribunal for the assassination of billionnaire, former PM, and an all time Saudi ally, Rafiq Hariri. Really, in all this mayhem, the presence of a clear military aid from the US, and the tension, Hezbollah and his allies (more than half the Lebanese) who are opposed to the tribunal, are not going to protest or they incur the risk of setting the whole country on fire.
The way the Hariri coalition, backed by the neocons, does Politics in Lebanon is simply appalling !
In addition to subjugating a whole country to a vision of one man and his family, -you may want to have a look at Hariri's neoliberal economic policies through this radio interview. The history of the Hariris' reign on lebanon's destiny is revealing of the relation between neoliberalism and wars.
Members of the Lebanese army and Palestinian civilians have died just to serve as a smokescreen, and to put pressure on all parties, outside and inside Lebanon, into adopting and accepting the tribunal. As if 15 years of civil war are not enough, Lebanon has been plagued, since Taef, by a political elite composed of racist and criminal warlords, corrupted Politicans, foreign influence, notably Syria and Saudi Arabia, and recently the neocons, the whole oligarchy led by a family with ravenous and insatiable appetites for power and money, the Hariris. Welcome to the dark world of unrestrained neoliberal ideology in a non democratic state.
Both UrShalim and Blacksmiths of Lebanon have linked to the text of the resolution.
Early Accounts:
Read an early account from Today's The Guardian on the resolution.
A view on the tribunal from the IHT.
Early Reactions:
Speaker of Lebanese Parliament: UN ignored Lebanon's constitution.
Update: Some afterthoughts on the UNSC Hariri tribunal resolution from Angry Arab.
BBC: Tribunal divides Lebanese
Questions: Who will enforce the tribunal ?
Ask the Expert: Experts in international legal affairs expose their analysis of the controversial tribunal in Le Monde Diplomatique.
Article below
UN manipulates international justice
Lebanon: a court without the law
A climate of distrust reigns in Lebanon, the scene of a silent civil war. The status of the international criminal court invented to prosecute the killers of the prime minister, Rafik Hariri, is part of the problem, further complicating the formation of a government of national unity.
By Géraud De Geouffre de La Pradelle, Antoine Korkmaz and Rafaëlle Maison
The United Nations Security Council began an exceptional international investigation after the death of the Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in a bomb attack on 14 February 2005. It may lead to a special tribunal with extraordinary powers. There is nothing surprising about this; consider the jurisdictions established by the UN, or under its aegis, for former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Cambodia (1). But in the case of Lebanon there are no actual international crimes to prosecute. Several aspects of the investigation suggest that international justice is being manipulated. It is too fragile to endure such ill treatment.
We should be in no doubt about the political nature of the Security Council. The UN Charter established it that way. The council enjoys far-reaching discretionary powers, with few legal checks or balances on its actions. However, under the pretence of upholding the law, there have been serious violations of civil liberties, while nothing has been done to resolve the situation in Lebanon. This is particularly so with the Hariri investigation. The special tribunal is still no more than a project, yet it is already worsening tension.
The Security Council set up the international independent investigation commission (IIIC) at the instigation of Beirut. It was to be headed by a German prosecutor, Detlev Mehlis (2). UN Resolution 1595 of 7 April 2005 instructed the commission to assist the Lebanese authorities in “identifying the perpetrators” of the terrorist bomb that killed Hariri and called “for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the government”. But it also noted that “the Lebanese investigation process suffers from serious flaws and has neither the capacity nor the commitment to reach a satisfactory and credible conclusion”.
On 3 June 2005 the UN and Beirut signed an agreement settling the terms for their cooperation. The IIIC would supervise the work of the Lebanese authorities, which were relegated to a secondary role. The commission would not restrict itself to independent fact-finding, but carry out a complete criminal investigation. None of the usual checks and balances applied. Lebanese authorities, especially the courts, could no longer act on their own initiative, their role being to answer the IIIC’s questions.
In Resolution 1636, adopted on 19 October 2005 after the IIIC’s presentation of its first report, the Security Council commended the Lebanese authorities for their full cooperation and congratulated them on “the courageous decisions they have already taken . . . upon recommendation of the commission, in particular the arrest and indictment of former Lebanese security officials suspected of involvement in this terrorist act”.
The Security Council considered that the crime and its implications were a threat to international peace and security, and so, for the first time, invoked chapter VII of its charter, which covers actions taken in response to such a threat. It required states to take measures against suspects identified by the IIIC. The first report alleged that there was plenty of evidence implicating high-ranking Syrian and Lebanese officials directly or indirectly in the assassination. The second report, submitted on 10 December 2005, prompted another resolution (1644, 15 December).
A new phase
The replacement of Mehlis, the controversial chief investigator, by a Belgian criminologist, Serge Brammertz, began a new phase, different from before. The IIIC became more cautious and less provocative in its behaviour in the field and the content of its reports. Resolution 1644 mentioned for the first time the creation of an international tribunal.
The IIIC presented its third report in March 2006. The Security Council then asked the secretary-general to “negotiate an agreement with the government of Lebanon aimed at establishing a tribunal . . . based on the highest international standards of criminal justice”. The document distinguished “the adoption of the legal basis of, and framework for, the tribunal” and “the gradual phasing-in of its components”. The start of its work would depend on progress with the investigation.
By doing that, the Security Council loosed a spectre that has since haunted both the enquiry and Lebanon’s internal affairs.
The affair became critical when the secretary-general sent a draft agreement to the Lebanese government on 10 November 2006, proposing that most of those who would serve on the special tribunal would be international judges; there would only be a few from Lebanon. The Office of the Prosecutor would be an independent body: a prosecutor appointed by the secretary-general plus a Beirut-appointed deputy prosecutor. The court would be empowered to judge those accused of involvement in the Hariri assassination, and of other murders committed after 1 October 2004.
A system of concurrent competence with the Lebanese courts would be set up to deal with the “other murders”, although the primacy of the international tribunal would be maintained. It would base its judgments on local criminal law. The agreement added: “Appropriate arrangements shall be made to ensure that there is a coordinated transition from the activities of the IIIC . . . to the activities of the Office of the Prosecutor”, confirming the IIIC’s criminal focus. It promised that “the special tribunal shall commence functioning on a date to be determined by the secretary-general in consultation with the government, taking into account the progress of the work of the IIIC.”
The Lebanese government — without its Shia Amal and Hizbullah ministers who had resigned — approved the draft on 13 November 2006 but the court is still a long way from its first hearing. There are several legal and technical hurdles yet to be overcome. Unless the political situation in Lebanon changes, there will be no progress made with the internal constitutional procedure, which is delaying ratification of the agreement with the UN.
President Emile Lahoud, whose approval is required, is against the plan. Parliament must approve the agreement but its Shia speaker, Nabih Berri, has so far refused to do so.
A serious preliminary question
The particular powers of the tribunal raise a serious preliminary question. Under the terms of its draft statutes it will focus primarily on the Hariri assassination, referred to as a “terrorist act”. It can also prosecute other killings committed between 1 October 2004 and 12 December 2005, and even later crimes, if the Lebanese government and the Security Council agree. At least until now, the killings came under the jurisdiction of the Lebanese courts.
UN resolution 1595 originally qualified the attacks as acts of terrorism. Then resolution 1636 added that chapter VII of the UN charter applied to the Hariri assassination. Yet the laws of Lebanon still apply and its courts are still competent to judge these crimes. International conventions on acts of terrorism require states to condemn and prosecute such crimes, this being the preserve of national jurisdictions enforcing national law. Until resolution 1664 the bomb attacks did not count as crimes that needed to be tried by an international tribunal.
In fact, the UN has only previously taken such measures to prosecute the most serious international crimes. The courts set up to prosecute those responsible for ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia and the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda have competence over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. They are not competent to prosecute any other crimes, even those covered by international conventions but which fall within the competence of national courts.
The special tribunal for Lebanon would be the first international jurisdiction established exclusively to prosecute less serious crimes that are only international because the Security Council decided they should be so. It would be the only international court with the task of enforcing national law, with the addition of provisions excluding capital punishment. This measure emphasises the importance the UN attaches to prosecuting the murder of leading Lebanese figures. It is unlikely that this episode will enhance the image of the UN or of international justice.
Last summer’s fighting between Hizbullah and Israeli forces claimed 40 civilian lives in Israel and more than 1,000 in Lebanon. On both sides of the border several hundred thousand refugees had to flee their homes under extreme duress. People who came home to Lebanon after the conflict are still in mortal danger and will go on being endangered by unexploded anti-personnel mines and other munitions. The war caused massive destruction of civilian sites in Lebanon and substantial damage on the Israeli side.
Some of the deaths, injuries, population displacement and destruction were the result of serious violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocol on the protection of the victims of international armed conflicts. These violations were serious war crimes, ranking with crimes against humanity and genocide. But no UN resolution has recognised them as such, or condemned them. There has never been any question of setting up an international commission, let alone a tribunal, to investigate the violations of humanitarian law committed during the 33 days of fighting.
Are some deaths more important than others?
This is in stark contrast with the treatment reserved for Hariri’s assassins. It suggests that the international community thinks some deaths are more politically important than others. It damages the credibility of humanitarian law and gives the impression that political considerations drive international justice.
Undeniably, international criminal justice is a way of restoring and maintaining peace, and as such may serve the fundamental aims of the UN. Until now international criminal tribunals never appeared to serve other aims but this is no longer the case.
The attitude of the forces competing for power in Lebanon towards the tribunal has been partial and self-seeking from the start. The supporters of the current parliamentary majority, which backs the government of Fuad Siniora, believe that only an international court would dare rule that Syrian agents infiltrated deep into the Lebanese state were implicated in the assassination (3). They have the obvious support of the United States, France and influential Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia; and they are convinced that by denouncing crimes said to be carried out on orders from Damascus they will help Lebanon free itself from foreign domination.
The Security Council seems to have been a party to this, and to have decided to encourage the projected tribunal. It is easy to understand why the Syrian authorities should oppose what they see as a hostile move. The Lebanese opposition, especially Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic movement led by General Michel Aoun, support this view. The opposition groups see themselves as the true defenders of Lebanese independence, combating its real enemies — the powers that enslave the peoples of the Middle East and want to disarm the Lebanese resistance led by Hizbullah. They are convinced the international tribunal is a tool in the hands of these powers and that talk of punishing Hariri’s killers is a pretext. They are afraid the UN might decide to extend the tribunal’s powers and have cited this as a reason for resigning from the government, which deprived the government of its legitimacy. (It now seems to be hardly more than a pawn moved by foreign powers.)
One side has always seen the court as a way of avenging the death of political figures while combating the Syrian regime; the other side saw it as a tool for the US, Israel and France. These views have mobilised opposing factions in Lebanese society, paralysed the country and triggered fighting. The court is a hostage in this conflict, having lost its way before it even had a chance to operate as a real court, prosecuting crimes.
Worse still, under the pretence of setting up the tribunal, rough justice has been meted out to the suspects taken into custody by the IIIC. They include four Lebanese generals, officially designated as the perpetrators of the attack on Hariri. The Security Council repeated this allegation in resolution 1636, intended to oblige the Syrian government to cooperate with the IIIC. Those in custody have been denied their legal rights, in violation of the most basic standards upheld by the UN, especially the international covenant on civil and political rights of 16 December 1966.
A succession of mistakes
As with the other prisoners, the predicament of General Jamil al-Sayed is the result of a succession of mistakes by the commission and the lack of an impartial independent court to which to appeal. The behaviour of the IIIC was reprehensible when Mehlis was in charge. Although al-Sayed said that he had no knowledge of the preparation and execution of Hariri’s assassination, he was pressed to name credible culprits — that is, to give false testimony. The IIIC has proof, provided by al-Sayed, of this attempt to pervert the course of justice. The offer was made in relatively friendly terms before his arrest, then repeated more forcefully once he was in custody.
He was arrested on 30 August 2005 on a search warrant issued by the commission, which alleged that he was directly implicated in the planning and execution of the attack on Hariri. Not until three days after his arrest did a Lebanese prosecutor formally register that after a brief interrogation he had been taken into custody. The IIIC subsequently ruled that al-Sayed should not be released on bail; officially it was not empowered to make arrests or to take decisions on bail.
Brammertz, the chief investigator, has since made it quite clear in his letters to the defence that only the Lebanese courts have such powers. But abuses of this sort are part of the rationale beneath the Security Council’s decision to set up the tribunal.
No specific charges have been brought against al-Sayed or the other suspects. They have not been able to consult evidence submitted to the Lebanese authorities during the IIIC investigation. Hearings have been conducted with or without defence lawyers, who have never been allowed to talk to their clients in private. Al-Sayed, despite repeated requests, has never been confronted with the “witnesses” cited by IIIC reports, apart from one person who was wearing a mask.
After Mehlis left office, these abuses stopped, and the IIIC has not interrogated al-Sayed since. Its conduct of the investigation now seems acceptable. All the evidence cited in its first two reports has been checked and shown to be unfounded; the last four reports do not refer to the suspicions to which the Security Council unwisely reacted.
However al-Sayed and his fellow suspects have not been able to lodge any complaints. Officially it is up to the Lebanese courts to uphold the law of the land. Having hurriedly complied with the commission’s recommendations when Mehlis was in command, they are now refusing to assume any responsibility for those in custody. There is no higher authority to which those in custody may appeal.
All the talk about an international criminal tribunal seems to have been a cover-up for a travesty of justice at national and international level. The problem is the system invented by the Security Council in resolution 1595. The projected international tribunal is a key factor in the failure to uphold law and order.
Also from Angry Arab. UN team investigationg soil samples related to the assassination in Saudi Arabia.
So the infighting between Fatah El-Islam in Northern lebanon and the Lebanese government led by the Hariri coalition has had at least one clear conclusion; the establishment by the UN security council of the controversial and controversed international tribunal for the assassination of billionnaire, former PM, and an all time Saudi ally, Rafiq Hariri. Really, in all this mayhem, the presence of a clear military aid from the US, and the tension, Hezbollah and his allies (more than half the Lebanese) who are opposed to the tribunal, are not going to protest or they incur the risk of setting the whole country on fire.
The way the Hariri coalition, backed by the neocons, does Politics in Lebanon is simply appalling !
In addition to subjugating a whole country to a vision of one man and his family, -you may want to have a look at Hariri's neoliberal economic policies through this radio interview. The history of the Hariris' reign on lebanon's destiny is revealing of the relation between neoliberalism and wars.
Members of the Lebanese army and Palestinian civilians have died just to serve as a smokescreen, and to put pressure on all parties, outside and inside Lebanon, into adopting and accepting the tribunal. As if 15 years of civil war are not enough, Lebanon has been plagued, since Taef, by a political elite composed of racist and criminal warlords, corrupted Politicans, foreign influence, notably Syria and Saudi Arabia, and recently the neocons, the whole oligarchy led by a family with ravenous and insatiable appetites for power and money, the Hariris. Welcome to the dark world of unrestrained neoliberal ideology in a non democratic state.
Both UrShalim and Blacksmiths of Lebanon have linked to the text of the resolution.
Early Accounts:
Read an early account from Today's The Guardian on the resolution.
A view on the tribunal from the IHT.
Early Reactions:
Speaker of Lebanese Parliament: UN ignored Lebanon's constitution.
Update: Some afterthoughts on the UNSC Hariri tribunal resolution from Angry Arab.
BBC: Tribunal divides Lebanese
Questions: Who will enforce the tribunal ?
Ask the Expert: Experts in international legal affairs expose their analysis of the controversial tribunal in Le Monde Diplomatique.
Article below
UN manipulates international justice
Lebanon: a court without the law
A climate of distrust reigns in Lebanon, the scene of a silent civil war. The status of the international criminal court invented to prosecute the killers of the prime minister, Rafik Hariri, is part of the problem, further complicating the formation of a government of national unity.
By Géraud De Geouffre de La Pradelle, Antoine Korkmaz and Rafaëlle Maison
The United Nations Security Council began an exceptional international investigation after the death of the Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in a bomb attack on 14 February 2005. It may lead to a special tribunal with extraordinary powers. There is nothing surprising about this; consider the jurisdictions established by the UN, or under its aegis, for former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Cambodia (1). But in the case of Lebanon there are no actual international crimes to prosecute. Several aspects of the investigation suggest that international justice is being manipulated. It is too fragile to endure such ill treatment.
We should be in no doubt about the political nature of the Security Council. The UN Charter established it that way. The council enjoys far-reaching discretionary powers, with few legal checks or balances on its actions. However, under the pretence of upholding the law, there have been serious violations of civil liberties, while nothing has been done to resolve the situation in Lebanon. This is particularly so with the Hariri investigation. The special tribunal is still no more than a project, yet it is already worsening tension.
The Security Council set up the international independent investigation commission (IIIC) at the instigation of Beirut. It was to be headed by a German prosecutor, Detlev Mehlis (2). UN Resolution 1595 of 7 April 2005 instructed the commission to assist the Lebanese authorities in “identifying the perpetrators” of the terrorist bomb that killed Hariri and called “for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the government”. But it also noted that “the Lebanese investigation process suffers from serious flaws and has neither the capacity nor the commitment to reach a satisfactory and credible conclusion”.
On 3 June 2005 the UN and Beirut signed an agreement settling the terms for their cooperation. The IIIC would supervise the work of the Lebanese authorities, which were relegated to a secondary role. The commission would not restrict itself to independent fact-finding, but carry out a complete criminal investigation. None of the usual checks and balances applied. Lebanese authorities, especially the courts, could no longer act on their own initiative, their role being to answer the IIIC’s questions.
In Resolution 1636, adopted on 19 October 2005 after the IIIC’s presentation of its first report, the Security Council commended the Lebanese authorities for their full cooperation and congratulated them on “the courageous decisions they have already taken . . . upon recommendation of the commission, in particular the arrest and indictment of former Lebanese security officials suspected of involvement in this terrorist act”.
The Security Council considered that the crime and its implications were a threat to international peace and security, and so, for the first time, invoked chapter VII of its charter, which covers actions taken in response to such a threat. It required states to take measures against suspects identified by the IIIC. The first report alleged that there was plenty of evidence implicating high-ranking Syrian and Lebanese officials directly or indirectly in the assassination. The second report, submitted on 10 December 2005, prompted another resolution (1644, 15 December).
A new phase
The replacement of Mehlis, the controversial chief investigator, by a Belgian criminologist, Serge Brammertz, began a new phase, different from before. The IIIC became more cautious and less provocative in its behaviour in the field and the content of its reports. Resolution 1644 mentioned for the first time the creation of an international tribunal.
The IIIC presented its third report in March 2006. The Security Council then asked the secretary-general to “negotiate an agreement with the government of Lebanon aimed at establishing a tribunal . . . based on the highest international standards of criminal justice”. The document distinguished “the adoption of the legal basis of, and framework for, the tribunal” and “the gradual phasing-in of its components”. The start of its work would depend on progress with the investigation.
By doing that, the Security Council loosed a spectre that has since haunted both the enquiry and Lebanon’s internal affairs.
The affair became critical when the secretary-general sent a draft agreement to the Lebanese government on 10 November 2006, proposing that most of those who would serve on the special tribunal would be international judges; there would only be a few from Lebanon. The Office of the Prosecutor would be an independent body: a prosecutor appointed by the secretary-general plus a Beirut-appointed deputy prosecutor. The court would be empowered to judge those accused of involvement in the Hariri assassination, and of other murders committed after 1 October 2004.
A system of concurrent competence with the Lebanese courts would be set up to deal with the “other murders”, although the primacy of the international tribunal would be maintained. It would base its judgments on local criminal law. The agreement added: “Appropriate arrangements shall be made to ensure that there is a coordinated transition from the activities of the IIIC . . . to the activities of the Office of the Prosecutor”, confirming the IIIC’s criminal focus. It promised that “the special tribunal shall commence functioning on a date to be determined by the secretary-general in consultation with the government, taking into account the progress of the work of the IIIC.”
The Lebanese government — without its Shia Amal and Hizbullah ministers who had resigned — approved the draft on 13 November 2006 but the court is still a long way from its first hearing. There are several legal and technical hurdles yet to be overcome. Unless the political situation in Lebanon changes, there will be no progress made with the internal constitutional procedure, which is delaying ratification of the agreement with the UN.
President Emile Lahoud, whose approval is required, is against the plan. Parliament must approve the agreement but its Shia speaker, Nabih Berri, has so far refused to do so.
A serious preliminary question
The particular powers of the tribunal raise a serious preliminary question. Under the terms of its draft statutes it will focus primarily on the Hariri assassination, referred to as a “terrorist act”. It can also prosecute other killings committed between 1 October 2004 and 12 December 2005, and even later crimes, if the Lebanese government and the Security Council agree. At least until now, the killings came under the jurisdiction of the Lebanese courts.
UN resolution 1595 originally qualified the attacks as acts of terrorism. Then resolution 1636 added that chapter VII of the UN charter applied to the Hariri assassination. Yet the laws of Lebanon still apply and its courts are still competent to judge these crimes. International conventions on acts of terrorism require states to condemn and prosecute such crimes, this being the preserve of national jurisdictions enforcing national law. Until resolution 1664 the bomb attacks did not count as crimes that needed to be tried by an international tribunal.
In fact, the UN has only previously taken such measures to prosecute the most serious international crimes. The courts set up to prosecute those responsible for ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia and the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda have competence over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. They are not competent to prosecute any other crimes, even those covered by international conventions but which fall within the competence of national courts.
The special tribunal for Lebanon would be the first international jurisdiction established exclusively to prosecute less serious crimes that are only international because the Security Council decided they should be so. It would be the only international court with the task of enforcing national law, with the addition of provisions excluding capital punishment. This measure emphasises the importance the UN attaches to prosecuting the murder of leading Lebanese figures. It is unlikely that this episode will enhance the image of the UN or of international justice.
Last summer’s fighting between Hizbullah and Israeli forces claimed 40 civilian lives in Israel and more than 1,000 in Lebanon. On both sides of the border several hundred thousand refugees had to flee their homes under extreme duress. People who came home to Lebanon after the conflict are still in mortal danger and will go on being endangered by unexploded anti-personnel mines and other munitions. The war caused massive destruction of civilian sites in Lebanon and substantial damage on the Israeli side.
Some of the deaths, injuries, population displacement and destruction were the result of serious violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocol on the protection of the victims of international armed conflicts. These violations were serious war crimes, ranking with crimes against humanity and genocide. But no UN resolution has recognised them as such, or condemned them. There has never been any question of setting up an international commission, let alone a tribunal, to investigate the violations of humanitarian law committed during the 33 days of fighting.
Are some deaths more important than others?
This is in stark contrast with the treatment reserved for Hariri’s assassins. It suggests that the international community thinks some deaths are more politically important than others. It damages the credibility of humanitarian law and gives the impression that political considerations drive international justice.
Undeniably, international criminal justice is a way of restoring and maintaining peace, and as such may serve the fundamental aims of the UN. Until now international criminal tribunals never appeared to serve other aims but this is no longer the case.
The attitude of the forces competing for power in Lebanon towards the tribunal has been partial and self-seeking from the start. The supporters of the current parliamentary majority, which backs the government of Fuad Siniora, believe that only an international court would dare rule that Syrian agents infiltrated deep into the Lebanese state were implicated in the assassination (3). They have the obvious support of the United States, France and influential Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia; and they are convinced that by denouncing crimes said to be carried out on orders from Damascus they will help Lebanon free itself from foreign domination.
The Security Council seems to have been a party to this, and to have decided to encourage the projected tribunal. It is easy to understand why the Syrian authorities should oppose what they see as a hostile move. The Lebanese opposition, especially Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic movement led by General Michel Aoun, support this view. The opposition groups see themselves as the true defenders of Lebanese independence, combating its real enemies — the powers that enslave the peoples of the Middle East and want to disarm the Lebanese resistance led by Hizbullah. They are convinced the international tribunal is a tool in the hands of these powers and that talk of punishing Hariri’s killers is a pretext. They are afraid the UN might decide to extend the tribunal’s powers and have cited this as a reason for resigning from the government, which deprived the government of its legitimacy. (It now seems to be hardly more than a pawn moved by foreign powers.)
One side has always seen the court as a way of avenging the death of political figures while combating the Syrian regime; the other side saw it as a tool for the US, Israel and France. These views have mobilised opposing factions in Lebanese society, paralysed the country and triggered fighting. The court is a hostage in this conflict, having lost its way before it even had a chance to operate as a real court, prosecuting crimes.
Worse still, under the pretence of setting up the tribunal, rough justice has been meted out to the suspects taken into custody by the IIIC. They include four Lebanese generals, officially designated as the perpetrators of the attack on Hariri. The Security Council repeated this allegation in resolution 1636, intended to oblige the Syrian government to cooperate with the IIIC. Those in custody have been denied their legal rights, in violation of the most basic standards upheld by the UN, especially the international covenant on civil and political rights of 16 December 1966.
A succession of mistakes
As with the other prisoners, the predicament of General Jamil al-Sayed is the result of a succession of mistakes by the commission and the lack of an impartial independent court to which to appeal. The behaviour of the IIIC was reprehensible when Mehlis was in charge. Although al-Sayed said that he had no knowledge of the preparation and execution of Hariri’s assassination, he was pressed to name credible culprits — that is, to give false testimony. The IIIC has proof, provided by al-Sayed, of this attempt to pervert the course of justice. The offer was made in relatively friendly terms before his arrest, then repeated more forcefully once he was in custody.
He was arrested on 30 August 2005 on a search warrant issued by the commission, which alleged that he was directly implicated in the planning and execution of the attack on Hariri. Not until three days after his arrest did a Lebanese prosecutor formally register that after a brief interrogation he had been taken into custody. The IIIC subsequently ruled that al-Sayed should not be released on bail; officially it was not empowered to make arrests or to take decisions on bail.
Brammertz, the chief investigator, has since made it quite clear in his letters to the defence that only the Lebanese courts have such powers. But abuses of this sort are part of the rationale beneath the Security Council’s decision to set up the tribunal.
No specific charges have been brought against al-Sayed or the other suspects. They have not been able to consult evidence submitted to the Lebanese authorities during the IIIC investigation. Hearings have been conducted with or without defence lawyers, who have never been allowed to talk to their clients in private. Al-Sayed, despite repeated requests, has never been confronted with the “witnesses” cited by IIIC reports, apart from one person who was wearing a mask.
After Mehlis left office, these abuses stopped, and the IIIC has not interrogated al-Sayed since. Its conduct of the investigation now seems acceptable. All the evidence cited in its first two reports has been checked and shown to be unfounded; the last four reports do not refer to the suspicions to which the Security Council unwisely reacted.
However al-Sayed and his fellow suspects have not been able to lodge any complaints. Officially it is up to the Lebanese courts to uphold the law of the land. Having hurriedly complied with the commission’s recommendations when Mehlis was in command, they are now refusing to assume any responsibility for those in custody. There is no higher authority to which those in custody may appeal.
All the talk about an international criminal tribunal seems to have been a cover-up for a travesty of justice at national and international level. The problem is the system invented by the Security Council in resolution 1595. The projected international tribunal is a key factor in the failure to uphold law and order.
7.1.07
Movie comment: Children of Men
Yesterday I went to see Alfonso Cuaron’s Children of men. I have to mention first that I did not read the book by P.D. James on which the movie is based.
The story opens in England in 2027. All other countries have collapsed, claims a giant electronic poster, and only England soldiers on.
Cuaron’s adaptation is not didactic. There is no explaining in the movie on what is really going on, as in Spielberg's sci-fi movies for example. But if you know what is going on in the news worldwide, you don’t need an introduction to the story. Because of this, the movie is realistic. It is a political statement on the state of Humanity. There are no flying cars, no extraordinary buildings and gadgets, no strange creatures, only human beings devoured by anxiety, hopelessness, boredom, and a dark future.
We understand later that an advertised drug called Quietus is recommended for suicide. The realism of the movie is such that the line of advertisement is that of any other product, it gives the consumer the illusion of free will and choice. The subtitle of the advertisement is ‘You decide when’. Cuaron’s realism comes from the fact that instead of focusing on gadgets, he focuses on Humans. And some Humans basic features, when taken at the population level, do not seem to change over time. They are emotional, they are greedy, they are irrational and they are violent. Violence is the main theme of the movie. But it is confronted with birth, renewal, and innocence…
The Humanity in 2027 is in a terrible state, a chaotic state very close to what people are experiencing in some parts of the world actually. There are cattle and birds epidemics, environmental catastrophes, collapsing states, wars, and massive migrations, and to top all of this, women have become infertile. The last birth was 18 years ago in Brazil but the person who was born 18 years ago had just died, and the whole world is mourning his death. Inside England, there seems to be some order imposed by the state but it is being resisted and fought by many groups with divergent interests. The country had closed its frontiers to refugees and we wee in the movie illegal immigrants transported in cages toward camps where they are kept under strict army and police control. On the way, they are beaten, humiliated, and killed, for some of them. A man, who lost a baby he had with a woman in the resistance and was consequently estranged by her, will be asked to accompany an 18 year old illegal refugeepregnant girl across the burning and dangerous land to the safety of ‘The Human Project’.
The highlight of the movie is in the final scenes when we witness a birth, a street fight, the bombing of a civilian building where resitants are trapped by the army, and the final deliverance for some. All this happens in an area where the government had imprisoned opponents and immigrants, bombing them regularly or whenever the tension becomes unbearable. The battle scenes were crudely filmed, there was no warning as to the explosion of the bombs or the bombing of a building inhabited by illegal immigrants and resistants ‘terrorists’ who fight for their rights and for a different vision of the country. The line is blurred between fiction and real life. Some of the scenes resembled what we witness everyday on TV screens from the streets of Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. There was a protest with chants ‘Allah Akbar’ from Muslim immigrants. There were women in the streets crying over the dead bodies of their relatives fighters, sons and husbands, as in Gaza. There were inscriptions on the walls of the word ‘Intifada’ in Arabic.
What struck me most in the movie is the fact that Humanity knew that it was going to its end. Twenty years of infertility are what is needed for the extinction of the species, a lengthy extinction of course. But people were fighting each other anyway. Suddenly it occurred to me that violence, always present in human societies, did not in fact increase over time, but did however invade our minds. We are not more violent than our ancestors, but we are more committed to violence, we cannot live without it, even though we know that we will all be dying in a near future. And the reason why violence has invaded our mind is that in the presence of danger we don’t look for solutions, we fight.
Is the earth warming up and threatening some of our resources? Why bother finding solutions? Better fight within the new context to keep our privileges without changing our way of life. Are we going to die as a species because of real threats? Why bother trying to find solutions when we can fight to keep going on according to our own way and at the expanses of other individuals, groups, countries and the entire species? Why bother finding a solution to our energy needs when we can go to Iraq, fight and kill more than 200000 people in three years? And why bother finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when we can fight for sixty years, and keep going, in order to grab more land, kill more people, strip the others from their rights, kill hope, divide people, radicalise them in groups fighting each other, putting their regions on fire, and diminishing, every day, the prospects for peace while extending wars?
Even though we are not committed to find a solution to women’s infertility, the movie tells us that many groups will be fighting around the miracle baby, who was incidentally born, to make him their own, and not the baby of Humanity, and not the baby of the whole species. What is the significance of birth, innocence, love, and renewal in a world that surrendered to violence? It is better not to be born. Humanity is alarmingly disappointing, and can be even more disappointing, as biologists tell us, than other animal groups, where sometimes individuals will give up on their own survival instincts in order to contribute to the survival of their own species.
We came out of the movie, all the four of us, my husband and my children, hoping that the movie was after all about fiction. But sadly it isn’t.
The story opens in England in 2027. All other countries have collapsed, claims a giant electronic poster, and only England soldiers on.
Cuaron’s adaptation is not didactic. There is no explaining in the movie on what is really going on, as in Spielberg's sci-fi movies for example. But if you know what is going on in the news worldwide, you don’t need an introduction to the story. Because of this, the movie is realistic. It is a political statement on the state of Humanity. There are no flying cars, no extraordinary buildings and gadgets, no strange creatures, only human beings devoured by anxiety, hopelessness, boredom, and a dark future.
We understand later that an advertised drug called Quietus is recommended for suicide. The realism of the movie is such that the line of advertisement is that of any other product, it gives the consumer the illusion of free will and choice. The subtitle of the advertisement is ‘You decide when’. Cuaron’s realism comes from the fact that instead of focusing on gadgets, he focuses on Humans. And some Humans basic features, when taken at the population level, do not seem to change over time. They are emotional, they are greedy, they are irrational and they are violent. Violence is the main theme of the movie. But it is confronted with birth, renewal, and innocence…
The Humanity in 2027 is in a terrible state, a chaotic state very close to what people are experiencing in some parts of the world actually. There are cattle and birds epidemics, environmental catastrophes, collapsing states, wars, and massive migrations, and to top all of this, women have become infertile. The last birth was 18 years ago in Brazil but the person who was born 18 years ago had just died, and the whole world is mourning his death. Inside England, there seems to be some order imposed by the state but it is being resisted and fought by many groups with divergent interests. The country had closed its frontiers to refugees and we wee in the movie illegal immigrants transported in cages toward camps where they are kept under strict army and police control. On the way, they are beaten, humiliated, and killed, for some of them. A man, who lost a baby he had with a woman in the resistance and was consequently estranged by her, will be asked to accompany an 18 year old illegal refugeepregnant girl across the burning and dangerous land to the safety of ‘The Human Project’.
The highlight of the movie is in the final scenes when we witness a birth, a street fight, the bombing of a civilian building where resitants are trapped by the army, and the final deliverance for some. All this happens in an area where the government had imprisoned opponents and immigrants, bombing them regularly or whenever the tension becomes unbearable. The battle scenes were crudely filmed, there was no warning as to the explosion of the bombs or the bombing of a building inhabited by illegal immigrants and resistants ‘terrorists’ who fight for their rights and for a different vision of the country. The line is blurred between fiction and real life. Some of the scenes resembled what we witness everyday on TV screens from the streets of Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. There was a protest with chants ‘Allah Akbar’ from Muslim immigrants. There were women in the streets crying over the dead bodies of their relatives fighters, sons and husbands, as in Gaza. There were inscriptions on the walls of the word ‘Intifada’ in Arabic.
What struck me most in the movie is the fact that Humanity knew that it was going to its end. Twenty years of infertility are what is needed for the extinction of the species, a lengthy extinction of course. But people were fighting each other anyway. Suddenly it occurred to me that violence, always present in human societies, did not in fact increase over time, but did however invade our minds. We are not more violent than our ancestors, but we are more committed to violence, we cannot live without it, even though we know that we will all be dying in a near future. And the reason why violence has invaded our mind is that in the presence of danger we don’t look for solutions, we fight.
Is the earth warming up and threatening some of our resources? Why bother finding solutions? Better fight within the new context to keep our privileges without changing our way of life. Are we going to die as a species because of real threats? Why bother trying to find solutions when we can fight to keep going on according to our own way and at the expanses of other individuals, groups, countries and the entire species? Why bother finding a solution to our energy needs when we can go to Iraq, fight and kill more than 200000 people in three years? And why bother finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when we can fight for sixty years, and keep going, in order to grab more land, kill more people, strip the others from their rights, kill hope, divide people, radicalise them in groups fighting each other, putting their regions on fire, and diminishing, every day, the prospects for peace while extending wars?
Even though we are not committed to find a solution to women’s infertility, the movie tells us that many groups will be fighting around the miracle baby, who was incidentally born, to make him their own, and not the baby of Humanity, and not the baby of the whole species. What is the significance of birth, innocence, love, and renewal in a world that surrendered to violence? It is better not to be born. Humanity is alarmingly disappointing, and can be even more disappointing, as biologists tell us, than other animal groups, where sometimes individuals will give up on their own survival instincts in order to contribute to the survival of their own species.
We came out of the movie, all the four of us, my husband and my children, hoping that the movie was after all about fiction. But sadly it isn’t.
11.7.06
War, Peace And The Quest For The Ordinary Good Life
This artificial mound was erected in Waterloo, Belgium, to commemorate the victory of European armies on Napoleon. The Lion's gaze and one of his paws are directed at France in a sign of defiance. It is called 'La Butte du Lion'
Napoleon's defeat was achieved in 24 hours in a fierce battle that is reenacted at the site in a Panorama of images and sounds.
Listening to the sounds of the battle I thought that it must have been very brave of these men to fight and die. Of course, most of them were forced to go to war but then some did it willingly, as in every battle. But as in every battle, all were expected to act heroically.
Heroism was the number one moral value in ancient societies but this moral value is replaced in our modern societies by 'The quest for the ordinary life', as argued by Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor in his book 'The sources of the Self: the making of the modern identity'. Taylor views 'ordinary life' as no less interesting than heroism on the battlefield when it is oriented toward the Good in us and others. However, it is characterised by the rejection of suffering. It is within this quest for the better in ourselves and others that the ordinary life becomes the good life.
The question that occupied my mind for quite a while after visiting 'La Butte du Lion' was: how are we to reconcile, in the West, our shifting moral values from heroism on the battlefield to the quest for the ordinary life ? I wasn't sure of the answer until my husband asked me the question differently: how come people are ready to suffer and die and sacrifice their life and renounce the 'ordinary life' and the pursuit of happiness?
I realised that we live today in a divided world. There are those who live the ordinary good life and those who die. As I am writing this post, I learn by Al-Jazeera that Israel had just invaded Lebanon. The move is designed to exhaust the Resistance. I hear from the leader of Israel terrible statements about the use of 'full force to turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years if the Israeli soldiers were not returned'.
But these threats won't do. The Resistance definitely belongs to the category of the people willing to die. It is not because they do not like life or they are not engaged in the pursuit of the good life, it is just that there could be no good life if you are daily threatened, and occupied. Without dignity, there could be no good life. Heroism is still a thing for those the West wants to keep humiliating through a neocolonial proxy like Israel.
Napoleon's defeat was achieved in 24 hours in a fierce battle that is reenacted at the site in a Panorama of images and sounds.
Listening to the sounds of the battle I thought that it must have been very brave of these men to fight and die. Of course, most of them were forced to go to war but then some did it willingly, as in every battle. But as in every battle, all were expected to act heroically.
Heroism was the number one moral value in ancient societies but this moral value is replaced in our modern societies by 'The quest for the ordinary life', as argued by Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor in his book 'The sources of the Self: the making of the modern identity'. Taylor views 'ordinary life' as no less interesting than heroism on the battlefield when it is oriented toward the Good in us and others. However, it is characterised by the rejection of suffering. It is within this quest for the better in ourselves and others that the ordinary life becomes the good life.
The question that occupied my mind for quite a while after visiting 'La Butte du Lion' was: how are we to reconcile, in the West, our shifting moral values from heroism on the battlefield to the quest for the ordinary life ? I wasn't sure of the answer until my husband asked me the question differently: how come people are ready to suffer and die and sacrifice their life and renounce the 'ordinary life' and the pursuit of happiness?
I realised that we live today in a divided world. There are those who live the ordinary good life and those who die. As I am writing this post, I learn by Al-Jazeera that Israel had just invaded Lebanon. The move is designed to exhaust the Resistance. I hear from the leader of Israel terrible statements about the use of 'full force to turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years if the Israeli soldiers were not returned'.
But these threats won't do. The Resistance definitely belongs to the category of the people willing to die. It is not because they do not like life or they are not engaged in the pursuit of the good life, it is just that there could be no good life if you are daily threatened, and occupied. Without dignity, there could be no good life. Heroism is still a thing for those the West wants to keep humiliating through a neocolonial proxy like Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Since March 29th 2006